Didn't I read somewhere that the new BA cadet scheme (FPP) requires the candidate to put £84,000 up front? This will be repaid over a period of seven years, which is fine but you still need £84,000 to get your foot on the ladder.

Is that not still the case?

Superpilot...
 

Complete rubbish.

Oh gawd.. some people love digging in posting history. What he's written doesn't even make sense.

Close....

129 pilots Winter 13/14, all experienced non/type-rated. Zero experience through internal Pilot Apprentice postings.

So is the phrase p2f actually incorrect? Any info? Are there actually any p2f schemes in place in the UK or has their been for the last 5 years?

On a further note, and upto now there isnt one fact on this whole thread that actually stands scrutiny why a company would want to lean so heavily toward unknown untried manpower against those with experience/life skill as you would find in other careers in the UK. In fact. Id go as far as to say some of the rationale trotted out to defend why such a large percentage of inexperienced resource would be perceived as more suitable than from other areas insults not only the pilot' intelligence but the industry as a whole

Nor would it stand scrutiny in any other industry either. Typically most recruitment in the UK overall job market is heavily from experienced ranks with some lesser recruitment from new hires/apprentices/trainees/cadets etc this is essential to give youngsters chance to make a career and keeps a flow of resource that takes succession planning and experience building into account

Its hard to argue the way forward is to recruit a higher percentage of inexperienced guys in this industry only

There is only one reason for this leaning towards the inexperienced and its incorrectly stated in this thread as age. Nor would I guess is it ability. I dont actually believe there are p2f schemes in operation in the UK at this time nor have there been for years. I also dont believe the threadstarter is someone shouting the virtues of p2f.

Ill stand corrected if anyone can post up a company who is running a p2f scheme in the UK. Im not aware of one. And personally dont recall hearing of one since about 2009? Again ill stand corrected

The point is all these guys were ex ryanair or ex easyjet.

Ok let's say 10% were 135 hour experienced cadets..

That's 90% P2F.... This year or the last 5 years...

Don't worry guys. If this guy's for real he might be deemed "culturally unfit" at one point or another. And since he's most probably the proud holder of an MPL license it still says "EasyJet only". See how far this will then take him....

Three Lions -
The " roll up, roll up, get y'er 500 jet hours 'ere, get 'em while they're 'ot " days might be gone. However, a broader definition of "Paying to Fly" might be :

1) If a company/training department makes a profit from hiring you.
e.g. new entrant charged 26k for training which actually cost the company 16k to provide. This is really : Type Rating 16k, Joining Fee (P2F) 10k

or,

2) Accepting grossly reduced Ts&Cs in order to undercut others to get hours.
e.g. if the market rate for a position is 30k, and someone accepts it at 15k just to get in the door in front of someone more qualified.
This is pretty much the same as saying : Salary:30k, annual P2F deduction : 15k.

So, in a broader context, it's pretty rife.
But you are spot on - it would not stand scrutiny in any other industry.

What is interesting is that the industry has realized that pretty much any monkey with money can sit in the right hand seat and push buttons. And it is therefore paying peanuts.

However, I would say this is only possible due to the level of competence in the left hand seat.

In 15 years time it will be very interesting to see the shift when the P2F brigade pay for their upgrades and are faced with the same challenge.

...I suspect the market will explode for Ex-pat Chinese and Middle Eastern Direct Entry Captains to come here and fill the void left by unsuitable local candidates...


Now wouldn't that be sweet justice for some.........

I agree with Three lions, and made this point back in post number 74. The thread starters use of "Pay to fly" is something of a misnomer, and is being used (or misused) to mean whatever anybody wants it to mean. I am not aware of any companies in the UK that offer "packages of line training" as a stand alone product.

The "broader definition" offered by clunk1001, simply exemplifies the definition of retail mark up in example one, and switches to supply and demand based remuneration, in example two. Both of these are almost universal constants across all forms of industry and commerce.

Well, having already witnessed the evolution of these cadet programmes from the front row for the last 15 years, what has happened? Those cadets are now in the left seat. They are experienced and competent. They are (in many cases) todays training captains and management pilots. Their experience and competence led them to those positions. Unlike the costs of training that put them in a position to start as cadets, they have since progressed just like anybody else, and haven't had to pay for anything training related since. If you want a glimpse of the future, take a look at the past, and then follow the evolution of that expansion.

So is the phrase p2f actually incorrect? Any info? Are there actually any p2f schemes in place in the UK or has their been for the last 5 years?


I know the Company's know longer exist but didn't My Travel and Astraeus have a P2F line training program?


I seem to recall one of My Travel cadets having an incident going into a Greek Airport.


