Anyone know SO salaries for a Spanish contract? Is the 16k on PPJN accurate (seems absurdly low)? How likely is it to be based there upon joining?

Absolute nonsense Dirk. I declined to use discretion twice last summer and it was accepted without any question.

As mentioned, Dirk does not work for Ryanair. He would be better sticking to easyjet or wizz discussions.

Absolute nonsense. Guys and girls refuse discretion every single day of the week, because they can.
Do us all a favour and cut out the uniformed drivel.

Fortunately, fatigue is subjective and the airline don’t get to decide what is and isn’t fatiguing

What is fatiguing for one, is not so for the other.

and so it should...

There really is some total tosh written here, Ive returned to work after a three months away due being fatigued (medical revoked ) caused by many things, some external, some work related, possible bad virus that showed up in blood tests . The company could not have done more to help me the only requirement as normal to keep getting paid is the required sickness note from my GP one month at time. Not one phone call asking when I was going to return however as a normal curtesy I kept the base manger updated.
I have also never been aware of any captain being called to Dublin for not using discretion , Keeping Operations up to date is important. I did not use discretion last year and it was a non event, COMMUNICATION with others is important.

And there is a lot of truths written here as well.

Did my time and yeah the only benefit at RYR is the company will be around until the end of time. 5 on 4 off if you like that. For me it was total crap as if you did need to change it was impossible.

Calling you on days off at 9am when you only got in the door at 4am for overtime? Check

Asked to call in everyday to update them when I was sick? Check

Crew member had to go to Dublin for tea and biscuits for not flying cost index enough. Check

Mate of mine asked to be based at home or even in the country he’s from after line training to help with his Mrs who had just given birth. Sent to Poland for a year with no direct flights to where he’s from. Check
Ps Others on course after ours got bases he wanted.

Lovely 2 sector early duty. Landing and ops call to say yeah got 2 more sectors for you. 6 hours later trudge back to the car. Check

Many many other experiences with management others have told me about.

Training great. Aircraft great. Do a few years and move on.
Otherwise you get sucked into left seat blah blah and it’s harder to move on to a better airline (which is most others).

The most interesting is the "blah blah" part. Other than than just sour grapes

Oh forgot to add the time I went to discretion twice on a five day block. Landing back at base at 4.30am on day 5 which is basically day 6 then. Asked for a day off back but laughed at.

Not really sour grapes at all.

I had heard/read all the rumours and applied anyway. Surely they can’t be that bad.
No they can and worse.

Gave me motivation to move on sharpish though.

You poor thing, how could they do all this to you? Hope you have recovered now

And the award for the most abrasive and most useless tool goes to…

For sure, but if you have worked 1 day of earlies, taken VTO (time off) for the next 4 days, get your 4 days off, then work 1 day of lates and call fatigued. Well the company are going to investigate why and that work record will not help your case. They will ask if there's much going on in your personal life to cause it. If the answer is no, well, good luck.

That's a very extreme example i know, but they do investigate the context of the report. In all the cases i know (which were genuine), they just got assigned extra time off. No drama.

When were you in Ryanair? I'm nearly certain there's a rule now that landing after 4AM generates a day off in lieu. It was in a notice a while back after much complaining.

2 years here, have had 2 calls asking to work a day off, both times at midday.

You submit your sickness via EFB, note what is wrong and tap the days you need off. If you get a doctors cert you email that too. Never been called nor had to call anyone about being sick, and believe me I've had my fair share of sick days.

Captains laugh about these automated Cost Index letters, one showed me over 50 on his ipad. Never seen nor heard of anyone going to Dublin over it. Maastricht assign you .79 and you'll get one. They'd need an entire department and supermarket load of biscuits if every letter was a meeting. Are you sure there is not more to this story??

The base at joining is rarely what you want I agree. I had to do 2 stints in bases I didn't want whilst on the list for what I wanted. I couldn't complain because they asked ib my interview was I happy to be based anywhere in the network.

The 5 days on can be tough, very tough. The 4 days off are nearly just recovery. Personally I think the company is overcrewed of late. Evidenced by the exponential increase in VTO availability.

I'd agree with all of that except this - I've done pretty much every sort of commercial aviation, and more than any other type of operation, feel 100% on my days off, and even find 4 sector days not unduly knackering (a short commute back to your home and bed is key) - just bash out the sectors and forget about it. PS can you confirm it's 4am. I though it was 6am? Very rare I've been delayed past about 1am anyway (maybe once a month, and later would bump off the following days work anyway)- I've never had such a normal sleep pattern in my career.
There are other fringe improvements -IT is brilliant, both operationally and love the new ecrew features, plus paid parking seems to be creeping in, good day off payments, and other small stuff like that. I guess to bring in line with the competition, a better pension and health insurance wouldn't go amiss, and some sort of incentive plan, such as share options or profit share; which would automatically smooth the boom and bust of crewing levels when the industry waxes and wanes, as opposed to the delayed reaction to suddenly finding everyone has left when boom times come around.

