Bankruptcy - Does it affect employment?
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This document refers to the requirements:
http://www.britishairwaysjobs.com/do...t_CC-FC-RA.pdf
This is not to say things can and will not change in the future. The best course of action appears to be if you are an foreign national, as the checks somehow don't seem to be as thorough!
http://www.britishairwaysjobs.com/do...t_CC-FC-RA.pdf
This is not to say things can and will not change in the future. The best course of action appears to be if you are an foreign national, as the checks somehow don't seem to be as thorough!
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Birthplace of Aviation
Posts: 462
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Goodluck HN
Thanks UAV689.
My brother is a senior manager in one of the bailed out banks (one with the biggest corporate loss in UK history) and was furious that i was compromising basic living needs to repay his own employers! I literally sold everything i owned that was worth anything on eBay to repay the banks and i only wish i'd seen sense sooner.
Its nice going to sleep at night now not having to worry about to make the next repayment or how i will put petrol in my old car. Amazingly i am now an expert on how far you can go on a fuel light in a car, and trust me its far!
The restrictions and bad credit for becoming bankrupt are well worth not having to repay money i can't afford.
My brother is a senior manager in one of the bailed out banks (one with the biggest corporate loss in UK history) and was furious that i was compromising basic living needs to repay his own employers! I literally sold everything i owned that was worth anything on eBay to repay the banks and i only wish i'd seen sense sooner.
Its nice going to sleep at night now not having to worry about to make the next repayment or how i will put petrol in my old car. Amazingly i am now an expert on how far you can go on a fuel light in a car, and trust me its far!
The restrictions and bad credit for becoming bankrupt are well worth not having to repay money i can't afford.
I wish you great luck in all your endeavours.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HN,
It never occured to me that I was "scaremongering", quite the opposite in fact. I thought you were supporting the moderators contention that bankruptcy was a happy, inconsequential tool to be employed in the pursuit of your pilots licence or anything else. If you want a source for that list of consequences I will find it again, but type bankruptcy and consequences into your search engine and you will find no end of returns listing them. Surely you already did this sometime ago if you are embarking on the process?
Bankruptcy is a legal process, rather like divorce is a legal process. Nobody sets out with the intention of having to embark on it, but many people find themselves in need of a process, that for them may be the lesser of two evils. I don't find any "stigma" attached to people who find themselves in difficulty and need to utilize either of these processes to remedy their personal situation. Further it is a situation that any of us could find ourselves in, given the wrong mix of circumstances. For some people it is a way to be able move forward when everything else has failed, and that is the point of its existence.
I could list the advantages of utilizing this process if a person finds themselves in this position, but you and others have already done that. What you haven't done is give a balanced view. Obviously you are involved in the process at an early stage and perhaps that weights your viewpoint, but that shouldn't prevent you and others from looking at the downsides of the process as well, without suggesting that being asked to, amounts to "scaremongering."
Bankruptcy is really one of the choices of last resort. It is a process that is embarked on when all others have failed. It is not something that anybody should be promoting as a planning tool for potential pilots (or anybody else,) or suggesting that others will have a commercial advantage if they utilize it and you don't. That is just nonsense.
On to your second point, I (and many others) regularly reply to questions, that the industry is on its knees. I regularly point out that research, maturity, common sense, planning, and a healthy does of scepticism are all attributes or methods that anybody embarking on this as a potential career should posses in spades. FTO's are in the business of selling you something you want to buy. Car dealers do the same, so do plastic surgeons. Do they lie? I am sure some probably do, but the advantage they have is that they are selling to customers who already have a deep desire for the product. The reality of ownership may turn out to be far removed from the dream in some or all of those cases, but that is not the sellers problem. Likewise with banks selling money to customers. They do so to satisfy the desires of those customers. It is a flimsy rationale to then suggest your greed or ineptitude is down to them. Rather like saying I stole something because the temptation was too much, or it shouldn't have been on display. I can lie, deceive and cheat, because I justify that others in my perception lie deceive and cheat. I am not in the wrong because I can delude and justify.
That is far removed from any suggestion that people who find themselves in difficulty fall into this category, but it does seem common for one or two in this thread (yourself included) to find the need to do it.
