|
Self Funded Type Ratings
Hello all those fighters out there.
After tearing my hair out in other forums, can someone please enlighten me as to BALPA's response to the growing number of self funded type ratings. I know its been asked or stated before and I know they are galantly fighting against numerous pension decreases and erosion of various company T & C's but are they tackling this growing problem in conjuction with their ongoing fights. I think the Self Funded Type Ratings issue directly relates to this. I am not bashing BALPA!!! The reason I ask is this..... Pilots who are desperate enough to buy a Type Rating, Especially wannabee pilots, are never going to be the types that we can rely on in the future when it comes to trying to up hold or T&C's and pensions with solidarity. They have already proved this by selling us all short and trying to jump the que. If more and more of them do it, BALPA will have less and less say,less and less support as a proportion of the total pilot body and then the members amongst us are totally screwed not to mention all the pilots who fly commercially and want to make a living out of it! If BALPA isnt doing anything yet, what can I do to help? Cheers all, OSOP. |
Have you joined BALPA? If you have, ask them. If you haven't, why not?
|
BALPA does not care at all about companies where you pay your own TR. Try IALPA instead.
Empty |
Digitalis, point taken. I am a BALPA member and I will ask in due course! Just thought the info would be on here without having to hassel BALPA too much. They are already working hard for us as it is!
Empty Cruise, care to elaborate please. Thanks, OSOP |
Unless your company has an elected BALPA rep and a BALPA recognised union, there is very little that BALPA can do.
If you're talking about affecting the policies in the industry on a wider scale - well, that's not exactly what BALPA spend most of their time dealing with. Just look at FR et al - they hardly even recognise their own pilots' elected representatives (see REPA) - so what kind of sway should BALPA hold over their hiring policies? When you speak of people "jumping the queue" - well, if it makes more financial sense to an airline to take on people without experience & make every flight a training flight - then I'm not sure BALPA (or anybody else, for the matter) will be able to dissuade them from doing what they see as the right thing. Not all airlines follow this policy and prefer to take on experienced people only, and I'm sure that they have done the numbers as well and see that as the most advantageous thing to do. If a particular airlines hiring policy does not fit our wiev of the world, we can simply refrain from applying to said company & thereby deny them our services. It's called voting with your feet. And last time I checked, there was no queue outside the airlines (or inside some, for the matter).... What would you suggest BALPA (or anybody else, now that I think of it) do? Impose an employment ban for all its members with airlines that do SSTR? And if they did so, do you think that would increase or decrease BALPAs influence over said companies? Just a thougt... Empty |
Empty Cruise,
It is a generally accepted view that paying for type ratings has an influence on our T's and C's as it gives companies the chance to employ less experienced pilots which in turn are going to get paid lower and lower wages. As BALPA are fighting the never ending battle against lower T & C's and rubbish pensions, shouldnt it start at the root of the problem in conjunction with its present fights? While I appreciate and agree with everything you say, I am wanting to know what BALPA and others think we should do about increasing/securing T & C's with direct relevance to this subject. Maybe a recruitment ban is the only answer! I dont know! If it is then I hold my hand up and ask for that to be. It would certainly mean that all the pilots flying for a SSTR company would not be covered by BALPA if they were to have an incident/accident and they would then only have themselves to blame for there own reducing terms and conditions. Maybe it would mean that we could restrict SSTR to a few airlines or maybe even phase them out completely. I for one do not want to fly without union knowledge and support backing me up,especially in todays market where some companies will not hesitate to fling the blame at their pilots for everything but the most minor of incidents. Maybe we should have a recruitment ban. I just think it should be tackled as a problem in conjunction with the other issues BALPA currently deals with and as such I posted it here to gauge other peoples thoughts. This is going to be a bigger problem in the future than just people jumping the que! Cheers, OSOP |
Maybe a recruitment ban is the only answer! I dont know! They willl have to change this information soon and start taking proper action to protect their members. |
As long as people are prepared to pay for ratings, companies will continue to charge for them, no matter what any union in the land does.
