PDA

View Full Version : Warnings to wannabee pilots in the Aviation Mags


goatface
10th Oct 2009, 18:20
Another thread currently running demonstrates, yet again, that anyone learning to fly, should never hand over cash in advance to pay for their training, no matter how lucrative the offer may be, unless they pay by credit card or use a regulated bank loan.

In this particular instance, the sums of money lost by decent and honest people to smooth talking crooks and charletons is relatively low, but more often than that, it is in the thousands.

It happens every year, several times a year and, to be frank it makes the flying training industry look like a bunch of complete and utter amateurs, unable to regulate themselves and difficult to trust.

I don't know if its a legal requirement for the magazine to say so, but all UK based magazines, from the basic up to Flight International always carry a warning in any recruitment page that it is illegal for any agency in the UK to ask for fees up front.

So my question is this;

Why don't all the UK based magazines publish a warning at the top of each page in which any flying training organisation advertises, that customers should never pay up front for block fees unless it is by credit card or regulated bank loan.
I am sure that they could come up with a more appropriate form of words, but if it was a mandatory agreement between themselves, they'd have nothing to worry about regarding loss of advertising revenue and the flying training industry maintaining some credibility.

I know that this forum is read by many of those Editors, so I'd be interested in your responses amongst many others.

Captain Stable
10th Oct 2009, 18:25
People should certainly be aware that there are charlatans out there.

However, there are also quite a few non-charlatans and reputable, long-lasting flying schools (the one for whom I instruct, for example :p:ok:) who offer a discount on fees paid in advance.

Admittedly, it is difficult for a newbie with no experience to decide on first sight whether he's talking to a shyster or a repuatable school owner, but should he NEVER pay a lump sum in advance?

BabyBear
10th Oct 2009, 18:53
I for one would not be in favour of such a move.

We currently have too many examples of where the honest, decent majority suffer due to the actions of the dishonest minority. Why should the decent schools be penalised in such a way?

If I had a flying school I would take exception to any magazine inferring I was untrustworthy. In my view any such action would be another example of the nanny state.

It's a big bad world out there and we all need to learn to take responsibility for our own decisions and actions. Why should GA be singled out? Do you think those learning to fly are less capable and need looking after?

Ryan5252
10th Oct 2009, 18:59
Its hard to identify such corruption and unless you have recommendations from reliable sources this will always be a problem, not just in aviation and in flight schools but elsewhere also I would imagine. You wouldn't ordinarily hand over hundreds (even thousands) of pounds to any organisation without doing your homework beforehand so flying should be no different. I think that overall, common sense should prevail.

BackPacker
10th Oct 2009, 19:01
It's a big bad world out there and we all need to learn to take responsibility for our own decisions and actions.

I agree. We all know that anyone can place basically any ad in any magazine. There is normally no editorial oversight/background checks on the person/companiy placing an ad. So any ad should be taken with a grain of salt. Or two. Even if they appear in a reputable magazine.

stickandrudderman
11th Oct 2009, 07:16
Why don't we force all editors to wear a pinny, half round specs, bloomers, have their hair in rollers and wear perfume that smells of stale urine too?

neilgeddes
11th Oct 2009, 09:56
Hi, as a hirer I belong to Cubair Redhill and Cabair Biggin who both offer 5-8% discount for money lodged up front. I'm happy to put up £1000-£2000 with these two schools for cheaper flying when bank interest rates are woeful. Rgds, Neil

The Heff
11th Oct 2009, 10:17
To be honest, even though I've lost a little bit of money in the recent liquidisation of the Sheffield City Flying School; I would still consider paying for block hours up-front in the future. Its wouldn't be a definate action, but its something that I would consider based on the flying school/club.

In the end, it is cheaper to fly when one pays in block hours due to the discounts applied, and like all gambling you have to accept that you might lose. The only real question to be answered is whether the discount is worth the risk involved, and whether you can afford to lose the amount that you 'invest'.

Fuji Abound
11th Oct 2009, 10:28
that it is illegal for any agency in the UK to ask for fees up front.

Not that I disagree with the spirit of your post - where does it say that?

