Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Does FOFT = Ab Initio?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

enigma

good ol boy
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
2,279
Re: The recently promoted ERAU First Officer Flight Training program. Is this really ab initio? I think not.

It was always my belief that true ab initio was a situation where the employer hired unqualified (in an aviation sense) persons then provided them all of the training that they needed to accomplish the job. Hired first, then trained, all on the employers nickel. I believe that this is the way most European carriers operate. They recruit, then hire, the best and the brightest straight out of college; they then train that person at no cost to the employee.

DON'T LET ERAU FOOL YOU. THIS IS JUST ANOTHER SCHEME TO SEPERATE PILOTS FROM THEIR MONEY, AND TO ENSURE THAT MANAGEMENT ALWAYS HAS ENOUGH PILOTS TO ABUSE.

Additionally, anyone thinking of this type of arrangement must consider the current state of the airline industry. *************In the past, it was reasonable to expect that once one paid ones dues, he would have a fair shot at earning a high paying job at a major airline. **********************Edited to change the previous sentence to the following. In the past, it was reasonable to expect that once one had spent his time at a regional/commuter, he would have a fair shot at earning a high paying job at a major airline.
That situation is in serious question at the current time. As we speak, mainlines are shrinking and regionals are growing (except for wholly owneds). Why would any prudent person spend over $30K to buy into a position that pays less than $20K per year, and will not get better for the foreseeable future?

regards
8N
 
Last edited:
ERAU P-F-T

. . . . is really what it is. Go read the other thread for an exhaustive discussion of this "program."
 
Enigma,

Interesting post. I can't really disagree (not that I want to) with what you've said, but you have me thinking and I have some questions that maybe you or others will answer or comment about.

Re the term "ab-initio" --- you're right about the European application of the term. My question is this: Was the term "ab-initio" coined in Europe and then given a different meaning in the US or, was it conined in the US and given a different meaning by the Europeans? I may be wrong, but I think the latter is true.

No US carrier has ever had the "shortage" of pilots that caused the Europeans to develop their version of ab-initio programs and, to the best of my knowledge, no US carrier has ever conducted a European style program. Back in the 60's there was a short cycle of pilot "shortage" that resulted in a couple of US major airlines (there were no "regionals", in today's sense of the term back then) hiring pilots with very little flight experience.

I can think of United which, very briefly, hired some pilots who did not even have CPL's. They were private pilots, with very low flight time and were trained to CPL certification at the expense of UAL, then trained in the a/c and put on line. The program was successful and more than one of them retired as Captains and rose to positions of leadership at the national level in the ALPA.

Around the same time, ALPA was forcing a 3-man cockpit crew in the 737. UAL (the ALPA unit that is) "championed" this idea and, if I'm not mistaken, that's how these guys were initially used "gofers" in the JS of a 73.

Ab-initio in the US was always associated with "starting from scratch" to learn how to fly, in a quasi structured program. It was not airline oriented or airline funded, required no pre-screening of the "students", and was in no-way similar to the European sponsored airline programs. Sort of apples and oranges and two very different applications of the same coined term. I think that prevails today. Anyone care to comment or correct me?

Another thing I find interesting is the concept of "paying your dues". Where did that come from and who invented it and when? What does it really mean? Who says that a new commercial pilot has to "pay his dues" before he gets a decent job? Is that really necessary and if so why? How exactly does one "pay his dues' and how much is enough?

Does a military pilot, who joins the service, gets his training, quals as a fighter jock, serves a minimum tour and then leaves, (with about 1500 or fewer hours in fighters) and goes directly to a major airline pilot position "pay his dues"? If so when and how?

Since airlines don't fly fighters and the training and "hot-shot" attitude of a fighter pilot, is quite different from that of an airline operation, why is this guy a "better candidate" or "better qualified" than a civilian pilot with double the flight hours in civil aircraft? Is the military training really that better or does this guy get the job because most of the pilots at the hiring major airline are also former military pilots? Again, where did this pilot "pay his dues"?

BTW, I happen to be a former military pilot with both fighter and multi-engine training, so please don't accuse me of being anti-military.

Speaking only for myself, when I left the military I had about 2200 total hours. Just over 1000 of those hours was in a 4-engine transport quite popular with airlines. The rest was in jet fighters and other smaller twins. I also had some civilian hours acquired prior to joining the military (not many).