It will always be a losing battle to get pilots already in a company to fight a battle for pilots that are yet to join. I really wish it were not true, but it is! |
Flaps one.
While I believe your first statement to be true, I believe your second one should be the other way around. If a new pilot wants to shaft him/herself by getting a TR then thats his/her problem. But if the pilots in the company dont do anything about it. That new pilot will take their job, for less and the Ts and Cs will never recover for that company pilot. By penalising those pilots that buy type ratings and line training, you 'help' them to see that what they are doing erodes the members T's and C's. If a pilot has no union back up (which is essential insurance in todays market) and something goes wrong then maybe the majority might think twice before putting themselves in the same situation? Ultimately, BALPA are there to look after those that support it. I think by banning pilots who pay outright for speculative TR's and line training could be a way forward. The question is, what can we do to stem the tide? It seems to me like the tide is just getting bigger! OSOP |
Self Funded Type Ratings
On speed on profile
My friend, you are on to a loser here. You might as well stop bashing your head against a brick wall and accept that SSTRs will be offered by FTOs and accepted by customers, at least for the foreseeable future. And forget about any recruitment bans - it will never happen... Furthermore, do not confuse a SSTR with inexperienced pilots - I know of several very experienced pilots who have paid for a TR simply to enhance their chances of getting a job in a very competitive market. |
Multi Pilot Licence
What about the introduction of the new Multi Pilot Licence in the near future. All new Pilots will have a Type Rating and no hours on type.
How do you deal with that one.:eek: |
Which other industry would shaft itself so much ??? If you're RICH enough then you can become a pilot !!!! Bring on the revolution !!!
|
..or join Auntie Betty's Flying Club for a few years. It's great fun!
|
Flopsie,
With the utmost respect, if enough of us bash our heads against the brick wall, it will fall over. If I am the only one who does it, then it wont. I would very much like to see the brick wall fall over and I know many others here that do as well. My point is that we should penalise the pilots who are accepting these terms and conditions. If a pilot can not get BALPA or any other support because he decided to undercut his fellow colleagues, then why should my BALPA membership fees go to support him in a case against his airline or in court fees when he prangs a company jet. I have said it before, in todays age, most pilots would agree that having a bit of security when it comes to employment issues is a good thing. Take that away from the offenders and watch a few of them crumple and the message starts to get through! This is a big part of the fight that BALPA currently has when it comes to maintaining and bettering Ts and C's! Just for clarity, SSTR and Buying a TR are exactly the same! I have said this before as well. I see no problem with being bonded. Accepting a bond where you dont outlay any cost is perfectly acceptable, why would a company take a risk on you if they knew you would leave after 3 months, they would go bust in days if they did! Taking a personal loan is not an acceptable way. If we can reintroduce bonding as the only suitable way, companies will be forced to recruit those they know are more likely to "pass the test" and your experienced pilot who is currently having to BUY A SSTR will be judged on his merit and ability and given a bond accordingly! OSOP |
Accepting a bond where you dont outlay any cost is perfectly acceptable, why would a company take a risk on you if they knew you would leave after 3 months, they would go bust in days if they did! Taking a personal loan is not an acceptable way. If we can reintroduce bonding as the only suitable way, companies will be forced to recruit those they know are more likely to "pass the test"... However I am under the impression that the 'bond' is not legally enforceable (at least in the UK) which is why it has been dumped by some airlines. So I'm not sure if this is really a feasible way to push the issue. Maybe one of the legal-eagles that frequent the site could pass comment... I think the point was that if one left while still bonded one had to dip their hands into their own pocket and give the company some money. It only takes a few early leavers to say "naff off I ain't giving you a penny" and for the company to find out that the bond isn't [legally] worth the paper it's written on for them to suddenly see it as a wholly unacceptable method of covering their costs (given that it just doesn't work). In todays era of incredibly tight margins and cut-throat competition, passing this off as a 'cost of doing business' simply won't wash with company accountants or shareholders alike. I'm not saying that I agree with it but I gather this is why the new modus operandi took a hold; the new guys take out loans and give the cash to the company, who then pays them back over 3/4/5 years. At least that way, the company already has their money, thereby making it less likely that a new pilot will walk away early. |
Originally Posted by On speed on profile
Flopsie,
With the utmost respect, if enough of us bash our heads against the brick wall, it will fall over. If I am the only one who does it, then it wont. I would very much like to see the brick wall fall over and I know many others here that do as well. |
How about my situation? As an ab-initio, I had to pay for my type-rating but it is currently being paid back to me over the term of my contract which is less than two years long. By doing things this way, the airline put more of the risk on me during my type-rating and line training. I expect they could have found type-rated pilots elsewhere in the industry but by taking on a group of ab-initios, they were giving a group of 'newbies' a chance but without taking on most of the risk.
