PDA

View Full Version : Pilot Training Petition


Airbus38
25th Apr 2007, 10:34
Hi chaps,

I don't know how effective these things are, and using the search nothing sprang up as this obviously having been posted here before but I don't suppose it can do any harm.

I came across this e-petition for support for pilot training, and whilst you may have differing views some of you may like to sign it.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Pilot-training/?signed=a9433f7.120509

As I say, if you don't agree you don't have to add your name, and if you do then it's a 2 minute job.

Regards,
A38

dom462
25th Apr 2007, 17:59
Being an economics graduate, I would say that government support would be wrong and unnecessary. There is a big difference between pilots and doctors.
There are more than enough trainee pilots coming through that meet the current demands of the airline industry. Also, airlines are in the private sector, unlike the NHS.
I would not support any government that intervened like this in private sector employment markets.

scroggs
25th Apr 2007, 18:06
It is for the industry to support trainee pilots, not government. Government should never be involved in underwriting private industry. If you want to petition anyone, petition British Airways, Monarch, Thomsonfly, BMI, easyJet, Jet2, and all the others who pay nothing towards the training of new entrants to this industry, but expect them to shell out the dosh themselves.

Scroggs

Airbus38
25th Apr 2007, 21:35
It's not my petition, I'm just passing on the fact that the petition exists. Personally, I feel that this requires re-wording and targeting from a different angle.

I strongly agree with you in many respects that it is an industry issue. However, I also feel that student pilots, particularly those undertaking full-time courses, should be eligible for the same automatic student loan that any Tom/Dick/Harry can claim for their course in Art History/Media Studies/American Studies etc.

I'm sure that looking at it from an economics point of view (though I count myself as no expert) loans to at least cover the cost of living whilst undertaking the course, resulting in professionally qualified individuals who statistically, I'm sure, contribute far more to the society than many other courses which are supported unquestioningly.

Lest we forget, how much of the taxpayers' money goes missing when a graduate of a Mickey Mouse course remains unemployed and therefore not obliged to pay back the (now extremely substantial) loan? Whilst still, of course, claiming for their cost of living along the way.

Scroggs - couldn't agree more in what you're saying about petitioning the airlines. Unfortunately, whilst more of us are falling in love with the dream every day, those jokers are rubbing their hands together and can see us coming from a long way off. I guess that's business, and that's life.

Leezyjet
25th Apr 2007, 23:09
A few silly statements on this subject in this thread. :\

Why should artisits, accountants, lawyers and any other number of courses be subsidised by the Government, yet flight training is not ?. Most of the courses are geared towards training for the private sector.

I'll also bet that most people that go through Uni and thus enjoy the subsidised education and training they receive don't end up working for the state, most will end up in the private sector so why should Pilots be any different ?.

I'll hazard a guess that there are also significant numbers who don't even end up taking jobs in the field that they did their courses in which would be unlikely for a pilot to do.

:hmm:

Sensible
25th Apr 2007, 23:45
Why should artisits, accountants, lawyers and any other number of courses be subsidised by the Government, yet flight training is not ?. Quite simply, there is no shortage of wanabe pilots so why should the Government (the taxpayer, which includes me) want to shell out to provide an even bigger pool of unemployed wannabe pilots? Just plain common sense really!

Polarhero
26th Apr 2007, 06:31
The only way to make flight training as accessible as a university education is to allow the use of student loans for flight training.

Give the end product of all this training we do the same status as a BSc or BEng. After all the training we do to get qualified to the level that airlines will look at our CV's surely it is on par with someone doing a degree, even if only one of the stupid ones.

:sad:

clear prop!!!
26th Apr 2007, 06:39
There is over supply of Geography Teachers, Fine Arts graduates, Law Students etc etc etc etc so the supply and demand argument is a non-starter!!