I personally think sometime in the future that the likes of OAA and CTC will run line training programs. There is certainly a lot of Wannabes with the cash to blow on overpriced courses , so why don't they start running courses and screw the individual and industry further ?

I'm sure nobody will argue that the 'pay for hours' schemes are dead in the uk. And we are indeed each making our own interpretation of what the OP meant by 'P2F'.

However...
Perhaps you've missed my point, or I've failed to communicate it - an employer charging employees over the odds for a course or equipment in order to make a profit from them is not 'retail markup'. (Unless you're one of the management team responsible for these schemes, in which case you probably would call it 'retail markup' so you can sleep better :)).

The aviation industry is not unique in its oversupply of qualified applicants. But it is pretty unique in the lengths it goes to exploit them.

I work across many industry sectors and can assure you these practices in Aviation are pretty unique to Aviation.

No, the difference in most other industries ('professions' is probably a better word) is that the priority is to get (and keep) the right people, not the cheapest people (or the people who can afford to buy their way in, which I think is more along the subject of this thread).

I do concede my point entirely about experience in the left hand seat. A very interesting first-hand account about cadets over the past 15 years Bealzebub.
But, if we assume that the OP is not referring specifically to 'pay for hours' schemes, and is referring to the increasing practice of hiring 19yr old 200hr cadets to fly jets, then your observations would seem to support his original post - i.e. everyone should stop bashing it, because the practice works. You really do sound like management :hmm: :)

Ahhhh, the left hand seat on Air France and Asiana, great display.
Both might not be directly involved in a P2F, but the effect described by clunk is leading down the same fatal path.

P2F and the dismantling of the real assessment and training ways can only be described by one and only word: Cynicism.

We can't blame the individual who participates in that numb game, just as we could not blame the individual officer participating in a certain party 70 years ago, can't we??

It's the system and the system is always described to be us, in our democracy, isn't it??

:yuk:

DrJones,

Some UK training organisations do offer this. (There are several links which I probably won't be allowed to post here. But you can find them easily enough through google).

Most send candidates to Europe for the flying.

I believe at least one scheme is (was?) run by a current EZY TRE. :hmm:

Whether this 'true' form of P2F is what the OP was talking about is another question.


edit...
many are scams which take the money but dont deliver the flying, (one to google). No sane person would go down that route so it is effectively dead in the uk.

Perhaps we need to rewind slightly? Employees are not employees until they are employed. If it is conditional that the potential employee qualifies themselves (with whatever qualifications are necessary) before they can be employed, then whoever sells them that qualification and at what profit margin (if any) is entirely different. I am not part of the management team responsible for these matters. In the case of our cadet pilots, we provide them with all of their training, gratis! That includes the full type rating, allowances for the training course, hotel accommodation, uniforms, line training, etc. I think they may be expected to bring their own Biro, but if they forget I am sure we would happy to provide that as well. I am also reasonably sure the management team have few problems sleeping at night, and if perchance they do, I doubt it is over the provisions we make for cadets.

Other companies may require that cadets or employees do satisfy specific criteria such as type ratings before they can be admitted or employed. They may well offer such qualification at cost, subsidized, or at full retail pricing. That is a matter for them, but it is only "P2F" in so much as any other part of the training that places the candidate in a position to carry out a job, as opposed to being incurred as a part of that employment, is. It is an important distinction and one that the Inland revenue (by way of further example) is also quite adamant about.

That isn't what happens. The fact that a candidate has fiscally resourced themselves through a very expensive course of training, most certainly does not obligate or commit the potential employer in any way to them. Unless they are also "the right people" and demonstrate the standards expected of them, they are simply let go. It is a very steep learning curve at this level, and the commitment and performance expected of the candidates is high. Nobody (on either side) wants failures, and the input control (selection, training, monitoring, mentoring) is extremely important. "Buying your way in" is irrelevant to the potential employer unless those other criteria are satisfied.

Yes. It does work. Again, and in our specific case, we balance recruitment across three sources. Those are: Cadet pilots from a recognised FTO; Experienced type rated pilots looking for career advancement; and experienced non-type rated pilots (including military leavers) looking for career advancement. Other companies will balance their own recruitment portfolios to suit their own individual requirements.

In the case of cadets, they are typically mid twenty year olds. Either university graduates, or (in some cases) in-lieu of university trainees. A few are in their late teens, and a few in their Thirties and older. Referring to my reply in post number 74 again, I would agree that in essence the Original poster was right. That has certainly been our experience for a decade and a half, and continues to be.

So P2F is not actually the problem in the UK and it would appear the general consensus is that it hasnt really existed in the UK now for a number of years.