Just double checked, it is 4AM. The latest I've landed was 2:40AM.

Regarding the tiredness of it all, it's definitely person to person, but 5 days of waking up at 3:30AM going to fly 11hr+ days (which have become the standard at my base) has me on my knees by the time the days off come. I live very local to the airport and I only seem to have time to eat, shower, get ready for the next day and then sleep. VTO is making things more manageable though. Granted not every block is like this, sometimes some short 2 sector days and a few standbys can leave you feeling like you don't even have a job!

True, it's very base, and commute dependant. The earliest I ever set my alarm is 0415, and on average, at 5am alarm on earlies.

This sounds more like that Line Training salary... think it bumps up a bit when you move to SO, I don't have figures for Spain though, I'm UK based.

Second officer is roughly 55.000 going up to about 79.000€ in Spain as an FO.

The other figures are clearly line training fees.

Just been scouring through the thread and had a curiosity. Does anyone know the justification as to why the LIFUS salary is effectively minimum wage at best? My understanding is the LIFUS is part of all airlines OCC and therefore mandatory employer training so how is it that the salary is vastly different from a second/first officer position? At that point you’re CPL, ATPL (Frozen) with a paid for Type… how is this being normalised? Is it under a Ryanair contract or another company?

Because people accept it.

Fixed it for you.

Haha

I just find it curious that this seems to clearly violate the law in the overlaps between employment / Aviation / commercial etc… and yet the regulators have if anything encouraged it… despite it effectively being pay to fly. People being desperate is one thing but the point of the law and regulators is to stop companies exploiting that desperation surely.

What’s it got to do with the regulators?

Ryanair offer a salary. Pilot with zero hours and desperate for a job looks at advertised salary and decides it is acceptable, so accepts the job.

The reason McDonald’s pay minimum wage is the same, people are happy to accept it. If they weren’t they wouldn’t. It really is that simple.

Equally, if people didn’t pay for licenses, you would be paid a salary to attend your fully expensed training courses. But people are happy to pay. So it doesn’t happen.

Sorry I have to disagree you’re equating a McDonald’s Worker to being the same as a highly qualified individual in a safety critical industry. Yes the people may accept it… that is clear for all to see… the question really is why are regulators allowing it and how is it possible it’s got this far.

We can’t even remotely equate it to a McDonald’s worker as they don’t even have to outlay any costs for the job and then when they start the job they are guaranteed the minimum wage.

Forcing pilots to pay for operator required training so anything past CPL / APS MCC (disguised or not) is an illegal deduction and likely results in pay to fly, which is indentured servitude by another name never mind debt bondage.

Minimising this whole issue is part of the problem, I was glad to see the guardian have recently picked up on the Ghent study where you can see how this erodes flight safety and just culture.

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2...es-study-warns

https://www.theguardian.com/business...ur-experiences

This issue is a root cause of the smaller issues seen across these forums. Surely the regulators should be forced to act rather than the community aiding them in ignoring it and having the attitude… “it’s becuase people accept it” a corporation has far more power than any single person who falls foul of the trap the corporation has created. Isn’t aiding them essentially victim blaming while helping the company erode Ts&Cs until there is nothing left?

Sorry I get quite passionate about this, I can’t stand injustice and whenever i read about it I get a bug in my bonnet.

Are they paying for the training, or are they just being paid a lower basic wage until they are out of their training? The two things are contractually, and legally, very different. There is absolutely nothing a regulator can do (or should do) if an airline wanted to start up paying minimum wage to every single employee, including Captains. What stops this happening is market forces, unions, and the unity and professionalism of the pilot employees themselves.The pay rate for any job isn’t really about how prestigious or respected it is. It all comes down to market forces. Basically, how many people have the same skills and qualifications and are willing to do the job for a certain amount.

At the end of the day, you’re paid based on how many others could do your job just as well for less money. If only a small number of people can meet that standard, the pay naturally goes up.

That's why professional footballers are well paid. On the flip side, there are plenty of jobs that are highly respected but don’t pay much, simply because there’s a larger supply of people able and willing to do them. Pay reflects scarcity and ability. Certainly not perceived professionalism or status.