It took me a long long time to get my job so certainly don't think of myself as jumping any 'queue' (note correct spelling). It is interesting how the British culture we are used to leads us to expect pilots to go through a 'passage of rights' and suffer for a while before being successful. Is a pilot who gets their success early somehow less deserving than someone who doesn't? I did not pay for my type-raing out of desperation for a job and to beat anyone else to the post. I appreciated that I was going to work for a relatively small jet airliner operator who was just trying to minimise the 'risk' to their training costs. As already mentioned, these costs are being repaid to me over time. Incidentally, I was the only person in my intake to be a member of BALPA. Naturally, I encouraged the others to join. |
Decisive Attitude ..... Totally agree, well said. Maybe the solution is to make bonds legally enforceable! Seems fair as you can't blame the airlines for protecting their investment.
|
OH FOR CRYIN OUT LOUD STOP CRYIN AND WHINGING! :{ BOO HOO MY PENSION IS GETTIN ROGERED! I'VE NO BALLS TO CHLLENGE MY COMPANY I'LL BLAME THE NEW KID! GRRRR!
Unfortunately SSTR's are a fairly standard practise and its only going to be more common place. I'm sure 99% of those who've bought a TR would rather have been bonded for 4 or 5 yrs as your probably gonna stay with the airline that long anyway and you dont have to fork out £25k! But then airlines dont really seem to be offering those with no airline time that option... Even to get a job on a shorts, dash 8, F50 or other 'entry level' jobs you have to pay up to £15k. Cant you see this is a direct result of the low cost sector (I dont recall self sponsored TR being commonplace before EZ and FR showed up, and lets not forget 9/11, curent oil prices)? The rules have changed. Airlines have had to adapt and save (otherwise we'll all be out of a job) where ever they can to compete and pilots are getting shafted. Then again they could be just saying that to make us bend over and take it a little deeper.... I find it funny though that people expect newbies to care about their older and 'wiser' (quite possibly sponsored) collegues T&C's. A lot have forked out over £60k for training, sent a million CV's and got jack. Plenty aren't low timers either, with some having extensive air taxi and instructing backgrounds. No recruiter gives a monkey's unless you worked 2 crew and flown EFIS etc, so one has to do what one has to do. Do the older and wiser pilots who expect newbies to care about them do anything to help out the little guy? Has someone started a non-profit organisation that tests fATPL pilots. Where active line pilots volunteer to interview them, put them through a bunch of tests and sim checks, at the canditates expense. If they pass they get an industry recognised stamp of approval that this person, to any future employer would be of little risk and is of sound aptitude. Their CV's could automatically be forwarded to airlines through this organisaton. Or airlines come to them. ie) "Hey we need 10 pilots pronto" "OK Mr Airline man these are our 10 candidates next in the queue. I'm sure you wont be deissapointed" You see this organisation refuses to recommend so called 'top' candidates (those that excel above others). If u pass you pass, no points system where one is 'better than another', you get put in a queue, seniority if you will, and they get recommended that way. Its fair and no queue jumping. Result. Of course nothin like this has started because once your in you dont give a $#!T about the the other guy trying to get his/her chance. You made it. Good money, good routes. Your workin pretty hard nowadays too, you wanna spend all your spare time at home (fair enough too!). Quite simply if your not willing to help them out why would they give a damn about you? Because it affects their pay scale too??? You forget, they cant get a bloody job so they're not too worried about T&Cs they dont have!!!!!!! I suggest for all you groaners to make up a CV. Something fictional, not your own. Maybe saying you have 1000hrs outlining instructing and air taxi as your previous jobs. No Multi crew, No EFIS, No turbo prop hours. Send that CV out to as many companies you can think of. See how many replies you get. See how many will come back offering an interview on the basis that if your successful you pay for a TR. See how many come back that dont. See how long you'll be "waiting" for a job. See how long before you start thinkin a TR aint such a bad idea.......... Finally theres no point in pilots fighting each other, as pilots dont pay each others wages. Your EMPLOYER does. So instead of groaning trying to start a revolution which will fail miserably, take you future collegue who's put him/herself in dire straights financially to get qualified