Bankruptcy isn't an offence, just as divorce isn't an offence. It is an end process that is used when everthing else has broken down. As well as being an end process, it should provide a starting point for re-building your life in either respect. It is however disingenuous to promote it as an inconsequential method of advancement. Anybody embarking on bankruptcy should do so only after taking independent and properly qualified advice. That is particularly so on a forum aimed at advising young people with an ambition.
What I say on any of these threads, is what I would (and do) say to my own children. To that end the advice is honest and the best that I can provide. It may not always (or often) be what people want to hear, but it is well intentioned and honest. It strikes me that some who should excercise a better degree of responsibilty and care, are too busy banning or belittling others, and busy promoting their own lives and agendas, to provide the balanced view that they often fail to actually provide.
Bless!
It never occured to me that I was "scaremongering", quite the opposite in fact. I thought you were supporting the moderators contention that bankruptcy was a happy, inconsequential tool to be employed in the pursuit of your pilots licence or anything else. If you want a source for that list of consequences I will find it again, but type bankruptcy and consequences into your search engine and you will find no end of returns listing them. Surely you already did this sometime ago if you are embarking on the process?
Bankruptcy is a legal process, rather like divorce is a legal process. Nobody sets out with the intention of having to embark on it, but many people find themselves in need of a process, that for them may be the lesser of two evils. I don't find any "stigma" attached to people who find themselves in difficulty and need to utilize either of these processes to remedy their personal situation. Further it is a situation that any of us could find ourselves in, given the wrong mix of circumstances. For some people it is a way to be able move forward when everything else has failed, and that is the point of its existence.
I could list the advantages of utilizing this process if a person finds themselves in this position, but you and others have already done that. What you haven't done is give a balanced view. Obviously you are involved in the process at an early stage and perhaps that weights your viewpoint, but that shouldn't prevent you and others from looking at the downsides of the process as well, without suggesting that being asked to, amounts to "scaremongering."
Bankruptcy is really one of the choices of last resort. It is a process that is embarked on when all others have failed. It is not something that anybody should be promoting as a planning tool for potential pilots (or anybody else,) or suggesting that others will have a commercial advantage if they utilize it and you don't. That is just nonsense.
On to your second point, I (and many others) regularly reply to questions, that the industry is on its knees. I regularly point out that research, maturity, common sense, planning, and a healthy does of scepticism are all attributes or methods that anybody embarking on this as a potential career should posses in spades. FTO's are in the business of selling you something you want to buy. Car dealers do the same, so do plastic surgeons. Do they lie? I am sure some probably do, but the advantage they have is that they are selling to customers who already have a deep desire for the product. The reality of ownership may turn out to be far removed from the dream in some or all of those cases, but that is not the sellers problem. Likewise with banks selling money to customers. They do so to satisfy the desires of those customers. It is a flimsy rationale to then suggest your greed or ineptitude is down to them. Rather like saying I stole something because the temptation was too much, or it shouldn't have been on display. I can lie, deceive and cheat, because I justify that others in my perception lie deceive and cheat. I am not in the wrong because I can delude and justify.
That is far removed from any suggestion that people who find themselves in difficulty fall into this category, but it does seem common for one or two in this thread (yourself included) to find the need to do it.
Bankruptcy isn't an offence, just as divorce isn't an offence. It is an end process that is used when everthing else has broken down. As well as being an end process, it should provide a starting point for re-building your life in either respect. It is however disingenuous to promote it as an inconsequential method of advancement. Anybody embarking on bankruptcy should do so only after taking independent and properly qualified advice. That is particularly so on a forum aimed at advising young people with an ambition.
What I say on any of these threads, is what I would (and do) say to my own children. To that end the advice is honest and the best that I can provide. It may not always (or often) be what people want to hear, but it is well intentioned and honest. It strikes me that some who should excercise a better degree of responsibilty and care, are too busy banning or belittling others, and busy promoting their own lives and agendas, to provide the balanced view that they often fail to actually provide.
Bless!
Last edited by Bealzebub; 25th Sep 2009 at 15:38.
Would you have written all this, expounded so fully on the topic, if I hadn't provoked you.. nah.
I understand your point of view. However, Wannabes would be well informed if they realised that others in the same race are planning on using bankruptcy as a tactic to manage the funding of their career aspirations. It is highly effective and it is not uncommon.
I find it morally neutral. I understand that many do not.
