New 'Bonza' LCC launches middle 2022 with B737 MAX

[The_Equaliser]

No. After pilots course off to IFC, If successful then off to the bomber or fighter conversion course of about 6 months. Once that is done into a highly supervised and authorised Cat system that restricted operations and who you could be crewed with. No where near the same. Plus training all the way through is more thorough, intense and with a higher performance standard. MPL not so much. Are some here actually saying that unlike any job in the world an airline pilot job requires little experience or that experience is of no value?

[donpizmeov]

Originally Posted by The_Equaliser

No. After pilots course off to IFC, If successful then off to the bomber or fighter conversion course of about 6 months. Once that is done into a highly supervised and authorised Cat system that restricted operations and who you could be crewed with. No where near the same. Plus training all the way through is more thorough, intense and with a higher performance standard. MPL not so much. Are some here actually saying that unlike any job in the world an airline pilot job requires little experience or that experience is of no value?

Mark Fallon was 19 yrs old when he qualified on the F111. Was at 1 FTS when 22yrs old. And unfortunately did not come back from a mission when 24yrs on his second F111 tour.

It hasn't always been like now.

[Captn Rex Havack]

Great points Equaliser - one often hears quotes along the lines of 21 year old guys let loose in high powered twin engine fast jets. Must be remembered, and as a former RAAFie trash hauler, I hate to say it - the best off RAAF pilots course get selected for knucks. Once proven on the very intense pilot's course, they then go to a very, very intense intro fighter course, and then super intense and very long operational course, followed then by the Cat system. I know you said all this, but I just want to reiterate to those not in the know, a B Cat fast jet driver has slaved his guts out, been scrutinized very intensely and has to prove himself for quite a few years. They earn it. I got offered a shot at the Hornet as a re role in 1992 but said no. I was just too lazy, and I enjoyed just haulin' grunts and drinikin beer under a coconut tree. Oh.....and I don't think I was talented enough either.

[Captn Rex Havack]

Gday Don. I'm still lookin after your boy. Someone has to

[The Banjo]

Originally Posted by TBM-Legend

I recall well trained cadet pilots being let loose in Mach 2.5 flying machines that weighed the same as a fully loaded DC-9 at age 19 straight after wings awarded.

The difference is when the well trained Mach flyer punches in a cast of one dies which is a bit different to an airliner full of pax doing the same. Two quite different worlds where comparisons are largely meaningless.

[donpizmeov]

Originally Posted by Captn Rex Havack

Gday Don. I'm still lookin after your boy. Someone has to

Thanks mate. Just need to look after is dad now. : )

[donpizmeov]

Originally Posted by The Banjo

The difference is when the well trained Mach flyer punches in a cast of one dies which is a bit different to an airliner full of pax doing the same. Two quite different worlds where comparisons are largely meaningless.

Nah that's not the difference Banjo. One goes to work and has an exciting career. The other flies the same hour over and over 900 times a year.
Unfortunately a lot of the former don't understand this until they become the later.

Both have a cool view from the window though.

[cessnapete]

You don't have to have 1500 hours as in FAA land, or thousands of hours in GA land as Australia, or have been a Fast Jet ace, to be a competent and safe airline co pilot. For many years in Europe, (EasyJet/BA for example) 250 plus hour "Cadet Pilots" have gone straight into the RHS of B737/Airbus A320 family, on two pilot operations.
It's the selection and training that matter, not thousands of hours instructing in a C172 for example.
In my UK airline, after rigorous selection and after 200 hours or so in a flight trying school, attaining ATPL exams and an MEP I/R they started their airline careers.
Firstly a normal Type Rating technical and and Sim Course. Then Base Training on type covering all emergency ops required for two pilot crewing. (We don't employ partially trained S/O/Cruise pilots)
Then up to 50 line training sector's with training and supervisory Capts. When released to normal line operations they are then not rostered with new Capts. for the first 6 months. These "cadet pilots" have since carried out long safe careers, the first examples retiring as Concord and B747 Capts. for example.
Its the training not the hours that count.

[tossbag]

They really aren't.

Yes, I agree. There's a lot of admiration and awe attached to the profession, somewhat of a bygone era. But I'm under the impression that you said the profession of pilot was akin to a bus driver, then you stated that bus drivers have a great deal of responsibility and have been the subject of some horrific accidents and carry a great deal of responsibility, I think your messaging is somewhat confusing.
​

It's amusing to watch just how mad that reality makes the more deluded amongst you.

I think it's more the fact that these people are defending the profession that some would denigrate and try and liken to what some would class as menial jobs. Personally, I have a great deal of respect for anyone that steps into the driver seat of a bus. Any heavy vehicle for that matter. I recall doing an interstate drive while lockdowns were occurring and seeing tens of trucks on the roads, constant. It's those people that kept this country going in those times, thankless work. And yet some look down on them as mere 'bus drivers'

It's not my fault you've made this so entertaining.