mind you, not just the TR, introduce them to BALPA or whatever union in your country and united stand up against your respective employer to improve your T&C's. You aint gonna get anywhere if you shun them and bicker with each other. OSOP you said this "Pilots who are desperate enough to buy a Type Rating, Especially wannabee pilots, are never going to be the types that we can rely on in the future when it comes to trying to up hold or T&C's and pensions with solidarity. They have already proved this by selling us all short and trying to jump the que" I think you might find the opposite is true. After paying so much to get the job, one will most likely want to recoup as much during their career no? After all they HAD to get a TR to get a job, something traditionally an airline payed for, something that didnt exist only a few years ago. Most importantly a lot of us pilots are money hungry (heheh) so no doubt they are too and and im sure they'd quite happily stand next to you to improve the T&C's, once they have a job of course..... Oh one final thought, if you were successful and SSTR were banned etc, dont you think Mr Airline boss will need to recoup those costs somehow now that he has to pay for every new recruits TR????? Where do you think hes gonna save the cash? And your worried about your T&C's now..... -PL |
Not The Point Putang Luva
Decisive Attitude, While I have heard that statement about bonds not being legally enforceable. I know of a specific instance where someone was made to pay a bond back after leaving with that thought in the back of their mind. It was my old company and everyone there thought that their bonds werent legally enforceable. It probably depends on the contract. I cant see how a 'return of service' contract is not legally enforceable, thats how the airforce work and any of their pilots who go AWOL are punished severely.
Jet2 & Decisive Attitude, Maybe making bonds legally enforceable will help, if they are not already. The thing is, until we start penalising those that will buy a SSTR, it wouldnt do much good. Jet2, you are 100% correct when you say airlines should PROTECT THEIR INVESTMENT. I couldnt agree more. I would add one more thing and say that it would be beneficial as companies arent going to have to retrain pilots to company SOP's all the time whereas in a SSTR market with minimal bonding, they have no ability to retain their pilots who think the grass is greener elsewhere. Pootang Luva, I find it funny though that people expect newbies to care about their older and 'wiser' (quite possibly sponsored) collegues T&C's. I started this thread to find out what people who care about this can do about it. I dont want to know what your opinion is, I want to know what BALPA are doing about those people that are buying SSTR's. For this reason, I am not going to debate the merits of whether buying a type rating is right or wrong in this thread. You obviously know my opinion so why dont you read this thread: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...=213535&page=5 It has all my counter arguments if you can be bothered to read it. If you are so worried about what I am trying to achieve, then why dont you start up a thread with your own SSTR buddies about how to best maintain/improve or dare I say it, retain your Ts and Cs! Trying to belittle my aims will only harden me to try and achieve what we all want. Better Ts and C's OSOP |
OSOP,
Not trying to insult you mate. Just seems its very hard for some people to see things from anothers POV, you know, walk in another mans shoe and all. Human nature is to look after ones self, as you are trying to do by attacking SSTR people. Why not embrace them to fight the greater cause? Strength in numbers and all that as they say. I'm with Balpa and very much involved in trying to get better T&C's where i work. I would support a move to bonding though. But hey good luck to you, personally i think the way your going about is all wrong as you have no perspective of what its like for the wannabee, I also think you can achieve more by not attacking you collegues and confronting the real problem. Try and look outside the box and get over the 'in my day we didnt pay for TR's' attitude. Adapt to the times. The game has changed, the rules have changed. Form a new plan. Anyway all the best in your foolhardy adventure (if you continue), i'm sure you'll waste plenty of time and cause much undue stress to yourself. Over and out! |
Pootang Luva,
