problem with the industry?

[pre3sg]

Hello everyone,

After browsing the forums here on ‘pprune’ and speaking to a number of pilots it would seem that there is a particular problem that keeps coming up time and time again; people splashing out to pay for their fATPL to be left with no offers of a job and a formidable amount of debt, circa £60000. There are two main points that have been concerning me somewhat recently, with regards to this situation that so many people seem to be getting into:

Firstly, having researched a number of FTO’s when considering where to undertake my own commercial training it would seem that these organisations are doing what they can to encourage as many people to train with them as possible. I understand entirely that these organisations are, at the end of the day, business’s like any other, however this does seem somewhat, well, immoral.

Secondly, it appears that the general attitude of people in the industry is that this is a situation that you are simply going to have to accept – if you want to reach your goal of becoming a pilot then £60000 to £70000 of debt is the ‘norm’.

Perhaps I am missing something or perhaps I am simply being naïve, but why is nothing being done to overcome this situation? For example could there not be some legislation passed to regulate training through-put whilst there is a surplus of qualified pilots in Europe? When I read about people eventually declaring themselves bankrupted after paying for there own training I can’t help but feel that this is a very serious situation that an unacceptable amount of people are getting themselves into and perhaps the powers that be (in legislative bodies such as the CAA) are either ignorant of the situation or simply do not appreciate the magnitude of it.

Any feedback will be gratefully received,

Scott.

[strafer]

Hello Scott,
Short answer - yes you are being slightly naive. For one, the CAA is not a legislative body. Also, unlike the FAA, it has no charter to encourage aviation, simply regulate it. The pilot community in this country is also far too small to have a the ear of any politicians who could change things. (That goes for GA even more than commercial aviation)

It's market forces which determine the cost of your frozen ATPL. The only thing that will bring the cost down is a surplus on the demand side. Fair? No not really, but then life isn't. Also, the words business and morals do not belong in the same sentence! All FTO's exist for one reason, to make a profit from giving you flight training. It's only consumer pressure that reins in the worst excesses (ie getting slagged off on pprune!).

If you're going bankrupt because you haven't got that well paid jet job straight after your MCC, then you are foolish. However, not every path to that job is to be straight out of school with £60g of debt. There are other ways - non-jet flying (including other countries) and most attainable - modular training as and when you can afford it. Some people will never make it. Self knowledge is important.

That and having a plan B!

Good luck anyway....

[smith]

What happens if you want to do an IR purely for recreational purposes and you turn up at the FTO and you get a big fat "Sorry son, legislation says that this years quota of Professioal licences has been reached!"

The number of people with psychology degrees I know who do not work as psychologists is phenomenal yet I don't think government legislation would limit numbers at university.

Just think of the VAT and income tax the government would lose if they restricted the number of licenses per year and the number of job losses for instructors! (not huge probably in financial terms, but still a burden on society).

To be considering taking these licenses you must be a reasonably intelligent person, so you know what your getting into. Yes its a risk.

If your idea was to be taken on, what would the selection criteria be? Aptitude or Bank Balance?

[FlyingForFun]

You asked about the "problem with the industry".

I suggest that there is no problem, at least not as far as any of the major players are concerned. Airlines have no problems finding employees to work for them (and in some cases pay for further training). Flying schools have no problems getting customers.

The only people who may perceive there to be a problem are the potential pilots who have trouble raising the necessary amount of money. There is a very simply solution for these people - don't fork out for the training, find another career instead. This will not cause any problems for the airlines (who will still have plenty of potential employees) nor for the flying schools (who will still have plenty of customers).

The only way this will change is if there is a shortage of pilots, such that the flying schools or, more likely, the airlines start experiencing problems because of the lack of new pilots.

Is this system ideal? No. Is it the best way of organising training? No. But since there is no big problem for any of the big players, it's extremely unlikely to change.