When I left the military and tried to get an airline job, the timing was poor and there was very little hiring. I did get a couple of interviews, but when I got to meet the decision making pilots (HR wasn't it back then), they didn't hesitate to tell me that I didn't have enough experience and should get some, then try again. I don't remember anyone saying anything about "paying my dues", and it never ocurred to me that I had or had not. I knew that I was a "tiger" and the "world's best pilot" (the AirForce convinced me of that) and was quite surprised to discover that I was the ONLY one who knew that. I didn't get hired and wound up working for a foreign carrier in another country.

What makes today's military pilot believe that he has some sort of "entitlement" to a major airline job that is superior to that of a civilian pilot? Is it because he's paid more "dues" and if so, how and why?

How does a flight instructor, with 3000 hours in the traffic pattern in a 172, come to have "paid his dues"? as opposed to a 1500 hour civilian pilot that's been flying all night, in all sorts of weather, in some beat-up light twin, single pilot, carrying checks or boxes for the last 1000 hours who hasn't "paid his dues"?

How does a guy who gets hired in the right seat of a King Air at an air taxi, logs 1200/200 hrs total "pay his dues"? As opposed to a guy who goes to a "airline training program", gets 500 hours and is hired into the right seat of an RJ, "pay his dues"?

Why are some "dues" apparently more valuable than other "dues" and who says which is which and why do we accept any of that stuff?

My point is that I think this "pay your dues" stuff is basically BS, invented by people who want to be chosen themselves in preference to others. Isn't it really all meaningless?

Why do I (today) see so many very green pilots seeking employment in their first airline job, asking "how long will I be on reserve" and "what's the upgrade time"? They barely know how to keep the airplane right side up, yet expect to be "captains" over-night when in reality, they have no clue as to what being an airline Captain really means. IMO, they ought to be d@mned happy that they can get ANY job and consider themselves super lucky if they CAN'T upgrade over-night. But, what do I know?

Why will one airline "upgrade" you to captain of a jet, with virtually no experience, while another won't let you touch it with a 20-foot pole?

I'm just rambling along, but these are questions, mostly unanswered, that go through my head from time to time.

Now I'd like to see how some other folks think. What answers do you have? Go ahead and "flame" me if you want, it doesn't matter. I'd just like to see how you all think and it doesn't matter to me if you fly a 74 or a 152 or an F-15. Bring it on.
 
Ab initio is latin. Literally translated it means from the beginning. I guess you could assume this means one would have zero experience or training prior to starting this program
 
Many of the questions that Surplus1 has raise are interesting. But, it seems that they are rhetorical questions that lead me to believe that he thinks that PFT is o.k. It is not.

1. European Ab-Initio has both PFT and non-PFT qualities. In either case, you are guaranteed the job if you successfully complete the course. The non-PFT programs are similar to "scholarship" programs here in the U.S. and are often paid for by the governments themselves (since higher education is free in many European countries). In the U.S., there is both a flight school approach (accelerated training with a "in" at some hiring departments), and a classic PFT which is a airline program that make you pay directly for airline and type specific training. The latter is still around but not as prevailent as it was a decade ago.

2."Paying ones dues" is a misnomer. Rather than talking about "paying ones dues", it is much easier to assess a value to those who have built quality experience. Those who have taken the time or have been lucky enough to build a portfolio of quality experience tend to have spent more time in the "trenches", so to speak. Therefore, those with certain types of prior experience are inherently better employee candidates than others. Naturally, low-timers are less desirable candidates than those with experience.

3. You go through a litany of various pathways of career progression and ask how each one is "paying ones dues?" Well, you are correct in asserting that it is difficult to place a value on "dues", but it is very simple to place a value on the quality of flying experience we each bring to the table. I will not go through each of the ones you have describe because it is very easy to come to the conclusion that low-time "wonder boys" who have bought their jobs are inherently less desirable candidates than you or me, except for financial considerations.

4. Those that truly are responsible for making the decision about desirability in hiring is ultimately the decision of the company. You can learn a lot about a company and the way it intends on treating its employees by the way it values the quality of experience of each potential candidates. Good companies hire those with experience. Bad companies "hire" PFT'ers and those willing to work for free. Its that simple.