I'm with Balpa and very much involved in trying to get better T&C's where i work. I would support a move to bonding though. If you support a move to bonding, then why are you slating this thread. A move to bonding would be the best move by a long shot as it is fair to both sides while still recognising the pilots with experience! Geting rid of SSTR's is the obvious step to allow this to happen. You cant get rid of SSTR's until you start penalising those pilots that wish to purchase them. That is my point, I want to know how we do that! THAT IS THE POINT OF A RECRUITMENT BAN! I also think you can achieve more by not attacking you collegues and confronting the real problem. Pootang Luva. From the sounds of it, a recruitment ban on those pilots who buy SSTR's scares you. Why is that? Have you brought a SSTR? You obviously value your BALPA membership so it seems like you have a lot to lose should something like this happen! This shows that this idea has some merit and is quite possibly the reason you are trying to convince me to end my enquiry! Please correct me if I am wrong. OSOP |
So how do you treat those airlines that actively poach pilots who are type rated and trained by another airline? Surely using the arguments given above then the T&C's in the "poaching" airline should be better as they haven't spent the costs of training the said pilots. But it doesn't really work like that does it?
Airline pilots are just a cost same as cabin crew and maintenance and for most airlines are one of the largest figures in the P&L so naturally management will focus on ways of minimising this cost in order to raise profits. Whether this is encouraging SSTR's or taking away pensions, increasing working hours, taking away crew food etc etc. Unions might help, strikes might help, BALPA membership might help but I wouldn't be putting all of the blame on SSTR's. |
Cheque book mightier than the log book. A sad inditement of our industry !!!
|
Potkettleblack,
If an airline poaches a pilot who is bonded, then the pilot or the poaching airline will foot the bill of the poaching. Either way, neither company loses out. The thing is, the poaching airline will probably be paying the type of T's and C's that are worth being poached for. If people dont jump ship so much, companies have to pay more to retain the staff that they want. A rectruitment ban only affects the pilots directly. It affects the companies indirectly because they start getting the even more desperate pilots (who cant find a job) apply so basically they get the bottom of the barrel! Otherwise they would be employed! Having said that, you hit the nail on the head with this quote: Airline pilots are just a cost same as cabin crew and maintenance and for most airlines are one of the largest figures in the P&L While people here are generally fairly negative about BALPAs response to articles like this, they are in the most part it seems, in favour of a move back to bonding. We can get BALPA to take notice if we all get together, they are there after all to look after the best interests of all their members. Even if some of you think they only serve the likes of BA, it is still of interest to them and you because Jo Bloggs with a brand new SSTR is going to jump ship early from his first company if BA offer him a slot. BA will be able to offer him lower Ts & Cs accordingly as he is cheaper than the other pilot they were looking at and that will eventually slowly but surely do to BA and others, what it is doing to the Lo-Co market. It is not restricted to the entry level airlines! I think people miss what I am saying when I say we need a recruitment ban with regards to SSTR's. This would only affect the pilots who take them. A recruitment ban doesnt stop airlines from recruiting pilots. All it does is deny pilots who join the company concerned the ability to have (any) Airline Pilot Association membership and the benefits that those priveleges bring. It is not hard to implement but it makes those thinking of doing a SSTR think twice as they will never be able to have the benefits afforded to them as an Airline pilot ever in their careers. Not a nice prospect if they have a prang or are left out on a limb by an airline with no morals. Not that there are many of those now are there! People, this is an industry wide problem that we all face together. Some of you are willing to under cut others to get up the ladder quicker. Some are not. For that reason, the pilot body will never be able to stick together solidly for one reason. The thing is, if we can get a ban put on those new pilots who chose to Buy an SSTR, we will at least be taking the first step to addressing the balance of power. I am trying to work out a way of collecting those of us together that might be able to make a difference because that is the biggest hurdle. If I can get something to work, please stand up and be counted when you get the chance! The longer it takes, the harder we will have to fight! |
Mate you must be crazy if you seriously think a union ban would even be contemplated by the unions themselves, and even if such a thing was in place do you think it would be taken remotely seriously by the wannabe fraternity?
