M.E.V.

Could not agree more.

VET FEE Help still leaves a potential student with a massive debt even if they do not get in aviation, be it GA or an airline slot.
It should be that the airlines take a financial burden instead of just putting their new on-tick CPLs on a waiting list. That is not what they were told on entry. There were told that get their CPL and they would be into the airline. Not always the case.
As for cadets they should really be called captive students paying for their flight training via the Tax Payers dollar through the Government. We are producing more (inexperienced) pilots than the system needs or wants. It is wrong to give the spin 'Get your CPL with us and you have a seat on our XXX airliner'
Try and get a mortgage or buy a car on tick with a VET FEE loans hanging over your head.
R

Most Aussie airlines charge a Pilot for their endorsements through the use of a training wage or a wage bump after 3 or 4 years. Eg: Qantas pay around the equivalent of $60K a year for the first 6+ months. You’ve got no chance of them paying for an initial Pilots Licence.

Not for as long as there are people doing these courses and taking all the risk, no.

Would love to know how that's different from GA flying schools, where the student still assumes all the financial risk, but for a 0% chance of direct entry into an airline, or a small percentage chance of a flying job without uprooting their entire lives to a remote part of the country for a barely liveable wage?

Without trying to sound like a p#ck, have you read the last 3 pages of comments?

Well I don’t like to make comments without backing them up so spoke to some with intimate knowledge of the Academy setup. Yes, it can be confirmed a lot are now being taken on into the group as F/Os straight away, but also those who aren’t taken straight away and also showed aptitude and ability on course are being provided with instructing opportunities and there have been some arrangements with GA charter operators for others. Not all have been provided with employment opportunities, especially at the start, but it’s getting better.

Basically your performance on course determines how likely you are to get employment.

It will cost them about half as much, for a start.

So, if someone is performing below standard on the course, to the point where it is unlikely they will be employable at the end, are they still allowed to continue or are they let go?

It would be worked on a case by case basis and dependent on how deep into the course a trainee was.

The way a traditional cadetship/academy works is the training progress of the student is closely monitored. If it becomes apparent they are not performing to the required standard they are given help and opportunities to improve but if the standards are consistently below what is required then a decision would be made to remove them from course.

And it’s not just lack of technical ability or knowledge which would see a student removed from course, students have been removed for behavioural reasons too. Some have made it through to the end of course but been advised due to their behaviour and attitudes exhibited on course that employment will not be offered to them. In a way it’s a year long job interview.

If a student was removed from course I’m not 100% sure of the outcome, they may be refunded the portion of training they did not compete. Depending on the reason they may also be allowed to continue training in a private aspect at that flying school until competing the CPL/IR but would not be considered as part of the airline’s program.

I have mate, and I've read a bunch of things none of which answer my question. There have been a bunch of wild assertions such as GA operators being more stable careers than Q group. My question was, other than the higher upfront cost, how does the concept of financial risk being put all on the trainee differ from QGPA or a traditional school? Arguably the traditional school has much higher financial risk, as you have a 0% chance of Q group employment on completion, and the jobs that are available require you to move to remote areas indefinitely for a barely liveable wage (and certainly lower than even the lowest paid Q group pilot). Anything I've said there that's incorrect?

You've just said earlier in this thread that a self-funded GA CPL will cost about $80k from your mob. A quick look at the QGPA website says that the course fees for the CPL portion of the program is around $85k. Doesn't look like half to me.

Say what you want, but by the looks of it if you are good/lucky enough to get into QGPA and stay out of training/behavioural issues, you'll be set up in the best position possible for an Australian Aviation career. Perhaps you're not guaranteed a job, but this is life, nothing is guaranteed. Certainly not in aviation.

You obviously don't know many vets.

This thread is done as almost everyone is happy that QGPA is churning out fresh CPLs with a huge debt in a market that doesn't really need them..

This will eventually lower Ts and Cs for all pilots..

Good luck in 3rd world aviation that is Australia.

C150 said it all.

In Australia we were churning out more inexperienced CPLs than the market needs or can absorb. The same is happening in NZ. Their excess that cannot get a job at home then jump the ditch to try their luck in Australia.
In Oz they compete with locals who are finding the same, not enough CPL jobs for new punters.
Yes, there may be a job market for CPLs but what the operators want is CPL pilots who can slot into a job with minimum checking. That comes down to total experience. Right now operators wanting/needing new pilots have an issue of not just checking a new bee to line but in some cases having to retrain the wanna bees. They are lacking experience in commercial aircraft types, Heavy Cessna singles, No GA8 experience, don't even know what a PA32 is, A Beech A36 is a Sunday too far away. No remote experience. Not even having a Dangerous Goods Cert or charts for the area. 'But Sir I got my CPL in a glass screen Diamond, surely that is enough?' The list goes on. Do operators get pissed off with all that , Yes. All this comes down to flight schools that teach just enough to get the punter over the line for a CPL test. Then there is the decreasing level of flight instruction quality by instructors who in turn had next to none of the real job-ready experience to pass on.

Now over to you naysayers telling me that I got it wrong.

I have the experience to know that I am right.
R

Definitely not wrong, but this is a gravy train that will be difficult to stop because of the vested interests and politicians who backed people like Soar not wanting to lose face.

There's a reason banks stopped financing flying training...too many unemployable pilots declaring bankruptcy.

As this is taxpayers money the statistics on what kind of return the taxpayer is getting on this investment should be transparent, not anecdotal, including just how much of it goes into private pockets (ref Soar)

Not really,

If you want to be as close to certain that you will be offered an airline job from graduating and being on a jet within a year, then Rex cadetship is your best bet.

Unlike the QGPA rort, Rex cadets are actually actually guaranteed employment upon completion of their course (unless they screw up and are kicked out early which has never been particularly common).
After a year on the S340, you will be highly sought after at Jetstar and can jump over there (after paying some exit penalty to Rex though).

On the other hand, if you are lucky enough to end up on the Dash 8 at Qlink from the QGPA, well you will be stuck on the Dash 8 without the opportunity to progress onto anything else for quite a few years as Qantas controls your movement and progress.If a Q group jet is your goal, I'd be trying for Rex before this 'academy'.

I've also heard stories of direct entry recruits being offered jobs at both Qlink and Rex and opting for Qlink only to regret it later for this same reason. Many who got into Rex only had to stay there for 9 months or so before being snapped up by Jetstar. Those who went to Qlink, are still on their Dash 8 3 years later.

To go one step further, they are taught enough to get them over the line with one of their in-house CPL examiners, but if they were suddenly tested externally, many would likely not pass.

I have had handfuls from a certain DA40 training school coming after graduation wanting some Cessna time after they have been told to by operators who wouldn't touch them. I've been astonished by what some CPL holders have been lacking. For example - wind check on short final "how do I do that? the 6 pack doesn't show me", pointing out the windsock yielded almost equally puzzled looks as they tried to interpret what it meant in the few seconds that we had on short final. Another is the sheer inability to fly runway tracking after takeoff without the track pointer as shown on their fancy G1000 or to pick a field for a forced landing without the above mentioned wind vector (which shouldn't be particularly useful for a forced landing anyway when it is showing the current wind at 3000' :ugh:).

Agreed, and as I have said before, in-house testing shouldn't be allowed at any flying school.

They are doing it now.
Speedbird Pilot Academy - Funded - PPRuNe Forums