Wizzair does the same, but you didn’t mind applying.

There you have it....go bust because they can’t afford the training fees. If that was never factored into their business plan then they should not be in business.

if they factored in all of these costs plus offered decent T&C,s as well as QOL and decent treatment from management then they would have extremely low turn over.

Again it is the cost of doing business and if they cannot afford it then they should not be in business.

If you look after your employees financially and give them quality of life you won’t have that problem.

when employees leave, it’s just business. They have families to support and will do what is in their best interest so look after them and they won’t leave.

If you can’t afford to or won’t then you should not have gone into business.

Just like when times are tough for companies during economic downturns they will cut employees loose in the blink of an eye regardless of their mortgage, kids school fees, food for their family etc and their motto is it’s nothing personal..,Just business, well it works both ways.

TinFoilhat2The issue is a sizeable portion of those who join regional carriers have no intention of staying at all, they want to fly heavy metal as soon as they can and it has nothing to do with terms or conditions at the regional. Nothing wrong with that at all, we all have our aspirations, but what makes us think we don’t need to accept the bills we’ve built up for the airline that have effectively been used as a stepping stone?

I’m all for keeping our t&c’s acceptable but in this case I struggle not to side with the airline. Someone has joined, taken advantage of an airline who were willing to give them their first break and paid their rating (they absolutely don’t have to in the current climate for low hour pilots) that likely allowed them to even get the experience before the airline wih the heavy metal would even look at them, then it’s acceptable for them to just wander off? Especially for airlines that don’t deduct the tr from your salary and are trying to be ethical when others are charging 50k for the rating and line training, i think this is really poor form. Where is the encouragement for an airline to pay for the tr of young pilots in future who can’t afford it up front? If everyone ran for the hills there wouldn’t be an airline on the planet with a half competent financial department that would pay for anyone’s rating, then we’d all come on here moaning that no airline is willing to sponsor new aviators for the tr after they’ve forked out on an ATPL. Well who is to blame when we threw it back in their faces everytime they tried doing something even half ethical.

Officer KiteWell let’s reverse that then. Use myself as an example. I have thousands of hours on both turboprop and jet aircraft in charter work and airlines.

Lets say you need to hire pilots and you don’t want to sponsor the young guys with no experience in case they run away early (which is unlikely because a major airline unless desperate is not going to hire a pilot without serious experience first) so you decide to go after a pilot like me or one of the many experienced guys on here who have multiple type ratings.

So let’s say I fly the type you are looking for, what are you going to offer me? I’m sure as hell not taking a pay cut out of the goodness of my heart to work for you, you are not typing me so all that is left is T&C’s, salary and QOL.

which means if you can’t afford us experienced guys you need to go after cheaper inexperienced Labour and ensure they are typed on your aircraft you purchased or leased to make money off. That is your responsibility to your business and possible shareholders.

It is not a pilots problem whether you can afford to or not. You as a responsible businessman need to ensure your pilots will stay for a certain amount of time because it’s not the cost of a TR that will bankrupt you, it is aircraft sitting on the ground.

No other industry in the world charges their employees to work for them and help reduce their business costs. If you choose not to type those inexperienced young guys that’s fine but you won’t have any pilots because you cannot afford us experienced ones so you simply go out of business.

So again, factor in all cost of doing business and ensure the carrot is big enough and juicy enough for 95% of your pilots to do their 3 years. If Emirates comes along and offers them the A380 on huge salaries, well that’s part of the risk of going into business and you knew that from the beginning.

As I said above earlier when times are tough for companies they just shred and cut loose employees in the blink of an eye regardless of their families, mortgages, medical bills etc yet the directors and CEO’s collect their huge bonuses and take no pay cuts so dont blame the little guy for looking after himself.

Pilots never made the rules but are entitled to play by them, it works both ways.

Snr

It may seem fair but in the grand scheme of things when there is a downturn and money is tight will the company honour the agreement they signed with you when they employed you, most likely not.

To them it’s just business and you knew the risks of becoming a pilot in a very volatile industry. In other words they are looking after their best interests and the company.

Well a pilots company is himself and his family. When opportunity arrives to look after their best interests they like the company have every right to do so.

You can’t bring the moral argument against the pilot but not the company when they let people go for business reasons, works both ways.

Your company does not charge newly hired inexperienced guys because they cannot afford to hire the typed experience guys so they really have no choice as they can’t get pilots otherwise.

So factor in ALL COSTS including a type rating before hiring in the event you lose a guy early but if your T&C’s are good enough 95% will prolly do their 3 years as they know they need proper experience before going anywhere else like a major airline.

Imagine I open a Sushi restaurant and I tell the chef I’m bonding him for 3 years for using the kitchen because he has no real world experience and I put him thru a specialized Japanese sushi course.

I chose to open the restaurant knowing the risks involved and am responsible for factoring in all costs. It’s not the chefs fault I go bankrupt because I did not hire or could not afford an experienced Sushi chef so went the cheap route and got an inexperienced guy..

Then Gordon Ramsay opens up across the road and with a lot more money offers this guy a job in a restaurant that is going to do wonders for his career and he takes it because he is married and has 2 small children to support.

Can you really blame the young chef for grabbing a once in a lifetime opportunity.

The end result for the first restaurant owner all boils down to the fact he never factored in the costs of doing business and what happens if he loses his chef. Knowing this if your argument is well it’s then too risky to give these young guys a chance then hire experienced guys but be prepared to stump up the cash and good benefits.

Either way it’s going to cost you and you still need to factor in all of these expenses. Pay for type ratings with lower salaries or get experienced typed guys and end up paying a lot higher salaries (more than the cost of a TR) but either way....

It is the cost of doing business and there is no way around it.

Your business costs are not the responsibility of the pilot nor are they his concern. You knew the risks and if you could not afford it or never planned properly that is your problem and yours alone. It is simply business.