choppermech1986 wrote:I hate to be such a negative Nancy, but I fail to see how any of these industry changing proposals could be beneficial for anyone but one generation of low hour pilots.
You don't have apprenticeships for truck and bus drivers, drillers, geologists, doctors or nurses, they all seem to do pretty well.
These jobs are all supply and demand, the fewer truck drivers and doctors getting around, the more companies will have to pay if they want to employ one.
You can also leave your apprenticeship if you feel like you aren't getting what you deserve, it's not as though you're married just because you're indentured.
The world has an uncanny way of working out an equilibrium, it would be wonderful if any high-school kid could pay his $70k to get his CPL and land a well paid job flying helicopters for a boss who treats him well, but it doesn't take a genius to work out why that wouldn't work.
The unemployment rate is just a little over 5%, if you don't like the way your boss treats you, grow some balls and ask to be paid/treated what you believe you're worth, if he thinks he already is, then at least you've got a better than 95% chance of getting another job.
Lastly, for any of you left leaning socialists to whom the above situation applies, you might want to consider if its not your attitude that's holding you back, not the industry.
not quite correct, Drs, and nurses do 'internships' which are basically the dr/nurse form of an apprenticeship or hanger rat. they learn the ropes, are not given much responsibility, watched like hawks, have to work long hours and don't get paid very well for what they earn, however they do get the award. They also come out of uni with the 'bare essentials' to get a job, but they are not experienced, and they are not given roles of responsibility. Internships usually last a minimum of four years, if doing a specialist course, its more like 8 years. Bus drives don't qualify in this discussion, their ticket costs $1500 and lasts a few weeks of driver ed, hardly on the same scale. Marine Engineers for example, start off as deckhands, work their way upto 3rd then 2nd then 1st, eventually becoming chief, they can then do watch keepers (another 18 months at school) to become a class 2 engineer, there is another 18 months study involved to become a class 1. All up? About ten years work, and a LOT of study. Much more comparable to pilots, deckhands, get paid OK, 3rd engineers mmm well if not in the oil and gas it aint so great, and they get to do whatever the 2nd, 1st and chief tells them to do.... and so on. These professions all employ people on trainee ships, and apprenticeships, they pay less wages because the guarantee a certain standard will be the end result, and a qualification if the person see's it out. I think the idea is very workable, not all trainee and Apprentices see their course out, the same for pilots, there would still be those that don't 'cut' it. They can still be sacked if it doesn't work out, and so on, I think there is a lot of potential in the aviation industry to adopt a proposal like this. I would back any such proposal, that was designed fairly and with a definite outcome for both employer and employee, wholeheartedly. The Cert 4 in Aviation is already in place, it wouldn't need much to set it up as a trainee-ship or an apprenticeship.
CM I also think much more than just the first gen pilots would benefit, for one, the schools will have students who are funded by employers, so they no longer have to wait for the student to earn enough cash for his next lesson, the lessons would be in structured training blocks, like they do for other trades, also the employer has the pilot from before he gets his license, and as this gets to train him in all the things that are required for that pilot to be a 'useful' employee once he graduates. Then once a license has been procured, the pilot is actually ready to do some work (still under supervision and guidance obviously) It also means the pilot has been flying while doing the hanger rat stuff (as he is doing his license at teh same time) so you no longer have a sulky pilot who has been sweeping and moping for 6 months and never getting to fly, in the meantime when they do get to fly, they are rusty and need more guidance, as they have not been flying regularly. It also allows the employer to see first hand how his net new pilot, flys in training. As all training information is passed directly through the employer, so they know, long before they put the pilot in their own aircraft, what they are getting. If there was a minimum term set say two years min with the employer post license graduation, this ensures that the employer gets the benefit of having trained the pilot, rather than the pilot rushing off to some 'bigger better' job.
Obviously the idea needs some polishing, and is by no means hole proof, but I still think the concept has a lot of potential, and is worth while putting some time into to see if something can be put to industry at some point in the future. There is no cure all for the situations of low hour pilots, as with Peter Holsteins 'class 3' instructor idea, it is simply about giving pilots and employers more options, and making new pilots more employable. I don't believe there is a one size fits all solution, however a few ideas like Peters and this one above, is at least an attempt to improve things, rather than just continue on knowing there is a problem, and doing nothing to try and fix it.