FFF
-------------

[paco]

As long as the school doesn't promise any jobs after graduation, I see no problem with schools training as many people as they can. The debt is larger, but you are otherwise no worse off than most graduates from most universities these days.

Phil

[Nimbus5]

I disagree somewhat with Strafer's assertion that morals and business don't go together. No business can stay in business very long if they are violating the expected ethical standards held by their customers or the laws of the land. I just don't see this as a moral issue, particularly for the flight training schools.

Concerning flight schools doing all they can to "encourage as many people to train with them as possible" I must ask what planet are you from. This is what businesses do and you should be glad some are willing to enter the market. Market forces will keep the supply and demand fairly balanced, meaning some schools will liquidate when demand shrinks. The best thing you can do is choose one that has enough students they are not in danger of liquidating while they have your advance payment!

The FTOs don't demand anyone borrow money to pay for the training, though some help with the loan process itself. The banks don't hold a gun to anyone's head saying "sign the papers." The decision both to train and to borrow are the individual's decision. The bank's don't take it lightly either as loan officers are accountable for bad debt. Frankly, British banks are quite risk averse and not loose with the pruse strings, so these loans are not all that easy to get.

I've never heard of an FTO giving job guarantees. Even sponsorship schemes give conditional job offers, meaning the job might not be there at the end.

The general attitude in the industry is that it costs upwards of £60,000 to train for an ATPL on an Integrated course and upwards of £40,000 to train on a Modular course. I don't think there is an attitude that says you have to borrow the money to pay for it. Again, the debt decision is yours, not the industry's.

Finally, regulation of industry has been a colossal failure almost every time it has been attempted. Your proposal to regulate a non-existent problem is not only naive, but completely unworkable. It is a bit naive to think there is a surplus of qualified pilots. There may be a surplus of people with licenses, but if the airlines thought they were qualified, they would hire them. Again, market forces are at play. Essentially what you are saying is you'd like to force the airlines to hire license holders they have determined are less desirable, simply because you feel sorry those license holders have debt.

[scroggs]

Flying schools and TRTOs supply a service, period. They do so because the demand is there from their customers - that's YOU, not the airlines. If no-one wanted or could afford to be trained as a commercial pilot, then the 'industry' (the airline industry, not the training industry) would do something about it. As it happens, there are far more of you guys with access to these tens of thousands of pounds than the training industry knows what to do with - except that they know not to look a gift horse in the mouth, and will accept your cash with grateful, if slightly grubby, hands.

The airline industry, presented with an ever-increasing glut of newly-trained (and not yet poor) fATPLs responds as any market would: it puts up filters to control the numbers coming in. Those filters used to be based on ability: aptitude and other qualitative testing. Now the filters are financial: you pay for type ratings and, in the extreme case of Ryanair and one or two others, you effectively pay to work for your first couple of years. And still the applications flood in!

It's as well the flying public doesn't know how gullible, credulous, naive and over-burdened with money (in other words, stupid) a significant proportion of wannabes are! They'd think twice about flying with many of you...

As for expecting anyone to control this situation, dream on.

Scroggs

[wbryce]

£60000 to £70000 of debt is the ‘norm’.

Not necessarily...Many students work for a living and pay a large amount of their training costs while employed (like me). When training modular you could complete the course in £45,000 with a large amount of that already paid.

I don't think there is an attitude that says you have to borrow the money to pay for it. Again, the debt decision is yours, not the industry's.

Completely agree with this comment!

[strafer]

Nimbus, I think we're pretty much on the same page, but No business can stay in business very long if they are violating the expected ethical standards held by their customers or the laws of the land - that's a business reason rather than a moralistic one. I not saying all FTOs (or other businesses) are intrinsically evil - just that they exist, or not, purely in business terms.

[Send Clowns]

£60,000? My debt is considerably lower than that, even with an FI rating and a fair amount of extra flying.

There might be an excess of pilots. However there are a lot of jobs out there, and most of the people I know who have the right qualities to get work (dedication, good attitude to flying, personality etc.) are getting jobs, and being interviewed for jobs.

