How much would you pay for your training ?

[Picklebutton]

Once again, I thank you for your comments.

I don't believe that there would be a full pay to train scenario. As already highlighted, there are many steps to becoming a Driver. I wouldn't like to see manual handling done under sterile conditions on a 'test track' that's for sure.

Rules are something that can be done wholly within the classroom. Rules are something that are also a recognised national standard. The Rulebook split a few years back to have a standard set of rules for everyone and then TOCs have a bespoke additional set of rules. The potential is there to take this to the next step.



What makes you believe that pay to play would override the standards ? Do you believe it would become money talks ? As I just posted in another thread. Trainees do not always make the grade. Are you suggesting that 'pay to play' also becomes 'pay till you pass' ? Would you accept that pay till you pass still means that the candidate has met the minimum standard. It may have taken them longer but they still met the required standard ?

I don’t think people get the idea that if you have to repeatedly take a test it might mean that the job’s not really for you. Some just wouldn’t want to admit that and will flog the assessment until they finally parrot fashion their way through it.

If that was equated into a doctor having done the same thing in order to qualify, would someone feel safe being treated by them? Unlikely, because it shows that their is something missing in that doctor’s approach or ability that would manifest itself in the job too.

 

[Horizon22]

Maybe 2-3K, which wouldn't necessarily be paid until you are a qualified driver and then deducted out of your salary. AFAIK there are multiple ways to do pilot training going from complete self-funding to the most coveted way of landing a job and having that cost then included your salary / pay back.

 

[Horizon22]

So I’ve been a “commercial pilot” for about 12 years. I did not pay for my training as there is no way on earth I would have ever been able to find the spare £100k to fund the course and required add-ons. Even the semi sponsored schemes in the U.K. require you to take out a secured loan against a property. Risky business.

I was lucky enough to get into a fully paid up course. One of the very few such courses that existed then. I suppose I paid in some amount in the form of a slightly reduced wage for the first five years but given the alternative ways pilots are required to fund their own training it was still far better.

Simply put I was able to get sponsored because I showed the aptitude for the role and our of a huge candidate pool I was (on the day I hasten to add I’m not special) the best candidate. Had that sponsorship not existed I would never have been a pilot.

It’s a slippery slope and now not only do airlines generally only hire qualified pilots they also expect you to self fund a type rating (another £16k), and as an ab initio quite likely fund some of your own initial line training. The whole process takes years and in that time you’re making very little money, if any, whilst paying out tens of thousands. To say it isn’t very egalitarian would be an understatement. It is not a system that favours the best candidates but the candidates that can pay.

It is also a system that has led to a real drop in terms and conditions as people become more and more willing to pay for their dream. Not realising perhaps that commercial flying isn’t quite what they expect.

I’m now pursuing a career on the railways. I love flying planes but the industry is not the same as it once once, and I have to admit to a long term love affair with rail travel. Not a spotter per se but a fan of rail as an environmentally friendly, engineering heavy means of travel.

I would be disheartened if the railway followed the same path as my current industry as I do not think it produces the best candidates or the best working environment for its employees.

On this point I suppose this also has the drawback of not creating a particularly diverse pool of pilots as it is "pay to train".

 

[Economist]

I was lucky enough to get into a fully paid up course. One of the very few such courses that existed then. I suppose I paid in some amount in the form of a slightly reduced wage for the first five years but given the alternative ways pilots are required to fund their own training it was still far better.

Simply put I was able to get sponsored because I showed the aptitude for the role and our of a huge candidate pool I was (on the day I hasten to add I’m not special) the best candidate. Had that sponsorship not existed I would never have been a pilot.

There was a period about five years ago when Aer Lingus and West Atlantic fully funded training in the UK/Eire and BA and Virgin Atlantic acted as loan guarantors and I hoped that things had turned a corner but last year only Aer Lingus and Bristow advertised sponsored courses. I think that by this time last year, Aer Lingus was one of the few airlines left which had not significantly cut T&Cs over the years, even then the pension isn't what it was. The European flag carriers and North American majors still seemed to have decent unions too.

I suspect there will be many commercial pilots seriously looking at switching to the train driving world, whilst I'm sure most would be very capable at the train driving role, it's sad to see how the airline industry T&Cs have declined. The good old days of the Corporations at Hamble, plus loads of sponsored courses at Hamble and Prestwick have long gone. It may well be the case that former commercial pilots become as numerous as the ex-coppers and ex-forces that are prevalent in the driving grade.