Oh no, you sell yourself short. It's your self deprecation and humility, some would say, almost to the point of self loathing, that have turned this discussion into one of prunes great talking points, thanks to you there's a great deal of respect for opinions and just where the career of pilot stands in the community, well done, respect

[morno]

Education to do the job aside, perhaps let’s look at the more important details, such as the fact that we’re moving at close to 1,000km/h in a 70-250T machine, within an ever changing environment, where experience will be the driver between a good decision or a bad decision.

Plus the fact that we’re flying machines that cost between $20-500M, and the ease at which we can cost the company a lot of money extra per hour when bad decisions are made.

Perhaps that’s why we’re asking for some respect and decent pay Das.

I know I have a dig every now and then about Pilot pays, but farrrk me, you’ve taken the cake this time. Even I completely disagree with your attempt at justifying your position.

[maxter]

I think you will find how crew present is well down the list of current passengers perception of a professional airline. Getting to your destination on time including with your bag would rate just under number 1, the cheapest fare possible. Not having to be on hold to customer service for 5 hours and then find they cannot help would be up there as well. Cheapest, service, convenience are new society requirements probably along with some air-head influencers professional recommendation. I don't even think safety rates anymore in choice of airline. It is assumed all Australian airlines are as safe as each other.

[dr dre]

Originally Posted by cessnapete

You don't have to have 1500 hours as in FAA land, or thousands of hours in GA land as Australia, or have been a Fast Jet ace, to be a competent and safe airline co pilot. For many years in Europe, (EasyJet/BA for example) 250 plus hour "Cadet Pilots" have gone straight into the RHS of B737/Airbus A320 family, on two pilot operations.
It's the selection and training that matter, not thousands of hours instructing in a C172 for example.

It’s funny. You can search back through this forum’s posts over the last 20 years and find dozens of cadet bashing threads that have virtually the same arguments. “They’re unsafe”, “they’re useless in an emergency”, “they’re driving down wages”......

However we’ve had cadet programs in operation in Australia since the 60s, and the rest of the world bar the US and some other places virtually only use ab initio trained pilots, but no statistically significant patterns in pilot error caused accidents.

As for the “I’ve flown as PIC with cadets and non cadets and it’s clear the former are useless in an emergency”, how do you think Captains survive in the many large and well respected airlines where they basically only employ cadets? Two cadets in the same flight deck?? Planes should be spearing in constantly. But BA38 and UA178 pilots were cadets. AA965 and AA1420 were ex military.......

Anyway back to the original point of the thread. Upon further inspection of Bonza’s uniform launch I think a crisis has been averted. The female pilot used for the launch is not wearing white sneakers, but a pair of normal black leather shoes. So at least pilots seem to have a choice to not wear those footwear abominations.

[lucille]

Originally Posted by Gnadenburg

All this was this century! We are dumbing down the job to keep wages low.

The manufacturers and the cost conscious airlines are to blame, but not just cost cutting… safety too has improved..an easy to fly aircraft is safer, the environment and infrastructure is also markedly easier to use.

Dumbing it down so that they can use someone with say 6 weeks training to sit alone in a cockpit of what is effectively a UAV with 300 passengers is the inevitable end. And that very same button pusher can also help clean up the cabin post flight. This is the future of the pilot”profession”.

The cartoon below always brings a smile to my face when I endure one of those “did we just land or were we shot down” arrivals which seem to occur with alarming frequency.



Replace RyanAir with the LCA of your choice.

[dr dre]

Originally Posted by lucille

Replace RyanAir with the LCA of your choice.

We all love to bash Ryanair huh......

Almost double the fleet size of the total Australian domestic airline capacity, operate in more congested airspace, in a more challenging human environment (multiple cultures and first languages amongst crew, ATC and ground staff), in an environment with a real winter full of snow and ice and a real mountain range (the Alps) running through the continent. They fly to some challenging airports (Madeira, Skiathos). IMO a more difficult operating environment than Australia.

And they’ve operated in that environment without a hull loss or fatality due pilot error (only one hull loss due severe birdstrikes). They do all of this mostly with 200 hour F/O’s and then promotions to Captain after having several years experience as an F/O.

[SHVC]

Originally Posted by dr dre

We all love to bash Ryanair huh......

Almost double the fleet size of the total Australian domestic airline capacity, operate in more congested airspace, in a more challenging human environment (multiple cultures and first languages amongst crew, ATC and ground staff), in an environment with a real winter full of snow and ice. Fly to some challenging airports (Madeira, Skiathos). IMO in a more difficult operating environment than Australia.