WWW
I understand your point of view. However, Wannabes would be well informed if they realised that others in the same race are planning on using bankruptcy as a tactic to manage the funding of their career aspirations. It is highly effective and it is not uncommon.
I find it morally neutral. I understand that many do not.
WWW
Guest
Posts: n/a
Call me old fashioned but I'm a firm believer in standing by one's responsibilities and planning to use bankruptcy is, in my opinion, well outside the realms of the done thing. I'd take a pretty dim view of anyone who deliberately set out to do this.
HN. Take advantage of the banks? Do you honestly think that they swallow any losses? Who do you think bears the brunt?
HN. Take advantage of the banks? Do you honestly think that they swallow any losses? Who do you think bears the brunt?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What provocation?
You threadbanned me yesterday for writing a reasonable reply. You told your audience that I was a flying school owner? All based on your prejudices. You then searched out a 5 year old post that you seem to believe supported your contention? You promote this idea. I have already stated that given the abject nonsenses of some of your statements it is quite likely that you do it for effect or attention and to that end it is probably something of an act, so I don't think I have been provoked into anything I haven't already said? Can you say the same?
After using your position (albeit briefly) to shut me up, you then made a strange posting about somebody else having to send you a written apology before they would be allowed back? I am guessing they didn't agree with you either?
Provocation and smoking me out? No I don't think so. Backpeddling, malfeasance and posturing in front of an audience, perhaps? You make too many prejudicial and wrong assumptions about your audience to be taken too seriously. I do not think wannabes are being well informed by the suggestion that bankruptcy is being used as a tactical advantage. You have already stated your loathing of banks and anybody else who doesn't conform to your ideals. This is becoming the "Fox News" forum of PPRuNe.
The morality of bankruptcy is only one aspect of it. The consequences may well go far beyond that one aspect. You frequently espouse to anyone who will read it, how well you have done for yourself and I cannot recall that involving bankruptcy on your part? Yet you "provoke" the idea that this is a useful tool in career advancement. I can understand the Devils advocate approach, but that is somewhat negated by your use of your privilege to dismiss and remove any counter to such suggestion. You know it as well?
Bankruptcy is not something that I would advise my children as in any way a benefit or positive career advancement. It is something to be avoided if at all possible. It will not be viewed as a positive attribute, unless in a historic context it is seen as something that was successfully overcome. It may well preclude their ability to access a vital tool for securing a future job. It may well preclude their ability to be considered for certain jobs in foreign countries. It may have consequences for themselves and their families that are not so obvious in the excitement of the prospect. In other words it may not be the easy answer to all their problems. Within this same forum there are people with a weak understanding of the consequences of secured debt, mortgages, guarantors, etc. There are catastrophic potential problems for anybody thinking that bankruptcy is simply an easy way out for people considering these options.
There are people on this very page that think that bankruptcy is a "right" that has something to do with the taxes they have paid? Or that it is a sensible justification for reckless spending brought on by their inability to apply sensible judgment? Responses from sensible, intelligent people should at the very least be sensible and intelligent. There may be a spectrum of opinion and comment, but it is very wrong to stifle that opinion and comment because it doesn't mesh with your opinions.
If you understand that as you say, why do you ban and threaten to ban people who do just that?
You threadbanned me yesterday for writing a reasonable reply. You told your audience that I was a flying school owner? All based on your prejudices. You then searched out a 5 year old post that you seem to believe supported your contention? You promote this idea. I have already stated that given the abject nonsenses of some of your statements it is quite likely that you do it for effect or attention and to that end it is probably something of an act, so I don't think I have been provoked into anything I haven't already said? Can you say the same?
After using your position (albeit briefly) to shut me up, you then made a strange posting about somebody else having to send you a written apology before they would be allowed back? I am guessing they didn't agree with you either?
Provocation and smoking me out? No I don't think so. Backpeddling, malfeasance and posturing in front of an audience, perhaps? You make too many prejudicial and wrong assumptions about your audience to be taken too seriously. I do not think wannabes are being well informed by the suggestion that bankruptcy is being used as a tactical advantage. You have already stated your loathing of banks and anybody else who doesn't conform to your ideals. This is becoming the "Fox News" forum of PPRuNe.
