Why are helicopter instructors better paid than fixed wing?

[Whirlybird]

Is it because fewer helicopter instructors are hour builders and more are career instructors?

Is it because margins are higher so they CAN be paid more?

Rarity value?

Historical?

Does anyone have any idea? I need the answer for an article I'm writing...or trying to.

[Arfur Feck-Sake]

My guess is that the people who fly helicopters tend to be wealthier and more willing/able to pay. I think snobbery is involved - if you can afford it and don't complain about it, it indicates that you're a rich person and gives you access to an elite social circle. It seems to me that student helicopter pilots generally fall into two categories (1) those who aspire to a CPL and (2) those who aim to buy their own machine and have the money to do so. There appear to be fewer recreational fliers in the rotary world who would be happy to hire the club machine for an hour once a month.

Other reasons for the difference in Instructor pay? Rotary Instructors fly fewer hours than their fixed wing colleagues?

[QNH 1013]

Hi Whirly, Unfortunately I haven't any useful info to give you - I'm just a poor fixed-wing instructor, but can I suggest another question that might lead to an answer to your question?
I understand that microlight instructors (a less-expensive qualification to obtain I believe) earn a lot more than conventional f/w instructors. If this is true, perhaps investigating this could lead to an answer to your question. In other words I don't think the higher rotary pay is due to the extra cost of the qualification.

[nimbostratus]

As I see it, it's because there are few helicopter pilots around willing to work for nothing. There is still (thankfully) a general opinion within the rotary industry that anyone offering their services for free is just contributing to the industry being reduced to a hobby. I rely on my salary as it's the only one I have and I know what I am worth. I've never worked for free and would advise that no-one does so.
I hope that this answer does not seem too harsh, having clashed swords before, but i've been in the industry for quite a while now and have seen what happens when newbies try to obtain work by undercutting. At best they aren't taken seriously, and at worst they a obtain work for a short while, depriving someone of a wage before getting bored with trial lessons and being unwilling to spend time on proper groundschool, and then leave.

ps. I turn down more work than I take on. Just look at the busiest instructors; they're often the best paid. It took me a long time to get here, but anyone who perserveres can do it.

[Say again s l o w l y]

There are greater margins involved in Heli flying. An R22 and FI cost the high side of £250/hr+VAT, whereas a spamcan is £125 ish an hour including FI and VAT. Who would pay 250 an hour for a manky 30 year old Cessna? Not many.

Heli FI's have always been able to be paid, so they haven't had the problem of people doing the job for free and destroying the industry for others, by selfishly hour building and not really putting anything useful into the mix over the long term.

Heli FI's tend to work in the industry longer term, rather than just running off to an airline at short notice. They are often charter pilots aswell as FI's. So get the best of both worlds.

There's less of them as well which increases the upward pressure on their salaries/hourly pay.

There isn't the same competition between schools as there is in the fixed wing world, so prices are higher and the schools can afford to go for quality instructors rather than just going for anyone who comes through the door and has a licence and rating, which seems to be the policy adopted by 99% of the fixed wing PPL training industry.

Fixed wing schools should take a long hard look at Heli schools and see how it should be done. I have a heli licence aswell as fixed wing I'm just not brave enough to get a heli FI rating!! I have rarely been disappointed when going to a heli school, whereas the fixed wing world is an utter disaster really in terms of value for money, long term stability and producing a quality end product.

There are good schools out there, it's just the small majority that are a disgrace!

[homeguard]

I think its quite simple really.
Microlites are cheap to buy and can be maintained without qualified engineers, nor do they need licenced aerodomes etc. More in the pot for the instructor. Also, although ways appear around it, a microlite cannot be hired out. The punters' training then is a one off and so there is more willingness to pay - much cheaper than an NPPL or a SEPL anyway.
Helicopters schools have always been commercial but once again although helicopters can be hired out it is still very expensive and limited once you have done the odd hotel or pub for lunch. Therefore the majority of helicopter students will also treat their training as a one off, as the microliter, and be looking to buy their own helicopter and keep it at home. Unless they lease their helicopter back to the school, they have little further involvement.
Aeroplanes are different in history and background, although they don't have to be. The history of flying aeroplanes is steeped in the members club format with a wide range of people from different backgrounds and resources. Many of them could not aspire to paying higher wages and having much better facilities that would require greater prices. Aeroplane clubs have memberships commonly in the hundreds which is unusual for either helicopters or microlites but need much more veru expensive Real Estate.
The arguments with regard to the aeroplane instructors pay has as much to do with whether they are firstly a club or a business. Many helicopter schools have gone to the wall over recent years as businesses. Although so have many aeroplane clubs, most survive on a shoestring and from established resources and in particular philanthropy.

[rotorfossil]

It costs a lot more to go through PPLlH to commercial licence/instructor rating on helis than fixed wing, ergo fewer are willing to do it, so it is supply and demand I suspect.

[porridge]

Then why are ML instructors paid about the same as the rotary wing guys? Mainly because their hours don't count to getting an airline job I presume!

[scooter boy]

Danger money perhaps?

The base aircraft (C150/R22) are very different in terms of what happens if you have an engine failure.

R22s are far easier to roll into a ball than a C150, with the Cessna you have to try a little to make it crumple, the Robbo does most of the work for you.

Also I would imagine that being a helicopter instructor new underpants are required far more often than if you are fixed wing, although I am certain the fixed wing boys have their moments.

I know - I have terrified both types of instructor!:ok:

SB

[Whirlybird]

Thanks for all the suggestions and ideas. The trouble is, I'm not sure about any of them.

My guess is that the people who fly helicopters tend to be wealthier and more willing/able to pay...There appear to be fewer recreational fliers in the rotary world who would be happy to hire the club machine for an hour once a month.