Sadly a total change of policy on commercial pilot training is unlikely to happen overnight but, removal of VAT on training is a must!! There is no argument for this absurd tax on career training. If there is a petition required for anything, it has to be for the removal of this ridiculous tax on legitimate education

Groundloop
26th Apr 2007, 08:14
Give the end product of all this training we do the same status as a BSc or BEng.

Why? There is no comparison between the effort required for an fATPL and a degree.

FougaMagister
26th Apr 2007, 08:38
clear prop!!! - bang on. Simply removing VAT from flight training would knock 17.5% off frozen ATPL costs - we're not talking pennies!

In a number of JAA countries (for instance Spain, Greece and Denmark), flight training (even type ratings) is NOT subject to VAT. After all, if uni students do not have to fork out VAT, why do student pilots? Ah well, because... you do NOT have student status while flight training! :ugh:

scroggs
26th Apr 2007, 08:39
VAT on professional training is an iniquity, and should be removed in all cases. However, there is no case whatsoever for government to subsidise speculative training in a field which is over-subscribed several times over. As for equivalency between a degree and an ATPL, not a chance!

Scroggs

Airbus38
26th Apr 2007, 10:13
As for equivalency between a degree and an ATPL, not a chance!

No, you're quite right. Uni is a bit of a doss, and gaining a 2:2 or 2:1 is a stroll in the park, easily attainable with several big nights out a week, staying in bed till all hours of the day, eating microwave meals every day, and just occasionally picking up a pen and doing a leisurely spot of work.

Meanwhile, the same can surely not be said for pilot training, which at least requires effort and commitment, and the above factors would undoubtedly not lead to success.

Polarhero
26th Apr 2007, 10:44
I am not as much in favour of degree status for the fATPL as too many people would take the p**s as happened with the NVQ, possably something like an HND. But why not for the full unfrozen ATPL.

A lot of work is needed to get to the point where you get to upgrade from the CPL, let alone what is needed to get the CPL. And as Airbus38 says anyone can get a 2:2, 2:1 just by doing the minimum of work.

I know from personal experience it has taken lots of hard work and commitment to get to where i am now, just about to start my A320 rating. :)

Give the the hard work some recognition.

:ok:

Captain Smithy
26th Apr 2007, 11:21
My signature now added... :ok:

Smithy

scroggs
26th Apr 2007, 11:37
A lot of work is needed to get to the point where you get to upgrade from the CPL, let alone what is needed to get the CPL. And as Airbus38 says anyone can get a 2:2, 2:1 just by doing the minimum of work.

While it is perfectly true that the status of a degree is debased by some of the pathetic courses now on offer, with little or no academic rigour or intellectual demand, I see no logic in adding to that debasement by giving the ATPL degree equivalency. The ATPL exams require a large quantity of work memorising the answers to a specific, albeit changing, set of questions. Little depth of knowledge is required of the subjects covered - indeed, some subjects are deliberately simplified for the purposes of the course. Again, there is little intellectual demand or rigour in the course. It would be rather like saying that 14 GCSE's is equivalent to a degree simply because of the quantity of work required.

Quality is the hallmark of a worthwhile degree. The ATPL exams fail that criterion fairly spectacularly.

Scroggs

SLFguy
26th Apr 2007, 11:51
clear prop!!! - bang on. Simply removing VAT from flight training would knock 17.5% off frozen ATPL costs - we're not talking pennies!


No it won't...it will knock 14.89% off....:cool:

Airbus38
26th Apr 2007, 12:05
Scroggs,

OK, then what about the ATPL as a whole?? Rather than just the exams?

boogie-nicey
26th Apr 2007, 13:54
As always scroggs speaks the 'best of all truths'. Government should never be allowed to underwrite nor support private initiatives such as pilot training. The fact that pilot training is expensive serves a good initial hurdle to weed out those who really want to do it and not those looking for something to do in life. Even with poor parents if you really want it enough you can research, plan and then finally one day go out there and get it done.

Public finances shouldn't support the workplace nor it's employees that's a matter between the individual and employer. I think it's grossly naive to think that this silly (yes I said silly) petition could ever be taken seriously.

