Most week's Flight International runs a letters page. Next week's (29 March) missive from Tim Hiles is a sample of the lively debate sparked by previous letters and what our journalists have been writing about.
I have noticed a trend in Flight International to criticise low-cost carriers, but I must challenge your Comment "Time to heed the warnings on pilot skills" (Flight International, 15-21 February), where you endorse a report from Australia that the "overly commercial approach to pilot recruitment and training has emerged with the ascendancy of the low-cost carriers".
Apparently this will be exacerbated by the imminent pilot shortage and consequent flow of experienced low-cost carrier pilots to the legacy airlines for more money and better conditions. You also say there has been a change in pilots' attitudes towards flight training, leading to a change in attitude towards their jobs.
Where is the evidence? May I suggest the opposite is true? Most pilots coming into aviation over the past 40 years have travelled the self-improver route, working their way up through low-cost air taxi, executive flying and small regional carriers with no simulators or professional training resources.
The average cadet now joining low-cost carriers typically has a science degree and has worked several years in non-flying jobs to raise money for a licence and ratings. These bright, highly motivated young people are then given a high-quality, in-house type rating course and the end product released to the line is outstanding.
Obviously, if legacy carriers can afford to sponsor their pilots, this is perfection, but we live in a commercial world, where a quality degree is expensive, making a commercial pilot's licence and type rating seem good value.
Leave a comment