In fact the only time a union recruitment ban has been seriously tried in recent years was with Cathay and HKALPA, one of the most unionized airlines in the world, and the net result of the ban was it achieved nothing, hordes of people kept on queueing up to join their airline under the ban, the union recognized it wasn't achieving anything, the ban fizzled out, and the power of the union in that airline was all but broken as a consequence, certainly membership numbers are much lower now than they were beforehand. An industry wide ban across an entire country / continent is just a daydream, especially at a time like this when union power is pretty much at an all time low, half the airlines in the world now don't even have union recognition, in fact such a move would only be playing straight into the hands of people like O'leary in my opinion. Nope the only thing that will stop the rot, is when the inevitable happens, some captain becomes incapacitated and some bloke who's paying to sit in the RHS spuds a plane into the ground. Then we'll see the end of pay-for-training in a right old hurry I would imagine. The regulatory authorities don't really care about pilots crying over their eroding T&C's, but they'll move pretty damn quickly when there is a post-fatal-accident media circus. In fact if BALPA ever do decide to take this issue seriously, and if I was the person in charge of determining the strategy, rather than attacking my own power base of future members, I'd far rather start a targeted campaign towards a few chosen influential media bodies, highlighting the safety shortcomings of the current system, where those with the money get chosen over those who are most experienced and suitable for the job. There are plenty of newspapers who love to run a good aviation scare story, turn them loose on it, release a list of airlines that operate pay-for-training schemes and those that don't, and let the public decide. |
Ajax,
the only thing that will stop the rot, is when the inevitable happens, some captain becomes incapacitated and some bloke who's paying to sit in the RHS spuds a plane into the ground. You have some other very interesting points. Thanks. OSOP |
If you really want to ensure that pilots T&C's are what they were in the "glory days" then there is only one real solution that I can think of - an MBO (management buy out). This would require the majority of the pilots in an airline to front up with however much it costs (min of six figures for a start I would have thought). You would then form a new holding company, write articles of association that state in minute detail how the company will be run and what percentage of profits goes to the pilots/pensions/reinvestment in capital etc. There would invariably be some cost savings due to wiping out the dividends paid to institutional investors and there would no longer be the need to make double digit growth or whatever else the city analysts put the board under pressure to achieve in the past. To swing this though would be a massive undertaking to say the least. Not least seeing just how many (or few) of your fellow pilots shared your same aspirations.
|
Spinning one in will certainly scare the public. I wouldn't hold my breath on the regulators blaming it in on some SSTR pilot though. Don't forget the regulators approved that pilot's license. I have thought for a long time that an effective PR campaign to let the public know that the right pilot contract can protect them might work. As far as the public is concerned all pilots are equal and flying any airline is 100% safe or the government wouldn’t allow it. (Actually not too far off the reality. Flying is safer and cheaper than it ever has being.)
Truth is if pilots, and other skilled labor groups want to get more $$$ they need to change the way the do business. Pilots do not have the chock hold they may have once had because the industry has moved away from being a regulated cost plus utility. Pilot training is also much more available than in the past. 30 years ago the only way to get it was through the military or an airline. No longer the case and that genie is not going back into the bottle. Company bargaining is dying because managers can play one pilot workforce against another. The senority structure of airlines works against labor mobility and managers know this. BALPA or ILPA could get some real leverage if they developed an available pool of trained pilots ready to go to work tomorrow for whomever meets their terms. The pilot union with leverage needs to get into the business of training and bonding pilots to be made available to contracted airlines. Don't sign our deal you don't get our pilots. A return to the old guilds system if you will. Properly done, with realistic expectations and not the we will choke the chicken till we get the last egg attitude of the past such a plan could work. It would mean senior pilots giving something up, basically seniority, and helping fund this scheme. Certainly has a better chance than trying to tell the newbies at the bottom, go starve for an indefinite number of years to protect our T&C and maybe someday we’ll let you in. Sorry, got to go, pigs are flying. |
I'd hate to think how long an airline would last if some of the posters on here were ever to run them. The naivety of some on this thread is bewildering, considering that some of you are actual airline pilots and hence, by definition, are of at least middle management rank in your companies.