Airbus38
26th Apr 2007, 14:15
The fact that pilot training is expensive serves a good initial hurdle to weed out those who really want to do it and not those looking for something to do in life.

No, it does the opposite I'm afraid.

It just finds those who have enough money to do it and procludes those who don't.

scroggs
26th Apr 2007, 14:37
OK, then what about the ATPL as a whole?? Rather than just the exams?

No, sorry. The flying side of the course is skills-based, not knowledge-based. It is a test of artisanship. It's a severe test, I'll grant you, but it is not dependent on intellect, logic, discrimination, the ability to argue for or against a proposition or any of the other traditional measures of academic worth. It may most reasonably be compared to a City & Guilds qualification, I suggest.

After several (say, 10) years in the job, however, it might be reasonable to suggest that an airline pilot might qualify for the grant of a degree-equivalent recognition of experience. In fact, the Open University (and others) do indeed give credit for such experience - but not enough to avoid doing some work, unfortunately!

The ATPL and a degree are different animals; both worthwhile in different ways, but not directly comparable.

Scroggs

Polarhero
26th Apr 2007, 15:37
I do agree with scroggs on the skills v's knowledge, thats why i think something like the HNC would be comparable, you can do an HNC on anything from accounting to video production and anything in between.
Both the HNC and the fAtpl has practical skills as well as academic knowledge requirements.

As for the atpls exams being about remembering questions, well that is not what i did. I like to think i did learn and try to understand for the simple reason of being best equipped for interviews. Anyway its just how my brain operates, i need to know how something works not just that it does.

Boogie,

Why is it a good thing to weed out people just because of the amount of money they have, if that was the case i would never have got past the ppl. I spent years not flying and working abroad to finance my training after getting the bug on a trial flight.

I know of several of my students that have the ability to go a long way in this business, can not afford to do anything more than a hour a month at best.
Financial screening of future pilots results in only the rich flying, or those with large bank loans.

:ok:

v6g
26th Apr 2007, 16:12
The cost of a fATPL is £30,000. That’s a good hurdle for many people – yet for those with true determination should be able to manage it with some careful financial planning over a time span of a few years.

boogie-nicey
26th Apr 2007, 16:16
I personally know of many people who have made it in the aviation industry some of whom are actually related to me. They have all worked and saved their money in order to pay for their respective training. Alternatively I could argue why some people take a shortcut and attempt to get loans at such a young age? I can understand the urgency for those of a somewhat older bearing to get on without any delay in training.
However I resent any government nay public involvement with the payment of training. Granted I'd more than love to invite any proposals which cut VAT off training (though the FTOs would only go and hike up the prices anyway). There is no such thing as a free lunch and any government assistance will come with a burden of 'giving something back in return'

Polarhero
26th Apr 2007, 16:52
I know what you are saying about public money, but thinking about it, the amount of tax payed back into the public coffers by the aircrew community must be quite large. :hmm:

Anyway back to my original thoughts surely by allowing the use of the student loans system is better than people taking large personal loans from banks at high risk. I know it is sort of public money, well subsidised by govt, but surly if you can use it to do a degree in surfing why not flying.

Anyway if vat could be cut, without the Fto's putting the cost up that would help but it not going to happen. :ugh:

:ok:

v6g
26th Apr 2007, 17:18
Be careful what you wish for, while I would sure have loved to have had all my training paid for by the tax-payer, lowering the financial (& intellectual) hurdles would simply result in even more pilots chasing jobs and the subsequent deflation of pilots remuneration packages.

The argument that arts graduates are sponsored by the Government doesn’t have any weight either – two wrongs don’t make a right. The job of government is to distribute wealth and, in my opinion, it would be an irresponsible dereliction of their duty to be supporting private industry in this way.

