At least junior will have learned and demonstrated some abilities other than learning the answers to multiple-choice questions. Sadly, that's exactly what's happening these days and that's what makes the academic entry barrier into flying unacceptably low. I've seen my fair share of aspiring pilots who fall flat on their face in all ATPL exams requiring problem solving because they simply memorise the answers from their question bank and have no clue what to do if faced with a similar type of question but with different numbers in it. Someone with a degree will have been required to stretch their brain quite a bit more and will have hopefully learned some very important self-study, time management and teamwork skills in those 3 or 4 years.

No. Instructing. That’s how many people cut their teeth pre-JAR. They used to do this work with a PPL, but JAR made it an aerial work assignment requiring a CPL, hence the reduction in hours required. This brought the licence into alignment with the rest of the world. Presumably the schools will do well selling all of those instructor courses as they indeed they used to. Other aerial work jobs could be found bush flying in Africa and light aircraft flying in the Far East. That is why it’s a 250 hour licence. A licence you can do at pretty much your own pace and wherever you want to do it. It never was designed to be a shoehorn into a jet airliner.

you want to fly an airliner with 200 hours? Well, it was possible 50 years ago too!

I think a dash of realism is required here. Firstly, flying is generally not an academic vocation, outside I suppose a test flying environment. There is no reason for it to be academic, or require a high level of academic achievement as a prerequisite for entry. If anything, the required written elements are overly pedantic. There is no earthly reason that a knowledge of Mercator projections or polar stereographic charts should be required in 2020. There is simply no need for an in depth knowledge of aerodynamics, nor the intricacies of performance. The ATPLs may quite rightly be said to be simply learning for the sake of it, or to artificially increase the legitimacy of a flying licence as a qualification. Not only does 95%+ of what is assessed in the ATPL exams not have any practical application in the real world, but I'd venture that the overwhelming majority of current airline pilots would fail if presented with a Gen Nav or Met paper now.

The reality is that (airline) flying is extremely prescriptive, with a vast amount of automation (not just in terms of the aircraft themselves). Flight planning is done by the Jepp or LIDO computer at HQ, weight and balance is done by plugging numbers into a computer, ditto the performance. Increasingly the job on an airline pilot is to perform a series of actions (SOPs) by rote. Aircraft are extremely reliable, seldom have major mechanical problems, and are designed to be simple to operate. A high level of knowledge is neither expected nor required. To say that the job has been dumbed down would be an understatement.

With all of the above in mind, and bearing in mind that the imperative to cut costs is only going to accelerate due to the current circumstances, it's wholly unrealistic to expect that barriers to entry to the "profession" will increase.

With regard to salaries: you're only worth what the market thinks you're worth. That's true for any job. If an airline started offering "jobs" with zero pay tomorrow, there'd be a queue of people out the door ready to sign on the dotted line. It is therefore fanciful to think that there will be a return to anything like 2019 salaries for airline pilots any time soon, and probably ever again. This is a once in a generation opportunity for airline managers to completely redefine the "career" in terms of salaries and conditions, and you can guarantee that they're not going to waste it.

If that’s what you think, You get paid what you deserve.
I’m sure mommy and daddy paid your Frozen ATP.

Guy, your last paragraph I agree with, but the previous 3 are a load of bull.

As a pilot, you'll start as an FO, and end up as a captain, and eventually might end up flying as a captain through far, distant, polar places with not many options.... but 400 pax behind you you're responsible for.

As one of the above club, I've many, many times looked at the weather charts, paperwork, etc, and thought, hang on.. dispatch has made a mistake, and something doesn't look right. And I plan accordingly.

This 'hair standing up on the back of my neck', spotting an 18 year old flight planners error, has been purely down to having to endure polar grid navigation, omega nonsense, plotting weather movements etc etc from, what I thought at the time, was a complete waste of time 14 subject conversion from FAA to UK CAA ATPL.

Now, as a long haul ops 747 captain, I am eternally grateful for the nonsense (I thought at the time), I was put through.

But maybe that's just me.

Excellent point, Flying Clog.

Something I can add to this is that not all situations can be written up in the SOP. For example, there are plenty of nonstandard technical failures which have no associated procedure - and correctly identifying the issue and its consequences is vital. That's where it's helpful to have an in-depth understanding of how the aircraft works. So, the question bank learner who's memorised which buttons to push to get from A to B without much understanding of what they do is only a good pilot on a nice day with everything going routinely. Although it's a matter of fact that most days are just like that and it's a routine and repetitive job for most of the time, the moments when the brown stuff hits the fan are when you tell the men apart from the boys.

Absolutely PilotLZ

PilotLZ

Over 75% of American ATP holders have a 4 year degree or higher. Over 97% of major airlines pilots(delta, United, American) have a university degree. I didn’t realize that this wasn’t the case worldwide until I left a US carrier. EASA certificate holders like to compare their 12 or however many exams to 4 years of full time university....

... a degree in basket weaving?

PontiusPilotus

Instead of being "proud and happy" to still have a flying job with such appalling conditions, would one not be better off accepting the hard realities and existing the industry altogether for greener pastures elsewhere?