And they’ve operated in that environment without a hull loss or fatality due pilot error (only one hull loss due severe birdstrikes). They do all of this mostly with 200 hour F/O’s and then promotions to Captain after having several years experience as an F/O.

You forgot to mention, all in a B737.

[dr dre]

Originally Posted by SHVC

You forgot to mention, all in a B737.

Oh yeah. Can you imagine a 200 hour ab initio pilot in the right seat with a Captain with maybe only 4000 hours TT and 5 years professional experience taking 189 passengers behind them into an Alps ringed airport like Salzburg or Innsbruck during a winter storm? You don’t need to imagine because Ryanair and every other Euro carrier does it daily without needing Austronaughts in the flight deck.

[Australopithecus]

And a quick review of the plate tells you that you don’t do it in the middle of a winter storm period.

Anyway, off to have lunch with my medical student nephew. He's in second year and already assigned to clinical duties. Let that be a lesson to all you cadets…you are no better than a filthy scum doctor.

[Gnadenburg]

Originally Posted by TBM-Legend

I recall well trained cadet pilots being let loose in Mach 2.5 flying machines that weighed the same as a fully loaded DC-9 at age 19 straight after wings awarded.

These are the ridiculous statements that draw me back into the perennial cadet-value debate. I have no problems with a well trained cadet pilot programme. However, in my experience, the training is slashed leaving cadets ineffective crew members until they can scrape enough line experience to do the job.

The supersonic teenager examples are churlish now and always have been and will be. The resources to get the Mark Fallons RIP of the world and the small number who followed are extensive and impossible to replicate in the civilian world. I did fly with Eastern Bloc airline cadets that had military like investment in their cadet programmes however these schemes long gone as are the Communist-bloc airlines.

So for the supersonic teenager you have a class of 30 say. 15 are scrubbed. A few are suitable for fighters of which another few are scrubbed and you now have a fast jet pilot who still isn’t ready for the job. An absurd comparison.

It’s not going to go away so let’s consider a weighted comparison to a civilian cadet program? If all you wanted to do was fly an F35 or Super Hornet from A to B, with a high level of instrument competency being able to manage an abnormal, it wouldn’t take long and probably the same time as a civilian cadet.

The truth behind cadet programs I’ve seen is you have a very extensive and fat training system. A budget of 150K of training slowly gets razored to under 100K as segments of the program deemed unnecessary. In a rapidly expanding airline where commands possible within 5 years it’s a scramble to get these cadets to command standard. The shortcuts in their original training leaves substantial gaps in civilian command training which is rarely good enough to spoon feed or closely guide the level of organisational training you may get in the military.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Originally Posted by dr dre

And they’ve operated in that environment without a hull loss or fatality due pilot error (only one hull loss due severe birdstrikes). They do all of this mostly with 200 hour F/O’s and then promotions to Captain after having several years experience as an F/O.

So how do you know they've done that safely? Do you know what risk the passengers have been exposed to? How many near misses have RYR had?

Papering over the cracks of a teetering or weak SMS by pointing to the hull loss record makes me think of management who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. I'm not suggesting there is a problem at Ryanair, just that the basis of your argument is flawed.

[dr dre]

Originally Posted by Chronic Snoozer

So how do you know they've done that safely? Do you know what risk the passengers have been exposed to? How many near misses have RYR had?

Papering over the cracks of a teetering or weak SMS by pointing to the hull loss record makes me think of management who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. I'm not suggesting there is a problem at Ryanair, just that the basis of your argument is flawed.

To know that answer fully one would have to be intimately involved over the long term with both the ab initio, commercial, instrument, multicrew and then airline endorsement, recurrent and command training with a range of airlines that hired pilots from different backgrounds and also have hard statistical data to objectively evaluate outcomes from differing pilot backgrounds. And also have knowledge of different SMS’s and how they adapt to differing backgrounds.

As none of us would have access to such data we go mostly off anecdotal experience, and then there’s such a wide range of opinions there.

But.......

I would say the object of airline safety is to provide relatively safe outcomes and very few incident per flight as can be. Now if we look at Ryanair we can see an airline that has mostly employed low houred ab-initio cadets and has had outcomes equal to or better than Australian carriers, who employ pilots from a range of backgrounds, both cadet and not.

Now you could say that RY not having a hull loss is a fluke, and they may still have a poor SMS. But then add in all the other EU carriers, LH, BA, KLM, IB, SAS, Wizz, Easyjet etc among many other who mostly or totally employ low houred cadets. Now you’re looking at a total fleet size and pilot group many times larger than Australia and we’re not seeing endemic issues.

You can try to argue the differences in outcome from cadets vs a non cadets, but with global aviation being relatively so safe you’re really arguing semantics.