Asking for a reduction in VAT is, I feel, a moral argument, but then morals bear no relation to taxation policy. The single biggest change I would support in the UK flight training industry would be to allow students to deduct training expenses from their income tax. This would encourage the more motivated career-changers and discourage the younger students to take out such enormous unsecured debt. It would also help to level the playing field between those who earned their money for training and those who simply had it paid for by parents.

And flying doesn’t come close to comparison with a degree. Whilst my flying exams weren’t easy, they only required a fraction of the cognitive ability that my engineering degree required.

v6g
26th Apr 2007, 17:55
Even with a good salary, that training debt is one hell of a mountain of cash that has to be paid back.Take my word for it!!!
But that’s what this is all about – risk management!

Us new pilots know how to calculate landing distance given wind, density altitude & weight etc but many don’t seem to be able to calculate their loan repayments & amortization schedule given a principal amount & interest rate and subsequently how they’re going to feed themselves.

Re-Heat
26th Apr 2007, 18:02
I am not as much in favour of degree status for the fATPL as too many people would take the p**s as happened with the NVQ, possably something like an HND. But why not for the full unfrozen ATPL.
I very much hope that flying does not take on a future course that includes flight deck crew actively research new aviation fields in the course of their work...!

It is vocational, not academic, and no new research is yielded in an ATPL course.

Re-Heat
26th Apr 2007, 18:06
Why is it a good thing to weed out people just because of the amount of money they have
Because it means that people do the course only with good reason, and not on a whim.

sicky
26th Apr 2007, 18:48
Hey guys and gals,

just out of interest, who would you write to in the governemnt for answers on this subject?

If you were to write a letter, what do you think the key points/questions should be? I'm quite tempted to do so, to get some questions answered from the horses mouth, but it may also draw some attention to the situation. With the current global warming issues, though, i think the government would put themselves in a very awkward situation if they were to contribute financial support towards this sort of thing.

It's interesting from both sides of the argument, and i'd be very, very interested to hear what the appropriate person would have to say about this issue.

Polarhero
26th Apr 2007, 19:12
Re-heat

I also hope that flight deck crew do not actively research new aviation fields in the course of their work. I do think that would be a tad unwise, interesting but unwise. :eek:

As for the cost weeding out people doing the training on a whim, but still makes it very hard if not imposable for kids with out the money. :(

V6g has a good idea, if you got a tax break for x amount of years to allow some of the training cost to be recovered. That would work very well with the new cpl holder doing ppl instructing. By having it come into effect when you start earning a wage from flying it would stop what happened with the old NVQ tax relief, when everyone doing a ppl was saying they were training for a professional license. :mad:

scroggs
27th Apr 2007, 08:40
Further on the government funding aspect: in fact, the government will subsidise aviation-related degree studies. There are quite a few aerospace and aviation related courses available at degree level which attract exactly the same government funding as any other degree. However, the government will not subsidise the acquisition of professional skills for private industry - and I can't see that changing.

You may point to accountancy and legal degrees, but accountants and lawyers, like pilots, have to undergo a great deal of post-graduate training at their own expense before they can practise their professions. Flying ain't the poor relation! You'll find that those who elect to go to the Bar, for instance, can end up paying every bit as much as a pilot. The same is true even for those who, as mature students, go back to university to study medicine. Even those who take medicine straight from school are likely to end up with debts of £30k or more after 5 years of university, and that's for a socially-demanded and mandated occupation. Believe me - I've had to pay the bills!

Scroggs

boogie-nicey
27th Apr 2007, 09:15
Some interesting and well thought out posts. In particular the issue of linking training to some formm of tax incentive is the most attractive. However considering this near bankrupt New Labour administration I doubt they would ever entertain such an idea especially from the pilot faternity who are hardly core labour voters ;)

I also agree that the ATPL were difficult but compared to my Engineering Degree they were relatively easier. However that doesn't exempt aviation from attempting to find better ways in how course costs could be paid and how FTOs can reduce their costs. It all appears far too insular, other countries around the world seem to be cheaper than us why must we be burdened with high prices? i.e. conduct some courses overseas or some portion of the training that satisfies the CAA criteria for licence issue but keeps the training activity somewhere else and thus the UK taxman at bay. I am nopt advocating wholescale movement of training elsewhere but at least some components could be perhaps? Again the word here is innovation and UK FTOs need to start doing that.