Gertrude the Wombat
11th Oct 2009, 11:00
Hi, as a hirer I belong to Cubair Redhill and Cabair Biggin who both offer 5-8% discount for money lodged up front. I'm happy to put up £1000-£2000 with these two schools for cheaper flying when bank interest rates are woeful.
Why would anyone pay you 5-8% to borrow your money when they could get it from the bank cheaper?

Answer: they wouldn't, they'd borrow from the bank.

Blindingly obvious deduction: the bank won't lend them the money at all, or thinks they're such a bad risk that they have to charge them an even higher interest rate than that.

So, you're better at judging risk than the bank, are you? Or maybe you just paid by credit card :)

englishal
11th Oct 2009, 11:36
...or if they have £2000 of yours then they know you plan to fly £2000 worth of flights with them and it is a way of keeping punters / forecasting financials.

Difficult one really, I was bitten when the original Old Sarum collapsed but I only lost about £100. I'd have been gutted to lose £1000+ though.

Ryan5252
11th Oct 2009, 12:56
"So, you're better at judging risk than the bank, are you?"

Well, lets not get started on the ability of banks to judge risk and turn a profit! :ok:

Wrong Stuff
11th Oct 2009, 13:09
...or if they have £2000 of yours then they know you plan to fly £2000 worth of flights with them and it is a way of keeping punters / forecasting financials.
The other side of that coin, though, is that if you've paid up front, the school has less incentive to keep you happy. In one London school, if ever a punter phoned up to make a booking, they would always bump people on pre-paid courses to make way for bookings which would bring in new money.

gasax
11th Oct 2009, 18:24
Babybear - I'm staggered.

On the 'stunt' thread you are all for everyone intervening and ensuring
PPLs are flying legally - because perhaps once every 2 to 3 years someone screws up.

And yet every year several flying clubs go belly up - always taking peoples money with them. But "it's a bad bad world and we should all take responsbility?" And it is not fair to suggest flying clubs might not be reliable or honest - inspite of their being a significant body of evidence that a large number are not!

Interesting change of tack.................

BabyBear
11th Oct 2009, 18:28
Why would anyone pay you 5-8% to borrow your money when they could get it from the bank cheaper?


The challenge with this statement of course is that encouraging members to fly and in doing so increasing sales revenue is not the same as getting a loan from the bank.:confused:

gasax, not a change of tack at all.

I do believe we are in times where individuals look for every opportunity to shun personal responsibility, and frankly I am pig sick of it.

I also argue that part of this responsibility is to others. I would include taking the proper action where necessary, should we have knowledge of pilots who disregard the law to the extent of guy on the other thread. To ignore it is, in my book, irresponsible.

I think the pilot community get a bit over emotional when looking at the paying of training fees and tend to detach it from the reality that it is a commercial transaction, as any other. The suggestion that magazines should publish warnings is a step too far.

gasax
11th Oct 2009, 19:22
Well baby!

There is a huge level of evidence that paying up front is a receipe for loosing your money if a 'flying club' is involved.

It is blindlinly obvious that payng 'upfro nt; has a proven level of risk of loosing that money.

Conversely there is vitually none that Stasi type informing stops accidents.

Do you run a flying club?

BabyBear
11th Oct 2009, 19:49
There is a huge level of evidence that paying up front is a receipe for loosing your money if a 'flying club' is involved.

Indeed there is, as there is for paying up front for a whole host of goods and services.

It is blindlinly obvious that payng 'upfro nt; has a proven level of risk of loosing that money.

I agree, so why should there be 'special' rules for student ppls' when the risks are blindingly obvious? Are ppl students less capable of assessing such risks?

Conversely there is vitually none that Stasi type informing stops accidents.


And this statement is based on? You are at risk of getting the totally wrong idea of my position re this. Would you have taken action if you knew this guy was flying with so much disregard? (if you choose to answer this point I suggest going over to the other thread.

Do you run a flying club?

No, I am surprised you considered I may have. Most businesses have offers designed to improve revenue, why shouldn't flying schools? The way ppls' go on about this subject is on the verge of being irrational!

Captain Stable
11th Oct 2009, 19:49
gasax, there are also many, many more people who have paid up front without losing (note the spelling) their money.

Yes, it's a risk. Caveat emptor, as they say. If people want to take that risk in exchange for lower-cost flying, why shouldn't they?

