And, if you have looked at how your pension savings have done, you might need to work a whole lot longer as well. And if you reach the 'age ban' that 'work a whole lot longer' might even be 'stacking shelves', with whatever Ts&Cs that involves...

Please Noel, you build your pension over 40 plus years. To look at pension results during a huge crisis does not make any sense..

You should definately stand up and defend your T&C's. However in this crisis you should offer something like mandatory 50 percent part time or temporary offers eg pay freezes etc.

The eternal question of whether it's better to screw few by a lot or many by somewhat less... That's a time when everyone will find out what their union is worth. What Lufthansa proposed (45% cut for everyone but no jobs lost) is likely to remain an isolated case because union leaders at many other places will likely defend the hefty paychecks of themselves and their buddies and push those below them under the bus rather than agree to take a cut themselves but keep everyone in employment.

Tommy, I agree that pension savings are long term. If you have a 40 year career ahead of you that makes sense. In the present circumstances if you have a decade or so to go, not only have your savings taken a huge dent with all economic forecasts not looking promising for a long time for improvements. Added to that, any serious dent to employments prospects will have dented not only earnings, but with that the ability to keep up those pension contributions. Then, just to make it all worse, if you are in Northern Europe you will have an age ban putting you out of work at least a couple of years before you can get your State Pension or equivalent. And if your income prospects have taken a dent, like being thrown out of employment (or pushed under the bus) in the way that PilotLZ has so well explained, that Sate Pension (which is not to be sneezed at) could be so important to your livelihood and a couple of years or more wait for it could be really unpleasant. Yes, it is a long term bit of your planning, but when things go wrong too close to the end, in addition to possible unemployment that long term concept goes out of the window.

Right now, staying in jobs is far more important than 'Ts&Cs'.

Noel I hope that your private pension fund is low risk with only a decade to go. Yes you might lose a bit but a lot less actually than the youngsters with 40 years to go. That should be OK if you are able to keep a job. But I disagree with you that staying in a job is more important than T&C's. Especially since the younger generation will have lower and lower and lower terms for a longer term which makes it even more anti social imo. Redundancy sucks big time but much lower terms over an extended time sucks even harder. Believe me I have been screwed before and most likely will be screwed again.

Because executive daddy and mommy want little tommy to go to oxford flight school

I could be mistaken, but wasn't that an offer from the pilots instead of the company? And that 45% included a whole lot of extra pay, like the profit share, so the actual reduction would be around 20% of basic, normal monthly salary.
It does depend. If you want to fly in my homecountry, you will not get anywhere with a "self made" license.
The 2 biggest airlines require a certain path which does cost the mentioned amount.

​​​​​​​Of course you can still go "cheap" and hope for a job abroad, but most would like to stay in the country if possible.

Anyone who thinks that terms and conditions are going to improve down the road are extremely niave.

Even in the good times that have passed people are willing to pay for overpriced courses (Easyjet / BA / Virgin) be employed by agencies on low pay zero hour contract to get their hands on a shiny jet (Norwegian / Ryanair).

The airlines see this and they are going to abuse it in the future because there is a never ending line of mugs willing to set the bar even lower just so they can get their hands on a shiny jet.

And where does all this lead to from a training perspective? He who pays wins? Where is the oversight from the safety/SMS boys and girls to ensure the 'right stuff' is being assessed rather than the size of a person's wallet? Have the risks of wallet based hiring been assessed? Are airlines looking for cash cows or employees? How many instances do we need of people who don't know where they are in an aircraft nor a notion as to what is going on all through type rating, making the instructor work extra and causing their partner's development to suffer?

Lots of these questions are rhetorical I admit but must we start speaking up that we aren't happy if it all changes drastically? Is that incredibly naive? Will it take an accident for someone to realise something has gone wrong?

Do we need EASA/CAA law to be that all parts of recruitment (assessment and type rating bar living costs) are expressly not allowed to be funded by the candidate so as to maintain the integrity of recruitment? It would be an easily justifiable regulation from a safety perspective.

I was very lucky to have been hired by one of the few airlines who i never had to pay a penny towards, from assessment to type rating. I had this discussion with one of the decision making pilots in the company and he said the company's view is that it is their responsibility to fund it all. I should hope it stays that way in the post COVID world (along with me staying in employment! :})

Not only do people sitting on the sideline still have to pay bills and in some cases accepting different T&C's to stay afloat but also what about the cargo? There is no doubt going to be a turn down in the general public that fly. This will be due to having lost employment and living on credit as most people do (showing my age but when I was a wee bit younger if you did not have money in the pocket you did not buy that hamburger, wine, steak etc as there was no credit/card) with that being maxed out and having to be re-payed. The best case for the public is a delay in holidays due to having to either use leave whilst closed down or leave without pay which means no money for a holiday. Not having bums in seats may drag the recovery out even longer.

Yes and Yes.
(My bold)

An accident is unlikely to change anything because linking it to a systemic issue will be nigh on impossible.

The regulator has no interest whatsoever in recruitment practices or indeed Ts&Cs. To put it bluntly, as long as the regulatory minimum standards are achieved, the regulator is not interested in anything else.

I fully agree with guy. Regulation and Ts&Cs are two totally different matters.


Tommy, you are making even a stronger case than I have that pilots are going to have to work longer, especially the younger pilots.


Anyone looking at that graph above who thinks that terms and conditions are going to stay the same is extremely naive.


But I will repeat, keeping pilots employed through this will be more important than clinging onto those 'naive' Ts&Cs.

Thanks Noel. I see your opinion but I have to disagree with your last sentence. Once something is given it will not come back easily. Hence stick to your contractual T&C's. HOWEVER: For the duration of this crisis I think it is completely acceptable to save money where you can with alternative solutions. Mandatory part time is one of them. You work 50 percent, you get 50 percent (percentages could vary of course)
​​​Instant savings for the company. And you keep the workforce current for when the better times arrive. This is imo where the unions should push for.

You also have to realise that, at least in most countries, redundancies are expensive. You have to pay them severance pay that you can't miss. If LIFO is applied you make your cost per flight hour even higher.
​​​​​​

Wonder when the first incident will be attributed to a crew member fiddling around with face mask at critical point. Its all about risk and mitigation

What are you talking about? My employer is advising against wearing masks in a flight deck, according to EASA's recommendations. Straight from my DFO's mouth.

Tommy, I think we are pretty much in agreement in 'concepts', it's just where we see the terminology differently. From what many have been saying here, any reduction to part time, compulsory or other, with the resultant reduction in pay would be seen as a change in Ts&Cs. But I agree with you that it makes an enormous amount of sense to keep as many as possible in jobs. Unless there are contractual agreements for redundancy in the UK "... the maximum statutory redundancy pay you can get is £16,140", so not that expensive. Pilots should get together to avoid other pilots being 'thrown under that bus', as more and more pilots out of jobs will drag down any future Ts&Cs fast.

GKOC41, face masks are not worn on the flight deck. Joe is correct on that one. They are only worn as you are leaving so I don't think that closing the door can count as a 'critical point'!

Those claiming a mask cause an incident have not flown a bang seat . Not only a helmet and mask but strapped in tight , very little movement.

Methinks they mean different masks...

Haven't got a clue what a bang seat is, but would those masks perhaps included oxygen, microphone and certification as well as rigorous training?