In some areas pilot supply is a problem - for example there is now a distinct lack of instructors, and the light charter industry struggles to keep pilots qualified for single-pilot IFR and there is a lack of multi-crew captains. In some restricted scheme where would their replacements come from? While there are too many people who want to help drive a jet, there is a lack of people with the same qualifications plus additional skills who want to actually fly aeroplanes!

I would also deny that all FTOs exist purely in business terms. They do need to make money, but like many areas of industry there is variety in attitude to the balance between making money and serving customers. This affects the atmosphere in a company, and if you get to know the industry well you will find that the companies that put lower priority on pure profit have a much friendlier feel, and the instructors get a good relationship with students, are genuinely pleased for the students when they pass exams and flight tests, and when they get a job.

There is often a strongly ethical attitude out there in the industry, you are probably looking at the wrong companies!

[TailendCharlie]

At the end of the day businesses exist to take advantage of opportunities to make money. If there is significant demand for their services they will continue to advertise/market themselves accordingly. FTO's are no different from any other business in that respect. As such the demand from prospective wannabe pilots will continue to encourage them to push their training services. There are plenty of other industries where demand for jobs oustrips supply. Advertising/Investment banking/Law to name but a few. That does not stop thousands of graduates/school leavers applying each year for what is normally a double digit intake. The bottom line is that flying for a career is a popular attraction for many and consequently very competitive. It's up to the prospective trainee to do as much research as they can and then make an informed decision on whether or not they want to proceed. Some people probably make the decision too quickly before weighing up all the pros and cons. If that is the case then the FTO is not really to blame.

[blueplume]

Get into flying because you like the idea of leaving the ground, the sensation of being above the clouds, whatever reason you like but don't do it for the money, ever. If you make money that's great but don't expect to even if it's highly likely. That way you will never be disappointed when you make less than you thought you would. Treat it as a paid hobby if you find an employer and learn to carry on enjoying it. If you enjoy it you will do better.
As Scroggs says, if you think you can control the industry you are wrong. The only thing we can control is whether or not we enjoy it. Get out when you don't enjoy it any more. That goes for PPLs as well as CPLs. Have a plan B. Commercial pilots who find themselves in too deep and can't pull out (as the actress said to the bishop) are up the creek. Many will do anything for money. How the industry loves them.

[pre3sg]

Thank you for all your replies – some very valid points indeed. However I feel that perhaps I did not express my own point clearly enough to begin with:

Firstly, there are swarms of us wannabe’s (or idiots as Scroggs so kindly refers to us) who will always be only too happy to walk through the door of an FTO and fork out for training after looking through the nice shiny brochures that they produce and seeing all of the encouraging (seemingly) statistics about how many jobs there are and how well all there graduates do etc etc.

Secondly, the FTO’s will always accept these wannabe’s (or their money at least) with open arms and I don’t think that it is unrealistic to say that the primary goal of any FTO is to make profit, regardless of the end effect on the little guy (i.e. the wannabe). These are not public institutions after all and they exist to make money for the people who own them (I would like to stress here that I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with this in itself – capitalism works).

My suggestion with regards to regulation of pilot throughput was just that – a suggestion. In fact it was more of a crude example than anything else – I was simply trying to articulate my overall point that perhaps something could be done to regulate or change the current situation. What this could possibly be I do not know – I do not understand economics or politics or the legal system in this country well enough to produce a complete and infallible solution, however I am only too sure that there must be people out there a hell of a lot cleverer than I am who could do something to better the system as it currently stands.

I do not think it can be denied that there lies a potential problem for little guy here, as I have already described (being left with heap loads of debt and unemployed).

I also think that some of the replies here seem to give evidence to a point that I made in my initial post that there is an attitude amongst pilot’s that ‘this is the way things are and that’s that, like it or lump it.’ Why? Why put up with a system that has these obvious risks and simply accept them?