As for your snide and very silly comment about "Stasi" informants, if you saw someone you vaguely knew smashing a window of another house in your street, climbing in and then coming out with a TV, would you inform the police or not?

gasax
11th Oct 2009, 20:42
The flying magazines - if they had any regard for their readers - would advise that paying 'up front' is a proven way of putting your money at risk.

The financial record of flying clubs is pretty terrible. The chances of the average flying club going 'bust' are similar to rolling a dice. Whilst there are a number of long lived and stable clubs, the majority are short lifed and financial marginal.

But magazines get much of their advertising revenue from clubs - so they are hardly likely to bite the hand that feeds.

Retailers that sell leather furniture are actually more reliable than flying clubs - which perhaps gives a little more perspective.

The critical point is that the vast majority of student ppls have not idea how unreliable these business' are. Why should they - they are licenced by the CAA, they apparently work within a highly regulated environment - except you have about a 15% chance of your discount flying evaporating.

It is strange that you bang on about personal responsibility and yet feel flying clubs should be exempt..........

BabyBear
11th Oct 2009, 20:52
It is strange that you bang on about personal responsibility and yet feel flying clubs should be exempt..........

Are you enjoying a lovely Malt up there that is making you irrational, or are you struggling for sound argument and now just making it up as you go?:confused:

Gertrude the Wombat
11th Oct 2009, 21:04
If people want to take that risk in exchange for lower-cost flying, why shouldn't they?
I'm all for letting grown-ups make their own decisions ...

... but it would be nice if they would sign up, in advance, to promise that when they have lost their money they won't come on here and whine about it.

Jofm5
11th Oct 2009, 21:30
Sorry to point out the obvious.....

Regardless of whether it is a flying school or not, investing any substantial sum of money takes some prudence.

As a director of a company cashflow forecasting and money in the bank offer many more benefits other than "Interest Earned", for a start it gives visibility to the credit worthyness of a company which in turn allows a business' to obtain and fund finance.

Flying is affected by the seasonal variation in the weather. Paying up front for hours is a contract that a Bank will respect and identify as revenue. Effectively forcing for people to pay as and when they fly gives any business a problem that they can only provide finance instituations a forecast based upon the last years figures, as such only a percentage of the revenue forecast will be accepted because there are no guarantees (contracts).

As with all things in life there is a risk when paying up front, these risks can be mitigated to an extent by not investing more than your willing to lose and by doing your research in where your investing (Ask around, credit checks, speak to the finance dept etc). Looking for a club that earns its revenue not only from the flying e.g. maintenance and you will probably find a club with a more stable footing but the key is research.

Security comes at a cost, that cost is the higher fees you have to pay. You cannot have the best of both worlds by having cheaper fees when not providing a contract that can be substantiated for forecasting purposes - this works in all aspects of business not just aviation.

Gertrude the Wombat
11th Oct 2009, 22:38
As a director of a company cashflow forecasting and money in the bank offer many more benefits other than "Interest Earned", for a start it gives visibility to the credit worthyness of a company which in turn allows a business' to obtain and fund finance.
Only if you don't account for it honestly.

When you've been paid for something in advance (my company charges some of its clients in advance to save hassle with worrying about credit) you've got some cash but you haven't got any extra money - an honest accounting will show a liability for the same amount in your accounts which you should make equally as visible as the cash to anyone you're trying to get finance from.

Jofm5
11th Oct 2009, 23:17
Only if you don't account for it honestly.



Not sure what your trying to say - I am not even going to entertain criminal activities as that is a whole different subject. My assertion is based on an entity working within legitimate boundaries.

The point is that entering into a contract regardless of if the contract is pre or post paid gives any finance institution hard evidence of revenues expected/actual so that any application may be considered. This allows much more leeway than forecasting based upon predicted factors.

You are observent in that you do not get extra CASH or MONEY however you do get a financial picture allowing for more informed budgetary considerations allowing financing for larger investments over time and expunging the possibilites of expenditure outside of operating capabilities (thus averting insolvency).

Let us not get bogged down in the particulars - the point is that the pre-paid hours can work for both parties and as such should not be precluded due to bad management of a select few businesses. As I originally said before lodging any large sum with any organisation do your research beforehand.