The morality of bankruptcy is only one aspect of it. The consequences may well go far beyond that one aspect. You frequently espouse to anyone who will read it, how well you have done for yourself and I cannot recall that involving bankruptcy on your part? Yet you "provoke" the idea that this is a useful tool in career advancement. I can understand the Devils advocate approach, but that is somewhat negated by your use of your privilege to dismiss and remove any counter to such suggestion. You know it as well?
Bankruptcy is not something that I would advise my children as in any way a benefit or positive career advancement. It is something to be avoided if at all possible. It will not be viewed as a positive attribute, unless in a historic context it is seen as something that was successfully overcome. It may well preclude their ability to access a vital tool for securing a future job. It may well preclude their ability to be considered for certain jobs in foreign countries. It may have consequences for themselves and their families that are not so obvious in the excitement of the prospect. In other words it may not be the easy answer to all their problems. Within this same forum there are people with a weak understanding of the consequences of secured debt, mortgages, guarantors, etc. There are catastrophic potential problems for anybody thinking that bankruptcy is simply an easy way out for people considering these options.
There are people on this very page that think that bankruptcy is a "right" that has something to do with the taxes they have paid? Or that it is a sensible justification for reckless spending brought on by their inability to apply sensible judgment? Responses from sensible, intelligent people should at the very least be sensible and intelligent. There may be a spectrum of opinion and comment, but it is very wrong to stifle that opinion and comment because it doesn't mesh with your opinions.
If you understand that as you say, why do you ban and threaten to ban people who do just that?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bealzebub,
What you have done is indeed scaremongering and i am sorry to say that you have in my opinion contributed nothing useful to this thread apart from worrying someone who is heavily in debt who has read your post. You have lifted information courtesy of a search engine and have not qualified the source. I find this worrying as you appear not to have a grip on qualifying information as fact or opinion as a pilot.
I would suggest you have actually lifted it from a website that sells debt solutions like IVAs and warns people off bankruptcy, as that is where insolvency practitioners make there massive profits from charging extortionate fees and these sites actually look like they are providing honest and free advice and even look like some government advice websites do. Trust me that i know as i have done a lot of research on this and i have a great deal of personal experience now on how that industry operates and i am very keen to make people aware that insolvency practitioners are not there to help you and are only out to line their own pockets which they do very well (check share prices for insolvency firms).
I was told to sign up for an IVA and lie about what i could afford to repay as it would then qualify me for bankruptcy. I signed up in the belief that i would never have to go ahead with the scheme and was then told to start making repayments despite being told it would never come to that. I challenged the company and threatened to report them to their professional body and they agreed to release me from the IVA. They stood to take over £5,000 from £11,000 of repayments towards an original debt of £47,000- not bad eh!
Having earned a living for a decade now from GA (explains why i am broke!) i am well aware of how the industry works and how FTOs sell the dream. Having actually worked in the flight training industry i have had to tell grown men who have taken 50h to solo not to sell their businesses in order to become airline pilots while i have had unpaid maintenance bills on my desk although i would liked to have taken their money just to pay the wages of the instructors for another month! FTOs tell people they are selling a solution to someone’s problem of wanting to become an airline pilot when in reality they are not actually capable of doing this so yet again you are very wrong in comparing them with ‘car dealers’ who can actually deliver a desired product!
I hope i don’t sound bitter as asides from my financial situation it has all worked out beautifully for me and i landed the flying job i dreamed of for years the day after i passed my IR, which will pay more than most airline jobs will in time and i also have the privelege of not having to work for an airline which is the opinion of many of my friends who fly for major operators!
So thanks for your time but please don’t offer an opinion on something you have no experience of. I am not advocating bankruptcy as a means to become a pilot free of charge, what i am saying is that if you can't afford to repay your flight training debts then don't let the stigma put you off becoming bankrupt, beware insolvency practitioners and people giving you misinformed advice about the consequences and above all don't get depressed and top yourself as its only money!!!
Best regards
What you have done is indeed scaremongering and i am sorry to say that you have in my opinion contributed nothing useful to this thread apart from worrying someone who is heavily in debt who has read your post. You have lifted information courtesy of a search engine and have not qualified the source. I find this worrying as you appear not to have a grip on qualifying information as fact or opinion as a pilot.