Very simple solution. If you are unhappy with the pay being offered by Ryanair during their stated training period, don’t work for Ryanair.

I take your points but I disagree across the board.

Yes technically a company can of course pay minimum wage. The point of a regulator though is to ensure that they do not pay below minimum wage. We have employment and labour law that are supposed to draw a line as to when the employer pays for training. My understanding is that the OCC and LIFUS are non-delegable if wrapped up with the type rating then this also should be the case. So as soon as an airline charges for training and includes these elements in that relationship they are effectively charging for employment until the relationship fundamentally changes. Just because the company puts a paper shell between itself and the employee that doesn’t mean everyone should accept this evasion of law and workers rights… that is where the regulators should … regulate.

The law doesn’t operate in silos as Ryanair it seems would have everyone believe. Aviation, labour and employment law intersect.

You wouldn’t expect a pilot to pay for a new type rating if the airline changed its fleet… so why are we expecting new entrants who are the most vulnerable amongst us who already have likely 100k of debt… to take on more? This then gets into the Ghent study where such vulnerable people are not likely to make sound decisions when pay comes into reporting fatigue etc.

One has to wonder why so many people in this day and age… want to lick boots?

I don’t work for Ryanair… it doesn’t mean I can’t see what they’ve doing tk the industry at large. Some people care about society about terms and conditions about the downward spiral this world is clearly in.

my question to you is… why do you defend the vested interests of a massive corporation over those of your fellow worker? Why do you want MOLs pockets to be so full? While his staff struggle with debt and may not even be getting minimum wage?

If they are getting minimum wage at least, which I’m sure they are, that’s the end of legal obligation.

What you’re advocating for, presumably, is to be the one and only industry with legally mandated minimum salaries over and above minimum wage? It’s an odd position which simply isn’t realistic.

There is no requirement to saddle yourself with debt to become a pilot. Indeed, tens of millions of people in this country choose not to. You may well choose to, that’s fine, in all likelihood we can say that in the current market it will easily pay itself off in the long run.

I’m sorry but have you read the detail of what I’ve said?

I was quite clear… post CPL / APS MCC training should and technically legally is the employers responsibility. Especially OCC and LIFUS… where you are operating to specific company SOPs … recruiting and charging employees with the suggestion you’re initially a consumer…. even though you’re unlikely to be so unless the type rating is generic … and not paying them for part or all of that period amounts to illegal deductions from wages. For instance paying 30k for a type rating … then being paid £1400 per month on the line for the first 6-12 months… amounts to likely minimum wage violations even if you can’t see it in the payslips themselves.

You say there’s no requirement to saddle yourself with debt to become a pilot… I don’t follow… how else does one attain a CPL if not taking on 1000s in debt? I also don’t follow your logic… if avoiding debt was the driver of all careers… we wouldn’t have many skilled positions at all would we? We as a society decided to force debt on the aspirational to commodify it … now it’s so normalised the view is not “the world needs pilots / Drs etc” but you don’t have to choose to become one 🤦‍♂️ — when did we collectively decide to become serfs again?

Virtually every airline recruiting pays for the type rating onwards… as its employer specific and hard to extract the OCC components. Why do we collectively allow Ryanair the uncompetitive advantage… of not adhering to the rules all other employers seem to abide by? And apparently we’ve done it that long… it’s normalised to the point where it’s seen as normal for a pilot to take on an additional 30k + of debt after CPL / ATPLs and not be paid through training and then be underpaid… when initially on the line flying passengers.

It’s odd that people defend a company for making people’s lives actively worse… likely breaching legal obligations and declaring it a consequence of supply and demand…solely for pilot recruitment… while simultaneously ignoring that this very practice has created an un-competitive advantage in the market place for that very airline which is then defended illogically as exploiting the “fair” market 😂😂.

I recommend reading the guardian article and Ghent study. This isn’t as simple as supply and demand and the view that Ryanair can simply do whatever they want and abuse people.

You need to get a reality check.

Regulators have nothing to do with employment law or remuneration packages. This is the same across all regulated industries.

Yes, airline pilots are higher skill. So is a librarian. So is a musician. So is a police officer. But a cadet is not as skilled an an examiner. A librarian assistant is not as skilled as senior librarian. A pianist is not as skilled as a maestro. A police constable is not as skilled as a detective. And guess which industry out of this 4 pays more in the long run. Yet a police officer is a way more riskier than a pilot, I can assure you of that.

In the end, is basic economics dynamics - offer vs. demand. This goes the same across all business. The difference is how each business decides to approach these opportunities: it's called business strategy.