Absoutely JRK. That's the plan for me at least.

4runner

That is because they can actually get a university degree after they get their full ATPL. It just requires some online study, a couple of presentations and... voilá! You now hold the same education level as a lawyer or doctor. At least in Spain.

Personally I think that doesn't actually raise the level of the ATPL license, but it bringa down the other degrees.

Ignoring, for the moment, the extra difficulties the Covid19 virus is causing; there is nothing necessarily wrong with this sort of job for this sort of salary. It depends where you are on the aviation ladder.

I agree with PontiusPilotus: As long as the airline and terms and conditions are not Dickension, and if the (low) salary is nevertheless sufficient to rent a place to live in Greece and eat; then a paid gig flying a modern A320 could be just the ticket for some. Not for their whole flying career perhaps, but a couple of years maybe, or until becoming a Captain.

When my ATPL was still frozen, my first flying job was on a Shed (Shorts 360) for quite low money. But the company were great, the flying was interesting and I learned a lot, rapidly. I was able to afford rent, petrol and food, and gain flying hours. It suited me and my (low) level of experience at the time.

As far as ATPL knowledge, I agree with Flying Clog; yes you don't use all of it every day, but you do need a depth of knowledge to appreciate the physics of aviation, aircraft and navigation. Pilots of both the recent over-run and the very late descent leading to the gear up landing accidents obviously had not studied their ATPLs - I don't know how they gained their licences, but they obviously had no appreciation of the physics involved.

Scary thing here is that a few people think that You stop studying after getting your ATPL certificates where this is actually only the start as many here know... and those who do not agree are generally the ones who complain about the axehole examiner that failed them in this or that occasion.
For those who think there should not be any "academic" preparation in pilots training, I (and for sure many more here) can easily tell you that you can spot immediately a cadet who went through his ATPL by learning the database by heart with a few very simple questions like "can you tell me how a jet engine works ?" and get answers like "you need to check N1, EGT and N2 and if it's green it works".
It does not surprise me anyway that guy_incognito apparently wants to quit the job ; I honestly believe You should do something else based on your comments in different threads.

Uplinker

Incidents like those have very little if anything to do with application of academic knowledge. Poor SOP adherence, lack of or poor training and lack of basic CRM skills were all contributory factors. I'd venture that not knowing the lift and drag equations, which direction the centre of pressure moves when flaps are extended, and how the engines produce thrust weren't.

It is absurd to think of airline flying as an academic pursuit. If anything it makes far more sense to view initial training and time spent as a FO as a kind of apprenticeship. Proposing to artificially increase barriers to entry is both wholly unrealistic and simply a case of pilots trying to justify the difficulty and intrinsic worth of the job to themselves.

And probably because of those reasons you ended up being as unhappy as you now are.

I became a pilot because flying is my life.

Got a big paycut, and reduced hours. Still its the best job in the world. Still I am so happy every time - not very often anymore- that I put my uniform on.

It will always be the best job in the world for me. My life isn't any worse because I drive a 13 year old car or I don't go on 5* holidays.

It's all a matter of perspective mate. All the best.

What worries me is when the 250hr cadet becomes a 3000hr Captain, I know several and while they are very compliant with the SOP, sadly this is no substitute for experience and they tend to occupy either end of the personality spectrum ranging from dangerously overconfident to being scared of their own shadow.

guy_incognito

Looks like You don’t really know what You are talking about.

1st example : when flying long haul around the world you do need to have a reasonably good level of academic knowledge about different weather systems in addition to many other aspects pertaining to true vs magnetic navigation and so on.

2nd example : when landing at sea level in ISA+35 you need to consider density altitude for your energy management and need to make considerations on brake energy and temperature to assess a suitable exit.

3rd example : when stuck at low level and the only available higher level is above your optimum and close to your maximum you need academic knowledge on how to interpret a weather chart, jetstreams and likelihood of turbulence according to northern vs southern hemisphere and so on.

These are just a few basic examples of our job and we could end up with hundreds of them highlighting how solid academic ATPL knowledge will improve safety. If you think that aviation worldwide is setting up an FMGC and calling for checklists than you are in for some not so pleasant surprises.

Exactly nickler.

FWIW. The situation currently for anyone employed by XYZ Airlines etc. is that the cards are stacked in favour of an employer (and not through the airline or individuals fault). I think if you have a role still and despite the cut in salary, I would stick it out but be very certain that unless when things improve (timescale not clear), your employer then fails to match what the employment market dictates - get out and let them learn the hard way. If they fail to adapt afterward, then they will by default lose the good people they had and dwindle slowly to nothing.

If your employer is trying to do things like lock people in to contracts that limit earning potential for the next 2-3 years, then I would suggest this kind of thing to be a 'red flag'. It says to me that they are looking to recoup entirely the profit from workforce salary as opposed to sharing the pain. But it is of course a business and best to not take it to heart perhaps - take money and move on when the market allows. I would expect a decent employer to communicate with the afflicted workforce every say 6 months with at least a cursory review and update, and this would show good intent.