5. Is it all meaningless? Absolutely Not! PFT skews the marketplace in two ways: 1) The hiring of extremely low time pilots that PFT puts less qualified personnel in the cockpit over those that have a better portfolio of experience, which defies the laws of supply and demand, and in the end could be unsafe. 2) The hiring of PFT'ers undermines wages over the long term by slowly devaluing the profession.

6. There is a differance between the Accelerated Flight Training approach (ALL-ATPS or American Flyers, etc.) versus the classic airline type specific PFT with the latter being distructive to this industry. The first one is harmless since the student is only buying his/her ratings (there is value to having the ratings in hand). The second works to undermine this profession by BUYING ones job.
 
Re: ERAU P-F-T

bobbysamd said:
. . . . is really what it is. Go read the other thread for an exhaustive discussion of this "program."

I don't consider self funded ab initio PFT. Simply because PFT is a very specific situation where the employer requires one to buy a job. Employers were quite ingenious when the coined the term "PFT" because they wanted to muddy the water as much as possible, and confuse the issue; but their intent is clear. And that was to base a hiring decision upon an individuals ability to write a check, as opposed to basing the decision on qualifications.
Under PFT, a pilot could have a type rating in the aircraft and 10000 hours of 121 PIC in it, and still have to pay for his new-hire, right seat, check out. PFT was the direct result of the desire of certain pilots to shortcut their progession to the majors. Indeed, it worked for some; but its legacy is that airline management looks at most if not all lower level pilots as back-stabbing whores who will put up with anything to get into the cockpit.

Nobody ever promised that the world would be fair. If someone can afford to shortcut the normal civilian training process and do it all at once with ERAU I really have no substantive fairness based argument. Remember, I started this thread to call the ERAU "ab initio" program another way to "seperate a pilot from his money". I just want the wannabees to understand that ERAU's program is at best a questionable investment, especially at this time.

Further, If the ERAU program is linked to preferential hiring from some employer, then I would call that PFT, and I despise PFT as much as I think you do. If you don't, well I hate it anyway. But for as much as I dislike managements use of the practice, the ones to blame are the wannabees who write the check. I rail against PFT in an attempt to make a potentiall PFT'r realize that he may only be undercutting himself (and us) in the long run.
To quote my original post,
"Additionally, anyone thinking of this type of arrangement must consider the current state of the airline industry. In the past, it was reasonable to expect that once one paid ones dues, he would have a fair shot at earning a high paying job at a major airline. That situation is in serious question at the current time. As we speak, mainlines are shrinking and regionals are growing (except for wholly owneds). Why would any prudent person spend over $30K to buy into a position that pays less than $20K per year, and will not get better for the foreseeable future? "

I should clarify one point in that quote, I said that when one pays his dues, and what I should have said was, In the past, it was reasonable to expect that once one had spent his time at a regional/commuter, he would have a fair shot at earning a high paying job at a major airline.

Once again, my intent is to warn potential suckers, that this may not be the best time to spend a pot-load of money to get into this industry.

regards,
8N
 
Last edited:
Re: Enigma,

Surplus1, I'm way too scatter brained to keep up with all your points at once, but I'll try and respond semi-intelligently.

Before I begin I should address your comment about paying ones dues. I mis-spoke (mis-typed) when I wrote that in the begining post, and I didn't realize it until I was responding to bobbysamd. I should have said this: In the past, it was reasonable to expect that once one had spent his time at a regional/commuter, he would have a fair shot at earning a high paying job at a major airline.

Now to your points.

#1. Sorry, I don't have a clue who stole the term from who.

#2. About the US recognize definition of ab initio, you're probably correct.

#3. About the concept of paying ones dues. Again I didn't mean paying your dues in the original post. I don't know where the term came from, but here is my definition of "paying your dues". Paying your dues is the practice of gaining experience one step at a time. In paying ones dues one step at a time, one is afforded the chance to increase his knowledge/skills/decision making ability, at a pace that allows him to be successful at the next level. Paying my dues was what allowed me to go into DC9 upgrade training without a great deal of sweat because I already had hundreds of hours in a sim prior to the upgrade training and multiple 121 ground schools.
One has paid his dues when he is able to successfully move to the next higher level with a reasonable amount of instruction. Not the multiple "downs" that politically correct applicants are afforded.