The major fact remains, that for those with an understanding of wider UK "professions" the percentage of inexperienced against experienced with regard to hiring in the UK airlines is an unusual practice

Just a closing thought from me, when p2f was sent packing in disgrace from the UK recruitment scene a few years ago - and quite rightly so - who filled the void?

was it pilots from the rated/experienced/exmilitary/turboprop/instructors gang?

Perhaps more accuracy with the thread title is required next time. Its not p2f

According to two family members within the health industry in the UK, in medicine and nursing the bulk of vacancies are filled by experienced people. That dont pay to train or to work. Trainees although a much smaller group dont as a rule pay for any training however it is very much a smaller group than that for experienced people

Sorry John Smith you are wrong about that part. Im sure there are people in here with more than just an aviation career in their back pocket who may beable to advise about whether the remainder of your statement is accurate.

Would you be attempting to pull the focus of the thread adrift by any chance?

A certain jonathan curd and still peddling p2f apparently, but further afield in Greece and Bulgaria.

Not only that, but got into trouble over it too.

I'm trying to resist adding to the fire but wanted to make a point / ask a question...

So, I'm a newly qualified CPL/IR. And like '000s of other CPL/IRs out there looking at what to do next. Now, I'm not stupid, I'd like to think far from it, and I entered into the training in complete knowledge that this stage now would be the hardest, but you're never quite prepared for just how hard it is.

As for pay to fly, I think if I am flying, or co-flying an aircraft, and someone has paid for the load to be carried (ie. fare paying passengers or revenue generating freight is in the back) then the crew should be paid. Otherwise it is purely driving up the profit of the operator and exploiting the pilot. And if an operator can not survive and pay the crew then you should ask if their business is viable - would cabin crew pay to fly and who get;s who out of the schtick when it all goes pear shaped?

if the aircraft is flying for the purposes of training me, or purely for the purpose of furthering my career (and is a pure cost centre with no revenue generated) then I can see an argument for my making a contribution to this cost.

As for type ratings, yes I can see some argument for some derisking of the costs for the operator, after all what if they rate me and then I bugger off, but this can be contracted to be in both parties interest.

John Smith.
Ill have to take your word on 12k in the law profession, I do not have access to people in that particular profession

I can assure you the bulk of nurse/medicine jobs are filled by experienced people. Or it would seem in two separate locations in the UK

The fact that your particular location doesnt have enough experienced people available for vacancies, unless ive missed something doesnt really add any value to an arguement about inexperienced pilots been preferred over experienced pilots. The difference here is there are plenty of experienced pilots from the UK in both airlines and on types.

If thats the situation where you are fine. We can agree to disagree. Prob best we just move on and not allow the focus of the thread to be altered. Which I think for some reason is what you are trying to do.

And therein lies the rub, JS. In aviation, there ARE enough experienced people to fill in the vacancies. But quite a few companies are doing quite the opposite with respect to their hiring practices.

The answer is simple. "Come back when you have at least couple of thousand hours and significant jet or heavy turbo-prop experience." That is the answer you are likely to get from a lot of airlines. It has been the same answer for decades!

At the ab-initio level, some of these companies will offer apprenticeship "cadet" programmes, but they are very specific.

How much were you thinking of? How much do you consider you are worth in relation to an experienced pilot with many thousands of hours? How much was your "paid for" type rating worth? Do you consider the probationary 6-8 month period worth the prospect of a contract at conclusion? Take a look at those other "professions" that are promoted by way of example. Take a look at internships, apprenticeships, placements, etc. They are all a part of the training regime leading to the more rewarding parts of those respective "professions."

Far too many people have deluded themselves that a CPL and 250 hours is the natural passport to the right seat of an airliner. It isn't and it never was.

I thought that was the whole point of this thread? that it is becoming the natural passport?

It will be. :p


Edit...as long as you've given your money to the right training providers that is.

I'm a product of the low hours industry, but i never paid anything for a rating,whatsoever… i just think that that's what brought the industry down (for us pilots)throughout the years, big companies in the ME and Asia, only asks for TR pilots with hours on type. and wannabe pilots specially in europe are going for this kind of thing for many many years..They start entering some airline in Europe like Easy or Ryanair(paying for the TR) get some hours and then they go straight to a wide body somewhere else...That's why companies wants only TR pilots with hours on type, because there's a whole bunch of pilots to supply them with this kind of scheme… Pilots like me are having a hard time trying to fly abroad because of this… If you don't have an Airbus or Boeing rating you're basically out of the market for the big companies in the ME and Asia..even if you fly an embraer,CRJ or other jet.. Companies completely lost interest on this kind of pilots because they gonna need a full type rating on the Boeing or Airbus wide body istead of a short course… :ugh: Here's just my 2 cents..