I would suggest you have actually lifted it from a website that sells debt solutions like IVAs and warns people off bankruptcy, as that is where insolvency practitioners make there massive profits from charging extortionate fees and these sites actually look like they are providing honest and free advice and even look like some government advice websites do. Trust me that i know as i have done a lot of research on this and i have a great deal of personal experience now on how that industry operates and i am very keen to make people aware that insolvency practitioners are not there to help you and are only out to line their own pockets which they do very well (check share prices for insolvency firms).
I was told to sign up for an IVA and lie about what i could afford to repay as it would then qualify me for bankruptcy. I signed up in the belief that i would never have to go ahead with the scheme and was then told to start making repayments despite being told it would never come to that. I challenged the company and threatened to report them to their professional body and they agreed to release me from the IVA. They stood to take over £5,000 from £11,000 of repayments towards an original debt of £47,000- not bad eh!
Having earned a living for a decade now from GA (explains why i am broke!) i am well aware of how the industry works and how FTOs sell the dream. Having actually worked in the flight training industry i have had to tell grown men who have taken 50h to solo not to sell their businesses in order to become airline pilots while i have had unpaid maintenance bills on my desk although i would liked to have taken their money just to pay the wages of the instructors for another month! FTOs tell people they are selling a solution to someone’s problem of wanting to become an airline pilot when in reality they are not actually capable of doing this so yet again you are very wrong in comparing them with ‘car dealers’ who can actually deliver a desired product!
I hope i don’t sound bitter as asides from my financial situation it has all worked out beautifully for me and i landed the flying job i dreamed of for years the day after i passed my IR, which will pay more than most airline jobs will in time and i also have the privelege of not having to work for an airline which is the opinion of many of my friends who fly for major operators!
So thanks for your time but please don’t offer an opinion on something you have no experience of. I am not advocating bankruptcy as a means to become a pilot free of charge, what i am saying is that if you can't afford to repay your flight training debts then don't let the stigma put you off becoming bankrupt, beware insolvency practitioners and people giving you misinformed advice about the consequences and above all don't get depressed and top yourself as its only money!!!
Best regards
Last edited by HN1708; 25th Sep 2009 at 15:40.
Might I just point out one little point that appears to have been missed in the many interesting views posted...
It's been briefly mentioned about assests.... i.e. for most folks their home.
That can be a very critical point.... don't ignore it.
The bankruptcy route really does only work if you have no home, in particular.
Those lenders who have issued unsecured loans (credit cards/personal loans etc) usually charge a level of interest above that of a secured loan on the basis that they are exposed to greater risk.
However, if you actually have any assets (such a home, mortgaged or not) they will move very, very, very quickly to get to court the moment they detect any risk in you not repaying.
The sequence they use is to firstly get a court order for the debt, which will be automatic as you do owe them the money.
Courts being mostly reasonable places will not allow them to harass you for something you cannot pay so the court will look at your finances and make an order for you to pay only what you reasonably afford ... and you get to keep your assets.
The sting is in the next stage.....
Your creditor will then happily take this £1.00 per month (or whateveer the court decide) but trot back quickly to the court and as a matter of course obtain a charging order.
They will now have a charge over your home until the debt is repaid.
Joint ownership etc doesn't matter, nor does the current equity available.
They have now secured the loan and will happily sit back for many, many years knowing that eventually they will get their money back.
Actually, not quite accurate. What they will do is sell your debt on as they have now turned your unsecure debt into something of value - a secured debt.
Apparently there is an absolute boom industry in financial circles at the moment in just this sort of enterprise.
So for anyone thinking of bankruptcy it is of course crucial you have no assets.
For anyone who does have a home and thinks their unsecured loans are just that .. think again .. while you have a home any loan is easily secured.
Does rather make those high credit card interest rates even more of a "poor value" financial tool ...... for the borrower of course .. not the bank.
It's been briefly mentioned about assests.... i.e. for most folks their home.
That can be a very critical point.... don't ignore it.
The bankruptcy route really does only work if you have no home, in particular.
Those lenders who have issued unsecured loans (credit cards/personal loans etc) usually charge a level of interest above that of a secured loan on the basis that they are exposed to greater risk.
However, if you actually have any assets (such a home, mortgaged or not) they will move very, very, very quickly to get to court the moment they detect any risk in you not repaying.
The sequence they use is to firstly get a court order for the debt, which will be automatic as you do owe them the money.