 

[Mattydo]

I suspect there will be many commercial pilots seriously looking at switching to the train driving world, whilst I'm sure most would be very capable at the train driving role, it's sad to see how the airline industry T&Cs have declined. The good old days of the Corporations at Hamble, plus loads of sponsored courses at Hamble and Prestwick have long gone. It may well be the case that former commercial pilots become as numerous as the ex-coppers and ex-forces that are prevalent in the driving grade.

I think you may be right. Actually my contract is pretty good and the mass redundancies at my company seem to have fallen below my point on the seniority list. My plans of a career change preceded the current industry crisis and were driven by lifestyle change and a longstanding personal interest in the driver grade, however, many of my friends less fortunate or now feeling more vulnerable have certainly expressed an interest in the railway in general. More through hoping to find something not quite so prone to the boom and bust of commercial flying.

I think a vast array of the non technical skills are adaptable and, for me at least, the opportunity to join an industry of interest. Pilots, and I’m sure train drivers, seem to be naturally drawn to all things engineering based.

On the one hand you could argue that given the massive initial financial outlay, the lack of job security or even particularly big pay reward that only enthusiastic individuals enter into flight training these days, but given that outlay, just as many capable individuals are prevented from trying.

The number of full rides out there now is probably zero except for some nationalisation schemes . When I joined there were incredibly few and I felt incredibly lucky.

I think it would be sad to see the train driver role restricted to those who could afford to try out. And I say that as someone who could possibly afford to self fund now. I got a break based on ability and I think all safety critical roles should work that way really.

Moreover it seems like a number of TOCs already have training bonds and/or staggered wages for the first few years as a way to recoup training costs. When university fees seemed to be inevitable I was an advocate of a graduate tax before up front costs, and I believe the same for vocational training such as this would be preferable from a equal access point of view. However I’m not sure either is necessary as market forces dictate wages generally.

 

[Mattydo]

On this point I suppose this also has the drawback of not creating a particularly diverse pool of pilots as it is "pay to train".

Yes and no but there is a reason BA pilots are often referred to as the “Nigel’s”

I have been often struck by the diversity and friendliness of people working in the rail industry. In comparison we may look a little WASPish.

 

[Timpg]

As I single earner of a house hold of 4...
I certainly would not be in for any chance of becoming a train driver if we had to pay for the training in advance!
with a young family to support I simply wouldn’t be able to afford the thousands it would likely cost.
obviously the way training and recruitment is now has benefited me, I’m just and average joe, came from a railway background but never thought I’d be in this position. Every day I wake up and pinch myself to see if it’s all been a dream!
the point I’m making is that, the way it is now gives everyone and anyone a chance.
true dreams can become reality

 

[tiptoptaff]

To a degree, those of us who's TOCs pay a reduced salary in our first two or three years qualified are already paying for our training to an extent. The reduced salary off-setting the cost of training. At my TOC, I'll be paid a total of around £20000 less than colleagues on full rate across the two years. That's a sizeable chunk of the investment clawed back

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

To a degree, those of us who's TOCs pay a reduced salary in our first two or three years qualified are already paying for our training to an extent. The reduced salary off-setting the cost of training. At my TOC, I'll be paid a total of around £20000 less than colleagues on full rate across the two years. That's a sizeable chunk of the investment clawed back

That's about 20% of the cost of the training and probably reflects more the fact that until you qualify to drive 'solo' you're not doing economically useful work for the company.

 

[tiptoptaff]

That's about 20% of the cost of the training and probably reflects more the fact that until you qualify to drive 'solo' you're not doing economically useful work for the company.

That's post qualification - we have a reduced rate for two years post qualified. Which is what I was getting at

 

[Efini92]

The training should be paid for by the TOCS, having individuals pay for their own training would stop a lot of people being able to apply.
IIRC there was a company that proposed doing just that a few years ago, ASLEF said if any TOC employed people who had been trained by them, they would be in dispute with ASLEF

 

[TheVicLine]

it's free so...

 

[Class2ldn]

If I could have afforded to fly commercially, (I hold a PPL) I wouldn't be a train driver right now.

It kills me not to fly but I will always be grateful for the opportunity that I was given on the railway.

Yep I'm the same, I think if the aviation industry was free training like the railway then the influx would be massive, its already competitive even when you have to pay 100k.
If I had to pay to learn to drive a train I'd definitely be in a different career.
Sod that.

 

[L401CJF]

My contract includes the training funding agreement which quotes £9k for training ...and if leaving before 2nd year qualified they’d possibly seek to recoup around £5k from me ? Not sure how enforceable that would actually be but regardless they value the training fairly highly and expect s return on the investment? But subbing it out ... could they guarantee consistency ?

