I instruct part-time only, at weekends, and I get £12 per flying hour. I've never done it full time (can't afford to!) but from what I hear Decmax is about right. As regards Decmax's comment relating to the proposed NPL, I think he is right; more people may well learn to fly, as they may feel it is more financially within their grasp. Providing that standards can be maintained, with safety paramount, then perhaps this may well be a good thing. We will have to wait and see how it develops.
However, I do have one great concern at present regarding the NPL, and I think we all should have. AOPA's proposal for the NPL includes, possibly, the provision of dedicated NPL instructors, having knowledge somewhere above NPL standard. What they mean, sorry, my interpretation of what they mean (trying to avoid litigation and being shot down in flames here) is that you will not need to hold a professional pilot's licence to do the job. So here we are, having paid a fortune in time and money for our CPL/ATPL and AOPA come along and try to pull the rug from under our feet, as I see it.
If a lower qualified instructor only is needed to teach the NPL then you can bet your life that the hourly remuneration will be lower as well, if indeed there will be any.
I've nothing at all against making recreational flying more accessable to people, in fact I'm all for it, but if it means there are fewer opportunities and less favourable conditions for us professional flying instuctors, then what?
GT