Courts being mostly reasonable places will not allow them to harass you for something you cannot pay so the court will look at your finances and make an order for you to pay only what you reasonably afford ... and you get to keep your assets.
The sting is in the next stage.....
Your creditor will then happily take this £1.00 per month (or whateveer the court decide) but trot back quickly to the court and as a matter of course obtain a charging order.
They will now have a charge over your home until the debt is repaid.
Joint ownership etc doesn't matter, nor does the current equity available.
They have now secured the loan and will happily sit back for many, many years knowing that eventually they will get their money back.
Actually, not quite accurate. What they will do is sell your debt on as they have now turned your unsecure debt into something of value - a secured debt.
Apparently there is an absolute boom industry in financial circles at the moment in just this sort of enterprise.
So for anyone thinking of bankruptcy it is of course crucial you have no assets.
For anyone who does have a home and thinks their unsecured loans are just that .. think again .. while you have a home any loan is easily secured.
Does rather make those high credit card interest rates even more of a "poor value" financial tool ...... for the borrower of course .. not the bank.
Bealzebub - I apologise for thread banning you for all of 45 seconds last night. I miss-read your posting and decided you were a flying school owner. The excellent bottle of Margaux (Lascombes, 2005 - epic) helped confuse me.
My reference to the five year old posting was merely an indulgence - I thought you weren't in my fan club and I was just looking back to confirm the fact.
I agree that planning to use bankruptcy is:
Illegal.
Fraud.
Serious.
And Cheating.
It does however work uniquely well for Wannabes who are often young, with no assets and large loans secured against a paper license of no value. It is being used in the way I suggest and it does mean that other Wannabes CAN afford to outspend you all the way to SSTR and the far side of £100k.
Making that widely known is a task for which I make no apology.
My commentary that I personally find it morally neutral is not needed but then it does draw people into a heated debate which generates a well argued debate. Thanks for your contribution.
WWW
My reference to the five year old posting was merely an indulgence - I thought you weren't in my fan club and I was just looking back to confirm the fact.
I agree that planning to use bankruptcy is:
Illegal.
Fraud.
Serious.
And Cheating.
It does however work uniquely well for Wannabes who are often young, with no assets and large loans secured against a paper license of no value. It is being used in the way I suggest and it does mean that other Wannabes CAN afford to outspend you all the way to SSTR and the far side of £100k.
Making that widely known is a task for which I make no apology.
My commentary that I personally find it morally neutral is not needed but then it does draw people into a heated debate which generates a well argued debate. Thanks for your contribution.
WWW
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some very ointeresting points and points of view on here and of course a lively debate.
Nobody is disputing the fact that if you went into this bsiness with all the best intensions and now find yourself in a corner that bankruptcy is an option. The problem is promoting it as a career path, ie go get the loans, go get the license and then de-fraud everyone. That's the problem and that's the line I have a problem with. It comes down to integrity again, I don't want to share a flight deck with a liar, a thief and a cheat, because I don't want to have to worry about what I'm missing when they
up and then keep it to themselves due to no integrity.
As to the point about wannabes getting an advantage because they can run off to Ryan and the likes and pay for Tr - it's a fair point but I say let them. If a self-funded TR was the only option (and at one time for me it appeared that way for 6 months) then keep waiting! The airlines will recruit again.
Nobody is disputing the fact that if you went into this bsiness with all the best intensions and now find yourself in a corner that bankruptcy is an option. The problem is promoting it as a career path, ie go get the loans, go get the license and then de-fraud everyone. That's the problem and that's the line I have a problem with. It comes down to integrity again, I don't want to share a flight deck with a liar, a thief and a cheat, because I don't want to have to worry about what I'm missing when they
up and then keep it to themselves due to no integrity.As to the point about wannabes getting an advantage because they can run off to Ryan and the likes and pay for Tr - it's a fair point but I say let them. If a self-funded TR was the only option (and at one time for me it appeared that way for 6 months) then keep waiting! The airlines will recruit again.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK, Paris, Peckham, New York
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has become a very interesting thread,and has kept my interest more than the last epic upturn thread.
The last post about sitting next to a man that has lied to get funding raises an interesting point in my mind (or maybe it's the bottle of merlot) is what level of law breaking would you feel comfortable when sitting next to an FO.