There are people that work very hard to pay for their training and not take a huge debt. The people that rack thousands of debt nowadays are either the ones that were sold a dream, or the ones that were gifted with a financial advantage. The same hard working people are the ones that will pay for TR if that means they will land the job. They see it as opportunity. The gifted ones will pay and moan about it later, slagging their employer all the way, forgetting that nobody forced them, or not realising that paying for that rating was the door needed to be open for the rest of their career. At the end of the day, you will carry that rating with your licence. You can do it whatever you want with that. Including buying your own aircraft and fly it for fun.

You use a lot of words like virtually, technically, likely - that shows that you don't know the facts and think companies thrive by parting each others' back. In an ideal world, no one would work and everyone would have the same money. A week after, there would be rich and poor. Thinking of doing the right thing is all great on paper, but it might not work in reality. The same way what you think is the right thing for you, might not be the right thing for me.

Ask your junior lawyer friend what is their salary. Then ask them how many hours they work. The unofficial version. You'll be glad at least we have flight time limitations. And you'll quickly see who's actually working below minimum wage.

And don't even get started with the US vs Europe salaries. They are two complete worlds.

If that’s a “reality check”, it’s a pretty imaginative one tbh.

My background before aviation was in construction, consultancy and planning, working with regulators. Their job’s simple: to uphold the law — not to look away while a company builds profit from the grey gaps between one law and another.



The idea that regulators have “nothing to do with employment law” ignores how these systems overlap. Aviation rules govern safety, training and operational control. Employment law governs who pays and who carries responsibility. When a company blurs that line—charging for mandatory OCC and LIFUS phases that are non-delegable under ORO.FC.220—and calls it “business strategy”, that’s not clever economics, it’s regulatory evasion.



If regulators weren’t meant to get involved, why do the regs explicitly say otherwise? Why did the EU courts shut down Ryanair’s private-company pilot scheme in the 2010s for exactly that reason—disguising employment to dodge tax and insurance? Regulators are supposed to step in when “strategy” becomes structured avoidance.



Reducing this to “personal choice” or “market forces” sounds neat but fails basic logic. Choice only exists in a fair market. When one operator normalises £30–40k pay-to-fly schemes, unpaid training and sub-minimum-wage flying, that market stops being free—it’s coerced by design.



And this goes straight to flight safety. A pilot in LIFUS who’s not properly paid, or who’s burned through savings on a 30k type, probably isn’t sleeping or eating well—and certainly won’t feel able to call fatigued. At that point, dodgy labour practice becomes a safety risk, not a lifestyle choice.



Funny how every time this comes up someone says “that’s just how the world works.” Same line used to defend child labour, pollution and zero-hour contracts—none fixed by the invisible hand of the market, all fixed when regulators finally enforced existing law.



And about the “you haven’t worked hard” jab — I was labouring on building sites at fourteen. Hard work isn’t the issue; legality and integrity are. Plenty of young pilots have grafted, paid huge sums for training, and still end up paying for their employer’s legal obligations while earning less than a barista.



I’ve yet to meet a lawyer who paid £100k+ to qualify only to stand in court unpaid, representing the firm that underpaid them. Yet when it’s a pilot flying passengers, it’s somehow “market forces.”



You are right on one thing: the U.S. does it better. A single FAA regulator, structured routes, much of it employer-funded, strong unions. Europe’s divide-and-conquer model—EASA one side, labour law the other—just invites airlines to work the cracks.



So no, this isn’t about entitlement or naivety. It’s about the rule of law. A regulator that lets companies exploit overlaps between safety and employment law isn’t neutral; it’s complicit. A market that rewards whoever bends furthest isn’t free; it’s broken.



You call it realism. I call it regulatory failure wrapped in economic fatalism.



The real question is why you’re batting for the one airline that’s been under investigation across Europe almost every year for two decades, repeatedly called out for abusive and exploitative practices.

Is it an “I’m alright Jack” thing? Are you a career pilot, never known anything else? One of those “I went through it so everyone else should too” 🤷‍♂️



’Cause that’s not realism either — that’s resignation and ignorance outside of the aviation bubble.



Then again, maybe you just took Econ 101… or skimmed The Art of the Deal. 😂

I regret commenting on this thread. I should’ve known the sycophants would swarm 🙄.

Anyone taking on £70k+ of debt just to perform a function for an employer is stepping into a broken system. Apprentice electricians don’t do that. Doctors don’t. Lawyers don’t. Student loans are a tax, not a ransom. No other profession front-loads cost like this before a single pay cheque. It shuts people out, fuels exploitation, and bleeds directly into safety.