Comments as petty and stupid as "the only thing that will stop the rot, is when the inevitable happens, some captain becomes incapacitated and some bloke who's paying to sit in the RHS spuds a plane into the ground." only serve to show how ill thought out and innocent in the ways of the world some of you are. At least those of us with a modicum of experience, both airline and of the world, know that there is never one single cause of an airliner crash. If an F/O, SSTR or otherwise, "spuds" one into the ground, with casualties or not, it will ultimately be the captain who shoulders the ultimate responsibility for letting the situation get so out of control in the first place. Of course, the angry brigade will probably claim that the captain was SSTR'd also! :rolleyes: All this talk of recruitment bans and "penalising" those wannabes who have SSTR'd is a total waste of time and energy. You should be canvassing the CAA and the regulatory bodies, not your fellow pilots. You should be ashamed for trying to stir up resentment just because you feel that way. Get your priorities right and get the regulations changed rather than pick on your fellow pilots just because they did what they could to get on that rung of the ladder below you. |
Don't know about UK but in my bananaland it is illegal to pay for your trainning to company that employs you and only TRTOs around are airlines themselves. Despite it, SSTRs were introduced couple of years ago to everyone's delight. It's actually the same situation as with prostitution and heroin dealing - as long as there are demand and supply, no law will stop it.
|
arewenearlythereyet?,
When a SSTR pilot, with minimal experience and who may or may not be paying for his/her line training is faced with an incapacitated captain, lets hope the inevitable doesnt happen! If it does happen, and it means that the regulatory bodies have a rethink of their policies, well then maybe it was a price that shouldnt have been paid in the first place. The point of this thread was not to 'stir up resentment' for SSTR pilots. It was to debate the avenues open to all pilots to help level the playing field when it comes to getting better Ts and Cs. While the SSTR is a major cause of lower Ts and Cs, it seems an obvious thing to get rid of if we are to see the balance return. If you have any ideas, we are all waiting to hear them as some of us here are trying to address the imbalance and get the regulations changed with regards to SSTR's. This thread wasnt designed to debate the pros and cons of the SSTR or anyones personal opinion of the pilots that buy them!! How do you suppose we canvass the CAA if we cant get everyone together or at least find out who will support the cause? |
I thought I would post my experiences of SSTR's. I appreciate that I made a silly move - please appreciate that I am posting this to give a first hand account of the potential problems. It is embarrassing to admit to be so foolish, but in doing so hopefully I can prevent others making the same mistake.
