HN, It isn't really for you to tell me or anybody else who should opine and who shouldn't. You have
just embarked on the process yourself according to your own account. It would be very interesting for you to come back in a year or two and tell people what your honest and real world experiences of this were.
Nobody should be driven to the edge of despair by their inability to service debts, particularly where cicumstances contrived to place them in that situation through no particular fault of their own. The process exists to ensure that doesn't happen. Nevertheless it is not the "Scot free" solution that some might suggest.
Airlines look for people who can make sensible judgments and show a mature attitude. They like to see examples of teamwork and leadership and self responsibility in the candidates they select for interview, and during the interview process itself. Bankruptcy is not regarded as a badge of success, even though it is clearly understood that for some people it has proved to be unavoidable. I have to say that I find your reasoning and justification for bankruptcy exceedingly poor and immature and seemingly without much evidence of self responsibility. I do take part in airline recuitment interviews and any hint of those qualities would result in a polite completion, followed by a "No" after the door had closed behind you.
Obviously I do not know you, or your circumstances beyond what you have stated here, or what your aspirations, ambitions or achievements actually are, therefore it is academic. However recruitment interviewers are, will and always have looked for solid evidence of the qualities I have described, and where evidence of previous failures or weakness exists, they would want to see how that adversity was overcome by the application of those positive character attributes. In other words, bankruptcy wouldn't in itself be an absolute hinderence, but this sort of attitude would:
i also have the privelege of not having to work for an airline
So far it has been the best decision i have ever made and although i am currently being pursued by the banks it has been remarkably easy to fob off the debt collectors while i am waiting to become self-employed in my flying job in order to reduce the amount that can be taken from me in bankruptcy.
It is of course the tax payer who will be picking up the tab for my unpaid borrowings and that of the banking losses. It doesn't make it right but why should one party suffer when the other half have been bailed out?
It's nowadays a just part of the game.
The taxpayer and consumer are almost one in the same- fuel duty, VAT etc. I could no longer justify going hungry and having no quality of life when the banks got bailed out and these are my individual reasons. I just feel this is a case of double standards.
so if the banks won't take responsibility for reckless lending should people take responsibility for irresponsible borrowing?
I am grateful we have a legal remedy for people like yourself who have failed to manage their finances adequately for whatever reason, and I am also pleased that it provides a platform to take stock of a better future. However it seems to me that you would be rather more humble and grateful that you can avail yourself of such a process, without highlighting your repeated justifications for why it wasn't your fault but somebody elses, and why you think a perception of somebody elses weak behaviour is sufficient justification for your own. I think it is fairly self evident from your comments that you take little responsibility if you feel you can offload it to somebody else, but for perhaps a few others it would be a point to bear in mind for the future.
Still, as I said at the start it would be interesting to read your honest experiences once you emerge from the other side of this process, both good and bad.