Although such people exist, everywhere I've flown students have been as strapped for cash as f/w students, and when they get a PPL(H) they want to hire a helicopter.

As I see it, it's because there are few helicopter pilots around willing to work for nothing.

You could have hit the nail on the head. But in that case, we'll soon see a rise in f/w instructors' pay, since there's a shortage right now. Is that happening?

There are greater margins involved in Heli flying...There's less of them as well which increases the upward pressure on their salaries/hourly pay...There isn't the same competition between schools as there is in the fixed wing world,

According to the school owners I know, the margins aren't there in heli flying either. There may be less helicopter instructors, but there are far less schools too. At the moment, I think I'd find it easier to get work if I was a f/w instructor. Competition? Again, school owners seem to think it's there; they worry endlessly about their prices, reputations, how many hours their students take compared to others, etc etc.

it is supply and demand I suspect.

There's a shortage off/w instructors at the moment, but not of rotary...except possibly in the South East and Southern Ireland.

Also I would imagine that being a helicopter instructor new underpants are required far more often than if you are fixed wing

Nah, not once you get used to it.

But keep the answers coming. My article doesn't have to give the definiteve answer, and all this isgood speculation. :ok:

[P.Pilcher]

It is career pattern I think. Getting a fixed wing instructor rating has always been a step on the route to that job in the RHS of a big shiny airliner. There are no equivalemts in the helicopter world. From times of yore, the cheapest route fo an FW CPL has been to get plenty of cheap hours of experience and until fairly recently getting an instructor's rating was the route to this. Of course once this was plugged, there was a dearth of flying jobs, so the new, expensively qualified CPL's borrowed yet more money for that instructors rating with the impression that the extra hours that they could claim would make them more employable. Thus, for one reason or another fixed wing instructors have always been willing to work hard hours building, for little or nothing and the flying school proprietors have got used to it. Of course this means that said poor instructor will jump ship as soon as a better job appears, there are no career instructors and the standard of instruction is in a lot of cases abysmal. Nothing the training or regulatory industry tries to do about it seems to do any good - they have made the requirements of holding an instructor rating more and more onerous to try and drive up wages, and thus develop the ethos of the career instructor but they have been met with dismal failure. It is to be hoped that now the industry seems to be picking up again, there will be a dearth of instructors and the laws of supply and demand will kick in, but the flying training schools are used to the current rates of pay and pricing structure, so it will be a brave man who pops his head above the parapet and says - come and learn to fly with me - nice aeroplanes, instructors waiting - and it will cost you £40 per hour more than everybody else is charging who haven't got any instructors available!
In the rotary wing world, there isn't the big shiny several hundred seat whirlybird at the end of the career ladder to aspitre to fly, thus rotary instructors have always expected to be paid a fair sum for their services and got it.

P.P.

[BigEndBob]

Traditionally helicopter instructors where ex service, no way they would put with being paid civvy wages. I remember early nineties working with an ex army chap he ran the heli side of the school, he being on £40 an hour me being on £7 hour F/W, me looking out of the window on a foggy day seeing him earning loads of dosh doing hovering practise, then him saying we gotta sort out our WEEKS OFF!! holidays. Me replying we have time off when the weathers bad and fly when its good....welcome to civvy street.

[Whirlybird]

BigEndBob,

I think you may have hit on the reason... ie historical. Until the arrival of the R22 in the late 1970s/early 1980s, no-one except the super-rich could learn to fly helicopters. So who were the early instructors? Were they all ex-mil? So that they earl schools really did have a few elite ex-mil instructors teaching well-off students? And then when the students and instructors changed, the rates of pay stayed the same.

You see, what I couldn't work out is how this discrepancy started. Because every school seems to pay what they think is the going rate, and rates hardly change. And this is the case, despite the fact that there's a shortage of f/w instructors, but no shortage that I can see in the rotary world.

So, does anyone remember the instructing world back 20 or thirty yers ago? Or shall I ask on Rotorheads...or even that aviation nostalgia forum, whatever it's called?

[rotorfossil]

Whirlybird: Going back 30 years, the few helicopter instructors were almost exclusively ex service and there weren't many PPL/H's because of the high cost. Also as there were no such things as helicopter flying clubs (as now), almost all instruction was on a professional basis, usually associated with helicopter sales. The Robinson changed all that almost overnight, mostly due to the efforts of David Dixon at Sloane's.

[Whirlybird]

rotorfossil,
I think that's probably the answer then. Such people would have expected to be paid a decent hourly rate, and would have been. And that probably just stayed when the R22 and PPL(H)s and so on came along. It could also explain why helicopter instructors' pay rates hardly change nowadays, or so it seems to me; they're almost the same as when I started flying helicopters in 1999!

That all seems to make sense, but does anyone have any other thoughts or memories in connection with this?

[Say again s l o w l y]

No that sounds very plausible. It is very rare that salaries decrease massively over a short period of time, its more a slow erosion. So F/W instructors have probably had similar reducing salaries for a longer time.

Add in the other factors and there you go a pretty good understanding of why there is a difference.

[xraf]

"It is very rare that salaries decrease massively over a short period of time, its more a slow erosion. So F/W instructors have probably had similar reducing salaries for a longer time."

Was there a time when F/W salaries were a lot better?

I dont remember that but perhaps it was a really long time ago.

This is a serious point, was there a 'golden age' for f/w salaries - Post war? 60's?

I know the 70's and 80's were not particularly good, and the promise of ..."when you have to get a Commercial first they'll have to pay you loads of dosh..." was B:mad:ks!

Anyway, just a thought.

Regards
Xraf:ok:

[Say again s l o w l y]

I think the last time F/W instructors were paid well was before WW1!