Keith.Williams.
27th Apr 2007, 10:21
Some FTOs already do what you suggest.

With some of the new combined ATPL/Degree courses the students get all of the normal benefits (student loans, defered payment, etc.) that are enjoyed by any other university students. But they still have to pay the full cost of the flying training element of their courses.

Some of the FTPOs doing these courses have also searched (unsuccesfully so far) for way of making the flying element of their courses VAT exempt.

Some FTOs also have facilities in places such as USA, Canada and Spain, to enable their students to enjoy reduced costs/taxation.

Airbus38
27th Apr 2007, 15:46
Unfortunately, as is apparent in every aspect of life, TAX taken off one thing re-appears as another thing. There's no way to avoid it.

I did have all kinds of ideas about taxation - including a realisation that a higher tax bracket was unfair, and so those in well paid jobs could pay less tax by 'opting out' of certain aspects, maybe agreeing not to use the NHS or state schools. Apparently that doesn't fit with the masses. And, in truth, would only lead to higher fuel or beer costs!

But I really can't be shaken in my view that a standard student loan should be available if you're undertaking study. Because that's what ATPL students are - students.

I feel the alternative is to say that they are unemployed people actively training for a job, and should be allowed a "jobseekers' allowance".

Another seriously legitimate idea is, as hinted at by Topslide6, cost of such professional training be, to whatever extent possible, retrospectively refunded by the employer. It's a seriously unfortunate state of affairs when such companies are allowed to profit to such an extent by not having to train their own workforce.

This is without going on to the subject of FI pay - another can of worms. Needless to say, there can't be too many jobs with so few progression opportunities which require such highly qualified personnel to have paid out quite so much,only to earn less than a supervisor in McDonalds.

It's a really good job there's something worth loving about this flying lark, or I fear there would be no air travel at all.

737cap2b
27th Apr 2007, 20:15
I disagree with the petition, if the government helped to train Pilots there will simply be too many pilots and with all the silly "green" talk going on the government wont do a thing, and if they did help our taxes would go even higher. Nice though to the person who made the petition!

Sensible
28th Apr 2007, 17:52
Another seriously legitimate idea is, as hinted at by Topslide6, cost of such professional training be, to whatever extent possible, retrospectively refunded by the employer. It's a seriously unfortunate state of affairs when such companies are allowed to profit to such an extent by not having to train their own workforce.

But that is already the case! Pilots are overpaid compared with how they would be paid if there was an easy/cheaper way to obtain an ATPL. Can you imagine the going rate for a pilot if all the training was government (Taxpayer) funded? FATPL holders are two a penny now. Can anybody imagine the scenario if every man and his dog had access to ATPL training at no/minimal cost? One interview question may be "how much are you going to pay us if we give you this job?"

Sensible
28th Apr 2007, 18:30
FATPL holders are two a penny and that is exactly why there are so many unemployed! Government funding would only exacerbate the current situation and even worse, exacerbate it at the taxpayers expense!

potkettleblack
28th Apr 2007, 19:17
More to the point there are so many unemployed because it is essentially a process of self selection to head down the ATPL path. Few if any do any sort of aptitude testing. Fewer still look themselves in the mirror or ask friends etc how they come across. How many ever invest in any sort of course on preparing for interviews and getting their CV up to a professional standard?

Sadly there are many able aviators out there that will never get a job simply because their face doesn't fit. One quick example.... some tw*t I saw the other day was in for interview wearing a cheap pair of chinos and a polo neck. All the other wannabees were in their best suits. He didn't even stand a chance and will probably not know where he went wrong as in this day and age we have to cover our a*ses in case it is seen as discrimination.