In summary, what I really want to know is, do people genuinely feel that there is absolutely nothing that could be done to change the current system for the better, or atleast to offer some sort of protection for the individuals (wannabe’s) who have very little power within the industry?

Cheers guys,

Scott.

P.S - "Essentially what you are saying is you'd like to force the airlines to hire license holders they have determined are less desirable, simply because you feel sorry those license holders have debt." Nimbus - I appreciate your commets but I have said what I mean, there is no need to read between the lines, so please do not put words in my mouth.

[180 Too Fower]

pre3sg....To answer you last point, the Industry has been RUINED by a select few "Wannabes" with rich parents who after there basic training forked out for type ratings, thereby setting a trend for all (those with rich parents) to follow:* .....and it's getting worse by desperado "Wannabes" even working for that Airline for just Flight Pay:* ....the Airline Accountants must think :mad: idiots:E
This is a great shame as there are others not so fortunate to have access to such funding but plough on regardless and get into debt:{ I think there is a lot of "Mileage" in saying there are a lot of Idiots out there:}
Think very hard.
18024

[scroggs]

The only way the system could be changed in an attempt to achieve the effects you desire are by instituting a National College of Aviation and by outlawing all UK speculative commercial training schools. However, as we are part of the EU, graduates of any JAA schools in Europe would be entitled (as they are now) to apply for any jobs available in UK. The airlines may not discriminate in favour of UK applicants, so we would find a greater proportion of UK-based jobs going to non-UK graduates. Naturally, those UK wannabes who couldn't get into the NCA would take their money to the plethora of schools that would inevitably spring up in other EU countries in the hope of bypassing the system.

What would all this achieve? The closing down of several dozen legitimate businesses in UK and the increase in cost to UK wannabes who couldn't get into the NCA. However, you could have a centre of excellence that all schools could aspire to; however, that would depend on how it was funded.

What other ways could be tried? I'm not sure, really. If you attempt any legislative remedy that only applies to UK students or airlines, you'll force people to go elsewhere. If you attempt an EU-wide legislation, you are effectively advocating a return to centralised, government-controlled training which, by definition, would we unwieldy and slow to respond to fluctuations in the market. It won't happen; we've been there (in the days of nationlised airlines' own schools, and reliance on the military for the rest) and and it would not work in today's circumstances.

I would love to be able to force airlines to make greater efforts to predict their pilot requirements over the medium term, and to contribute towards a training system that provided the majority of that demand. I just don't think it could work; airlines' (and governments') predictive powers are bloody appalling, and they will do everything they can to avoid unnecessary expense. Nor can you force the schools in the open market to stick to a certain proportion of the overall pilot supply cake - market share is what they all fight for, and they will not appreciate that market being manipulated by legislators.

One thing we could do ('we' as in the JAA countries) is to make it compulsory for all training to be to a common level, as well as a common standard. Say to MCC. However, that might mean the end of modular training. Then make it compulsory for all airlines to be financially responsible for all training thereafter - though that would inevitably mean a deterioration in initial salaries for new pilots, and would not necessarily get rid of the pay-to-fly brigade.

Scroggs

[RVR800]

This whole industry is Provider Driven. The pilots trainees and the general public are never consulted. If you look at the JAA website they are currently looking at changing what they have admitted is a 'none accessible' IR so inaccessible in fact that loads of JAA folk are now doing the FAA IR instaed of the JAA IR

So the solution - lets go and speak to the training providers who say "oh I think the training is of the right length, and the IMC rating cant be rolled out in Europe" - WELL WHAT A SURPRISE !!!!!!!

Its like leaving the butchers dog in change of the shop!!!! Why dont they speak to the pilots with FAA IR to understand the problem...?

If the CAA really wanted to help they could present meaningful statistics on Pilot progression.
The reason they dont is painfully clear by reading these forums; they dont want to upset the revenue streams.....