Did you speed on the way to work? Did you try and buy cider when you were under 18 with a fake Id? All these are against the law.
The once old black and White moral standing is now more morally grey.
Banks have loaned iresponsibly for financial gains.
MPs have got into power for financial gains.
Idiots that are without a village go on big brother for financial gain.
FTOs promise you a first time job on the 744 with stewardess willing to do naughty things to you in return for finacial gain.
RYANAIR HIRE WANNABES FOR FINANCIAL GAIN.
It's nowadays a just part of the game.
Aplogies for any typos I am merlot'ed up and using an iPhone....
The last post about sitting next to a man that has lied to get funding raises an interesting point in my mind (or maybe it's the bottle of merlot) is what level of law breaking would you feel comfortable when sitting next to an FO.
Did you speed on the way to work? Did you try and buy cider when you were under 18 with a fake Id? All these are against the law.
The once old black and White moral standing is now more morally grey.
Banks have loaned iresponsibly for financial gains.
MPs have got into power for financial gains.
Idiots that are without a village go on big brother for financial gain.
FTOs promise you a first time job on the 744 with stewardess willing to do naughty things to you in return for finacial gain.
RYANAIR HIRE WANNABES FOR FINANCIAL GAIN.
It's nowadays a just part of the game.
Aplogies for any typos I am merlot'ed up and using an iPhone....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by HN1708
Flintstone, so if the banks won't take responsibility for reckless lending should people take responsibility for irresponsible borrowing?
Ahh, I see. So because one party behaves in an unsatisfactory manner that makes it ok for others to do so?
Of course people should take responsibiliy for their own actions. They take out a loan, they sign a contract, they should expect to abide by what they willingly get themselves into unless they reach a point, through no fault of their own, where they can no longer meet their obligations. Bankruptcy should be seen as a last option, not planneed for from the beginning.
I repeat my question. Who ultimately bears the brunt when borrowers can no longer meet their payments?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have never advocated intentional bankruptcy and never planned to do so and can assure it was a very difficult decision to make although i had no choice in the matter!
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 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?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find this quote about planned bankruptcy from WWW interesting:
"It does however work uniquely well for Wannabes who are often young, with no assets and large loans secured against a paper license of no value. It is being used in the way I suggest and it does mean that other Wannabes CAN afford to outspend you all the way to SSTR and the far side of £100k."
It seems to me incongruent with his advice elsewhere to young wannabes to go modular because it's just as good or even better and costs much less. I think as short as a year ago, he generally would tell the youngsters to wait a few years and save some cash instead of borrowing. He'd tell them that modular is better, but now suddenly he sees a way to get a good deal on integrated training (must be integrated if it takes you to the far side of £100k) using other people's money with an illegal and fraudulent intention (never mind the moral issues, it's just fiat money). By the way, since it's worthless fiat money, please send me all of yours WWW and quit whinging about FTOs scheming to take it away from wannabes since it's not real.
Now the Robin Hood of Wales seems to promote, no forgive me, inform young wannabees about a competitive tool others will use to beat them to the top of the integrated training and sstr cv pile if they don't get with the program and at the very least consider using this illegal and fraudulent technique.
Personally, I think it's a bit of self indulgent grandstanding because I just don't think banks were or are making £80-100K unsecured loans to young asset-less Wannabes unless they had a parental guarantee and mum and dad's house as security. Maybe I am missing something, but wouldn't mum and dad still have to honour their contractual obligations to the bank even if junior decides, scratch that, intentionally plans from the outset, to take the WWW exit plan to financial bliss?
So....while the thread is humorous and entertaining, I think it is relatively useless as a financial planning tool for starry eyed wannabes who've been taken in by glossy FTO brochures and slick WWW financing scheme arguments. It makes me wonder if he has hedged all of his worthless fiat money and his gold bullion buying WDSs and WDOs from AIG and reselling their derivatives to the banks (Wannabe Default Swaps and Wannabe Default Obligations)!
For those calling for Danny to reign him in, forget about it. Look at the page view stats on the threads he moderates and imagine what they do for Pprune's ad rates!
Pprune towers must be awash in fiat money what with the FTOs having pried so much of it out of the hands of naive wannabes at exhorbitant profit margins especially after seeing that a Pprune banner ad will bring another wave of them next month with page views like these.