#4. Under my definition of paying your dues, the military fighter jock has not paid his dues. However, it is generally acknowledged that zoomies are the best of the best, and as such they are not required to pay their dues. I have no idea why today's military pilots assume that a major airline job is somehow their entitlement. I'm not former military, so I'll leave it at that.


#5. No the 152 driver with 1500 hours in the pattern has not paid his dues for an airline job. He has paid his dues to get to the next level, probably that job flying boxes in a Caravan or Baron.

#6. I don't believe that the "dues" issue is meaningless. Especially if you look at "dues" as a minimum level of experience to move to the next level.

#7. You're right about guys looking for their first airline job and focusing on things like upgrade time. But that is just todays generation, to generalize. I actually believe that most young pilots are probably the best of the younger generation. I can only imagine what the average youth of today thinks he is entitled to. That's not actually true, I do know how unrealistic my teenager is.:)

regards,
8N

BTW, you must type fast.
 
A small point:

The people I've encountered who are mad as hell about pay-for-training (and other related programs) don't have much to say about people who, say, buy a 737 type so they can work for a particular mustard-colored airline. (I beg your pardon: mustard-under-sky-blue.)

A reminder:

With regard to the experience level of people coming out of ERAU, FlightSafety, etc. My father got hired (like many of you) between 1964 and 1969, one of the biggest hiring booms the industry had ever experienced. He stepped in the front door of Eastern Air Lines with three hundred hours. He was too young to hold a F/E ticket, so he went straight to the right seat of a Convair 440 and, later, the DC-8-61. Many of his fellow newhires had never flown all-metal airplanes before. This idea that in the past people had to "pay their dues" is a crock. It depends on the state of the industry at the time.

Finally:

If you have close to 10,000 hours flying checks, doing on-demand charters, instructing, cropdusting, or whatever, and the airlines still haven't hired you...it might be time to blame someone other than ERAU and FSI.
 
Typhoon1244 said:
A small point:

The people I've encountered who are mad as hell about pay-for-training (and other related programs) don't have much to say about people who, say, buy a 737 type so they can work for a particular mustard-colored airline. (I beg your pardon: mustard-under-sky-blue.)

That's because acquiring a type rating from whomever you choose is different than paying SWA for the job. Also, SWA doesn't require you to buy a type, they only require that you have one. Big difference. At a PFT airline, you could have types for all of the airplanes in their fleet, and you still have to write a check. Yes I went out and payed for my own type in order to try and overcome my ( then) lack of a bachelors degree. I didn't make it on to SWA, but I do have the type in my pocket and it did help me get the job I have now flying DC9's. Someone who PFT'd at COEX, for example, and didn't make it through the new hire program has nothing to show for his 12 grand. Big difference.


I realize that you didn't address the last statement directly at me, and it doesn't apply to me, but I've got one point to make about it anyway.
I don't blame FSI/ERAU, etc, for not working at a major. I blame them, and the people they fool into paying, for keep the pay low, and the work conditions bad in the regional industry.

regards,
8N
 
enigma said:
I realize that you didn't address the last statement directly at me, and it doesn't apply to me, but I've got one point to make about it anyway.
I don't blame FSI/ERAU, etc, for not working at a major. I blame them, and the people they fool into paying, for keep the pay low, and the work conditions bad in the regional industry.[/B]

You're right, I was not addressing you, or anyone, directly. (I guess I was using the royal "you.") My apologies if anyone took that personally.

And you're right about the effect PFT has had on the industry...but it is changing. Slowly, but it's changing. And the working condition aren't that bad, actually.

I do take offense to the idea that people are "fooled" into paying. I walked in with both eyes wide open. When you break it down, I shelled out $5.71 for every seniority number I currently have. Many of the guys I knew who wouldn't or couldn't pay are on furlough somewhere now. Are they better pilots than me, more deserving of my job? Maybe. Maybe not. Do the ends always justify the means? I would have to say "no." But I do feel very lucky.

Oh, you're also right about SWA. But are you telling me that they count on people who just happen to have 7-3 types? C'mon. There's a reason there are a hundred 737 type rating "mills" out there. And I think--again, I'm not talking about you, enigma--some of their customers are getting fooled.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top