Pilots provide a service to society like anyone else. Previous generations weren’t buried under this kind of debt. Now the same people who benefited from fairer systems defend the one that stripped them away. Falling birth rates, unaffordable housing, privatised essentials — all consequences of the same thinking.

Maybe I do need a reality check — that we’re living through mass delusion, where the middle class is being squeezed into non-existence while the wealthy line their pockets with the type-rating fees of line-training pilots sleeping in their cars.

That came direct from a Ryanair line-training captain.

Clearly no one thinks in systems anymore. 🤦‍♂️

The fact that you just splashed out your CV just shows clearly you have an axe to grind and you turn this subject around your ideology of what you think it is right. My answer was not even directed to you personally, but as a general approach to the industry.

AFAIK, the regulator is the where the company has they AOC registered - in the case, either the IAA, ULC ir CAD. And while you have governance responsibilities as an operator, none of these bodies regulate the type of contract or pay you have. You can mention all the ORO you like, just give me an industry where a skilled worker gets paid the same as before and after training. How about legacy airlines that now also charge for ratings? Do you think it was only RYR? Or EZY? How about TUI that charged £7k for a 6 month OCC contract after COVID? Haha.

I don't know where you've seen RYR runs a P2F scheme, or ask pilots to fly while being unpaid. If you have those facts, I highly recommend you present them to the relevant authority, or a court, or even your MP, rather than a public forum.

And for clearance of doubt - I don't approve any kind of malpractice. I just don't point the finger to anyone specific, because everyone does it, either disguised or blatantly. You just seem to fail to accept this, hence why I said you need a reality check.

You are holding on way too tight.
Companies offer certain Ts & Cs, and pilots are free to accept them or look elsewhere. If there are not enough applicants, then Ts & Cs improve. It’s basic supply and demand.

As someone else has mentioned, take a look at the hourly rate of a junior lawyer, or a junior doctor. In neither case is there any form of useful regulation of working hours.

You keep going on about the regulators role in salaries. Please point us all towards the ESA/FAA/UKCAA/CASA/NZCAA references that point to this. Actually don’t bother - you would be wasting your time. Aviation regs do not touch on employment law.

As an FYI, poor salaries, and other unsavoury ideas have been around since way before you left construction to start a flying career. They have only increased through supply and demand, and good union negotiations. Never has a regulator said “pay your pilots more”. Unless you can provide a reference thats counters this, let it go.

Sycophants? Really? Care to expand? Maybe let this go too.

As with geo politics, the self righteous willfully decline to acquiaint themselves with the facts to avoid having their assertions challenged, even fabricating falsehoods about things like discretion or fuel decisions (we get almost daily company emails recommending taking extra fuel for this or that. Never had my decision on either matter ever questioned). The front loaded investment and low initial net pay is no different to massive investment in degrees, qualifications (especially in the US) and then taking internships to try and enter the world of investment banking or law. Fact is that net pay for captains at Ryanair is commonly in five figures per month depending on base, full local taxes. Upgrade to command is very quick. Ex cadets also often offset huge amounts of prior costs against current earnings (depending on tax jurisdiction).

I have worked at a couple of medium to large airlines which were widely lauded as the best jobs in aviation, drawing in pilots from the likes of Emirates, Virgin and easyjet ... and I found them absolutely awful. (Incidentally; Easyjet wanted €25k for the rating for a DEC - Ryanair didn't charge me a penny, neither up front, or from pay - so i went to the latter). I don't think many Ryanair pilots would describe their employment as fabulous, but once out of the first year or two as a cadet, it definitely counts as middling to good. With a family near to one's base, the family would describe it as fabulous though, mainly due to the roster. Occasionally things happen which can be profoundly annoying, some leave because of it or rile against it, accumulating perceived slights ... but those who ignore it and move on, have an enjoyable, stress free time there.

Pension is way below par though, the lack of profit share rankles, and no medical cover becomes a consideration when you get older. Even so, first get the facts, do the sums, and then come back here.

I would point to the arbitrary US 1.500 hour rule. It was one of the most successful Union lobby actions ever and directly increased entry level salaries a lot. There is absolutely no safety bonus of it, but a huge decrease in available work force and therefore much higher salaries to keep people spending a couple hundred k to get a license.

I believe you're misrepresenting the reality of airline type rating costs. In practice, most airlines require pilots to cover the cost of type ratings - either through upfront payments or salary deductions. Your claims about line training salaries are also inaccurate. While the basic salary may start at the figure you mentioned, you failed to include SBH (Sector-Based Hours) pay, which is a significant component of total compensation. Omitting this detail gives a misleading impression and undermines the accuracy of your argument.