Stagecoach Bus operate a similar scheme for non license holders who need training up for a PSV license. They had us sign a "Training bond" paper to declare that if we left before 2 years we had to pay back x amount for training costs, the closer to the 2 year mark the less you pay back. I left after 2 years so didn't owe anything , a friend of mine left after a year and a half and he did receive a bill for about £500.

 

[43066]

Stagecoach Bus operate a similar scheme for non license holders who need training up for a PSV license. They had us sign a "Training bond" paper to declare that if we left before 2 years we had to pay back x amount for training costs, the closer to the 2 year mark the less you pay back. I left after 2 years so didn't owe anything , a friend of mine left after a year and a half and he did receive a bill for about £500.

My understanding of the way bus companies operate these schemes is that a separate, binding agreement is entered into re. the training bond, at the same time as the contract is signed. Thus you owe them a specific debt which can be recouped through deduction of wages or via the small claims court if you leave within a certain period. You might still be liable for the debt if you were fired due to misconduct or due to failing the training etc.

TOCs don’t do this. They simply bury a clause in the main employment contract, requiring you to repay an arbitrary amount if you leave, often up to three years after passing out. That is not enforceable, as they very well know, as they do not attempt to deduct the payments from wages etc, and drivers who fail training or are fired, are not asked to repay anything. It’s basically inserted purely as a way of scaring people into not leaving.

 

[baz962]

My understanding of the way bus companies operate these schemes is that a separate, binding agreement is entered into re. the training bond, at the same time as the contract is signed. Thus you owe them a specific debt which can be recouped through deduction of wages or via the small claims court if you leave within a certain period. You might still be liable for the debt if you were fired due to misconduct or due to failing the training etc.

TOCs don’t do this. They simply bury a clause in the main employment contract, requiring you to repay an arbitrary amount if you leave, often up to three years after passing out. That is not enforceable, as they very well know, as they do not attempt to deduct the payments from wages etc, and drivers who fail training or are fired, are not asked to repay anything. It’s basically inserted purely as a way of scaring people into not leaving.

Are they actually unenforceable , or do tocs just not bother. I have known of court cases where the judge has said , you were big enough to sign the contract , you are big enough to honour it . Although that wasn't for a toc. I sometimes wonder whether it is actually enforceable , but the companies decide it isn't worth the time or effort.

 

[43066]

Are they actually unenforceable , or do tocs just not bother. I have known of court cases where the judge has said , you were big enough to sign the contract , you are big enough to honour it . Although that wasn't for a toc. I sometimes wonder whether it is actually enforceable , but the companies decide it isn't worth the time or effort.

Best practice with these kinds of clauses is that, to be enforceable, they really need to be signed separately at the outset of the agreement, so that you’re fully aware of it, and tied to a specific amount - ie a genuine pre estimate of loss. You would also expect the clause to be enforced if you are fired from employment/fail the training, as well as if you resign (which makes sense, because the loss has still been incurred).

Bus companies (and other organisations) pretty much do it on this basis - an agreement will be signed at the outset, and the amount demanded will reflect a genuine estimate of the company’s costs of training. Companies that are serious about doing this make them watertight and can and do pursue people for the debt via debt collectors.

The way TOCs draft them, for much longer periods, and for arbitrary amounts, they’re *much* more likely to be unenforceable, either as a penalty clause, or a restraint of trade. As mentioned above, TOCs never seek to enforce them against those who are sacked, never make deductions from salary.

When I was about to resign from my last place I ran this exact point past a couple of employment lawyer mates, from my former life, and they agreed with the above position.

 

[Stigy]

No paper sift, no assessment, just the DMI and then Traction.

There would still be a paper sift, just arguably fewer applicants.

One would still have to apply for a job and get to the DMI stage (no doubt satisfying the competency based application form questions in a lot of cases). I agree it would make the process somewhat shorter and admittedly easier getting a job, but with no guarantee of a job ever materialising I’m not sure I’d be willing to pay for my own training. If it was the case that applicants had to pay for their own psychometric assessments, that’s probably where I’d draw the line if in that predicament. This is a bit like when the Police (certain forces) made those interested, complete a college course at their own expense. The course cost around £1,200 and once completed you’d get a Certificate in Knowledge of Policing (CKP) but no guarantee of a job. Even with the CKP applicants had to apply through the usual channels and pass medicals/vetting etc. If they didn’t meet the application criteria they were left with just a useless bit of paper.