The irony, if not the pure entertainment value of it all makes me LMAO!
"It does however work uniquely well for Wannabes who are often young, with no assets and large loans secured against a paper license of no value. It is being used in the way I suggest and it does mean that other Wannabes CAN afford to outspend you all the way to SSTR and the far side of £100k."
It seems to me incongruent with his advice elsewhere to young wannabes to go modular because it's just as good or even better and costs much less. I think as short as a year ago, he generally would tell the youngsters to wait a few years and save some cash instead of borrowing. He'd tell them that modular is better, but now suddenly he sees a way to get a good deal on integrated training (must be integrated if it takes you to the far side of £100k) using other people's money with an illegal and fraudulent intention (never mind the moral issues, it's just fiat money). By the way, since it's worthless fiat money, please send me all of yours WWW and quit whinging about FTOs scheming to take it away from wannabes since it's not real.
Now the Robin Hood of Wales seems to promote, no forgive me, inform young wannabees about a competitive tool others will use to beat them to the top of the integrated training and sstr cv pile if they don't get with the program and at the very least consider using this illegal and fraudulent technique.
Personally, I think it's a bit of self indulgent grandstanding because I just don't think banks were or are making £80-100K unsecured loans to young asset-less Wannabes unless they had a parental guarantee and mum and dad's house as security. Maybe I am missing something, but wouldn't mum and dad still have to honour their contractual obligations to the bank even if junior decides, scratch that, intentionally plans from the outset, to take the WWW exit plan to financial bliss?
So....while the thread is humorous and entertaining, I think it is relatively useless as a financial planning tool for starry eyed wannabes who've been taken in by glossy FTO brochures and slick WWW financing scheme arguments. It makes me wonder if he has hedged all of his worthless fiat money and his gold bullion buying WDSs and WDOs from AIG and reselling their derivatives to the banks (Wannabe Default Swaps and Wannabe Default Obligations)!
For those calling for Danny to reign him in, forget about it. Look at the page view stats on the threads he moderates and imagine what they do for Pprune's ad rates!
Pprune towers must be awash in fiat money what with the FTOs having pried so much of it out of the hands of naive wannabes at exhorbitant profit margins especially after seeing that a Pprune banner ad will bring another wave of them next month with page views like these.The irony, if not the pure entertainment value of it all makes me LMAO!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody is saying you should suffer and you have been backed into that corner and have taken the only option left. A great deal different to planning it from the beginning.
Comes back to my first post on this thread - Integrity. You obviously have some, those that plan for bankruptcy from the beginning or encourage it or use it as a career plan haven't.
Comes back to my first post on this thread - Integrity. You obviously have some, those that plan for bankruptcy from the beginning or encourage it or use it as a career plan haven't.
Guest
Posts: n/a
HN.
Nowhere did I say you had planned to go bankrupt, re-read my posts.
You're right to a certain extent, taxpayers pick up the bill for defaulters but before it gets that far it's the customers, the likes of me and others, who pay for it in charges and interest and all those little deductions that appear on our bank statements every month. Saying it's ok because the banks are doing wrong doesn't make the actions of those who deliberately........(note that part, deliberately)........ use bankruptcy as a tool right.
Nowhere did I say you had planned to go bankrupt, re-read my posts.
You're right to a certain extent, taxpayers pick up the bill for defaulters but before it gets that far it's the customers, the likes of me and others, who pay for it in charges and interest and all those little deductions that appear on our bank statements every month. Saying it's ok because the banks are doing wrong doesn't make the actions of those who deliberately........(note that part, deliberately)........ use bankruptcy as a tool right.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flintstone, i never said you did; i am just reiterating my reasons and opinion.
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.
I am just trying to offer my personal experience of this so far in order to help others like warning about insolvency practitioners. The other thing i would add is that a fundamental thing you should beware of to avoid getting in my situation is NEVER to repay a debt with another borrowing EVER, as this is how things snowball and you end up in a corner and this is how the banks let things get out of control with perpetual credit!
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.
I am just trying to offer my personal experience of this so far in order to help others like warning about insolvency practitioners. The other thing i would add is that a fundamental thing you should beware of to avoid getting in my situation is NEVER to repay a debt with another borrowing EVER, as this is how things snowball and you end up in a corner and this is how the banks let things get out of control with perpetual credit!