Having considered a SSTR I decided I would not proceed unless some work was attached to it. I understand the arguements of queue jumping and buying a job - but from my own earned income I had the choice to pay for a rating. No rich parents, just my own sweat and effort. I was assessed for a position with an expanding low fares airline and offered a job flying a nice shiny jet, subject to funding and passing my self funded type rating. To rub salt in the wound they then also bond you for two years on a non-decreasing basis to cover your additional 'training costs'. I had some reservations about the lack of paperwork, but was told by the course provider that this was normal for this airline, but they had always delivered and to trust them. The provider was not linked to the airline. I parted with my money and joined the course, only to be told on joining that the start date had been slightly delayed. During the course no further paperwork was provided -except an email confirming we would be offered jobs upon completion of the course. After passing the LST we notified the employer and rolled straight into the base training. License issue was done immediately. Then silience from the employer. The key guy was not available, no comments or commitments could be made. To cut a long story short after chasing we received an offer two whole months after completing the course, and the start date was set for a month after that. To top it all off, for the 'further training' such as wet drills CRM etc we have to pay our own transport and hotel. The terms of the initial offer were also slightly amended. Some may say that as we elected to 'prostitute' ourselves by spending the money, we got what we deserved. However I feel that this is slowly the direction that SSTR's are going to go. The job market for pilots is picking up, and it makes good commercial sense for airlines to not pay for training. With people thinking they will wait to see if they can get a 'proper' job the training providers/airlines have to be slightly more creative in how they pull the punters in. Offering a job and using that to get people committed is one approach they can use. The same airline a couple of weeks ago got a friend in for interview. The Head Office was some distance away and he required travel, hotel etc for the interview. He passed the interview and was told they wereinterested in him, but not til next year as they were fully crewed. The question is why waste people time and money? My experience of them is that they hold no value for their employers, and the respect and feeling of belonging that should go with the job is lost - this devalues the opportunity to the point where I wish I had not bothered, and do not want anything to do with them as an employee. I think the moral is buyer beware, and that any company asking you to part with money to join them is going to treat you badly. By offering and actually paying you devalue yourself in their eyes, and give them the opportunity to hold you to ransom, mess you around and give you no respect. The market is changing, and other opportunities came my way through the period of training and afterwards. From speaking to friends who have gone along the normal route (airline paid for rating with bond), their experience has been much better. They feel more involved in the company, more in the structure and better cared for. After spending so much training, it is a shame to go to your first job resenting your employer, it taks the edge and excitement of what should be such a fine point in yor career. Any ramble over! Toadie |
“When a SSTR pilot, with minimal experience and who may or may not be paying for his/her line training is faced with an incapacitated captain, lets hope the inevitable doesn’t happen” I’m afraid this might be one of the most stupid points I have ever seen made.
Why on EARTH would someone who’s self-funded a TR be any less able to cope under the pressures of an incapacitated captain than someone who’s been given/ bonded a TR? Does the fact that someone who is willing to SSTR somehow make them severely dyslexic? The amount of effort, dedication and determination required to SS a TR is exactly what makes up the kind of person I want sitting at the front 100 tons of metal. A decrepit old captain about to suffer incapacitation isn’t. Just to get on an SSTR you have to go thru the same selection as you would with most airlines, even harder if you go thru the likes of CTC etc. I know loads of pilots who got in with airlines that paid/bonded their TRs because of who they knew, the only selection being an interview. I also know of loads of pilots who got on SSTRs but first had to do rigorous aptitude tests, math tests, aircraft tech tests, group exercises and then finally a sim check before starting the rating and handing over £24k. If anyone could simply “buy” a TR then I could see your point. |
Originally Posted by IDENTING
The amount of effort, dedication and determination required to SS a TR is exactly what makes up the kind of person I want sitting at the front 100 tons of metal
|
I was an IR instructor at a large uk school and argued for years against buying SSTR. When however the pilots who listen to you watch other far less suitable students get jobs, because oftheir cheque books, you realise it is unfair to make them take a stand. You have to use the senior pilots to fight against this if the TRE's at a company refused to train SSTR pilots the companies would take notice, it worked in the US.
|
Are you boys and girls prepared to pay my 130 grand mortgage while I hold out my principles and dont get a job??
Get real, you do what you have to........... |
...and that can be read as: "I'll do anything that's required to get and keep my job, even if it involves copious quantities of KY gel"
|
Or onthemove picture this.......bide your time, continue to build your experience..build a base that is as marketable to just about any reputable airline on the planet, and hey presto get offered a job without laying out a penny...500hrs go by in 7 or 8 months..then your free of everything, and just as marketable:ok:
But then you numpteys that have been sold the "zero to hero dream" would never stand for that would you?..it involves something called hard work:hmm: |
How should one continue to bide ones time building experience when you cant get a job in any commercial aircraft in the first place - in the mantime trying to keep the hand in flying or going back in the sim each month to try and remain semi current (also costing money). ?? (Genuine question) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:07. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.