BANKRUPTCY!! Pushed to the edge....
Join Date: May 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the point is that we judge you as a collective society, and you have been found to be immoral.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 59
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But yet none of you judge the morals of lending 60k to a 21 year old kid who has limited experence of working. No experence at all of working in thier chosen career apart from what they have gleaned from PPrune.
The simple act of allowing them the loan has far reaching exposure to not only the person but also the loved ones of that person. The chap who has the 45K against his mums house. Thats the familys home on the line, if it all goes wrong that is someones retirement spent in poverty instead of what was planned.
Don't get me wrong there is moral questions about planning to defraud the banks to fund your training.
But I have more of a moral problem with certain schools marketing. Also the fact that the banks are willing to put individuals in the situation which is risky at the outset and subject to the whim of global politics and so many other factors.
Nobody questions the fact that people are prevented from commiting suicide. But nobody questions the fact that people are being allowed to commit financial suicide which not only effects them but also there family. And the only reason why it is done is to make a profit.
The simple act of allowing them the loan has far reaching exposure to not only the person but also the loved ones of that person. The chap who has the 45K against his mums house. Thats the familys home on the line, if it all goes wrong that is someones retirement spent in poverty instead of what was planned.
Don't get me wrong there is moral questions about planning to defraud the banks to fund your training.
But I have more of a moral problem with certain schools marketing. Also the fact that the banks are willing to put individuals in the situation which is risky at the outset and subject to the whim of global politics and so many other factors.
Nobody questions the fact that people are prevented from commiting suicide. But nobody questions the fact that people are being allowed to commit financial suicide which not only effects them but also there family. And the only reason why it is done is to make a profit.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as it relates to this topic, responsibility is a most definite requirement for the prospective airline pilot. If you cannot demonstrate and accept that responsibility then you have a very real disadvantage.
In fact people are not "prevented from commiting suicide", you hope that they have the direction, common sense and self preservation instinct to prevent themselves from taking such action. This applies just as much to their finances. Of course banks lend money for profit. It is actually the greed of the "I want it now" generation that is the real problem ?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Timbuktoo
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on now Bealzebub,
Why should we expect individuals to accept responsibility for their own decisions and actions when it goes wrong?
I think you seem to have missed a few key points:
It's the banks fault they want to be airline pilots
It's the banks fault they borrowed the money
It's the industires fault they didn't get a job
and why shouldn't the rules be different for them, is it not true pilot's are above most others?
and of course it is 2007, didn't you know self respect is old hat.
Why should we expect individuals to accept responsibility for their own decisions and actions when it goes wrong?
I think you seem to have missed a few key points:
It's the banks fault they want to be airline pilots
It's the banks fault they borrowed the money
It's the industires fault they didn't get a job
and why shouldn't the rules be different for them, is it not true pilot's are above most others?
and of course it is 2007, didn't you know self respect is old hat.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 59
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the banks do lend out such large amounts of money. They also extend credit in vast amounts way over what the person could afford.
I have a standing argument with my credit card bank every time they decide that I am a bad customer by clearing it every month. If it was up to them I would have a 10k credit limit. No thanks the 1k limit will do, if my CC was cloned all I would be down would be 1k instead of 10k. I have had to cancel the card twice to get them to keep it at the 1k limit.
The banks make profit from fraud they fight like hell to make you pay for it. If you get your personal information knicked and a loan taken out in your name they will sort it after alot of fighting, but they will "suggest" its not worth informing the police. Why because they don't want statistics being available to justify them being regulated so they can't provided financial suicide levels of credit.
I am quite sure that if I wanted I could get 50k spread over 5 cards if I so wished in the space of about 3 weeks.
And I do agree you should be responsable for your own actions. But taking for example another example from our nanny state. You are not now allowed to do your own electrics in your house without alot of ball ache. Number of deaths per year in the low teens if that. Number of lives affected by to much credit must be thousands.
They won't do anything about it because it keeps the economy turning creating more tax revenue. It also allows them more control over peoples spending with the use of interest rate changes. For myself a 0.5% increase in the base rate means 20 quid change to my morgage repayments nothing else. Those with loans up to thier ears its a 3 figure sum off thier disposable income.
I have a standing argument with my credit card bank every time they decide that I am a bad customer by clearing it every month. If it was up to them I would have a 10k credit limit. No thanks the 1k limit will do, if my CC was cloned all I would be down would be 1k instead of 10k. I have had to cancel the card twice to get them to keep it at the 1k limit.
The banks make profit from fraud they fight like hell to make you pay for it. If you get your personal information knicked and a loan taken out in your name they will sort it after alot of fighting, but they will "suggest" its not worth informing the police. Why because they don't want statistics being available to justify them being regulated so they can't provided financial suicide levels of credit.
I am quite sure that if I wanted I could get 50k spread over 5 cards if I so wished in the space of about 3 weeks.
And I do agree you should be responsable for your own actions. But taking for example another example from our nanny state. You are not now allowed to do your own electrics in your house without alot of ball ache. Number of deaths per year in the low teens if that. Number of lives affected by to much credit must be thousands.
They won't do anything about it because it keeps the economy turning creating more tax revenue. It also allows them more control over peoples spending with the use of interest rate changes. For myself a 0.5% increase in the base rate means 20 quid change to my morgage repayments nothing else. Those with loans up to thier ears its a 3 figure sum off thier disposable income.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Timbuktoo
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tescoapp
and who signed the papers for the loans up to their ears?????????????
seems to me an increasing %age of the population wants to be nannied so they can blame everything on someone else!
If you borrow £60K for training then you are responsible for repaying it.........simple as that!
and who signed the papers for the loans up to their ears?????????????
seems to me an increasing %age of the population wants to be nannied so they can blame everything on someone else!
If you borrow £60K for training then you are responsible for repaying it.........simple as that!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Loans, interest, and bankruptcy. Good job I'm saving/saved before I commenced my flying training.
Interest rate rises cannot be controlled by us mere mortals. The fact of the matter is they are controlled by people they affect the least. Does it make any sense then for anyone to take out a loan of staggering proportions (the likes of which Oxford and FTE students are seduced into doing) not knowing what the exact repayments are going to be?
Whilst WWW's idea of planned bankruptcy is shocking to hear I understand his mindset, it's not a moral way out but a practical way out. On the whole lets see how many moral people/organisations are involved on the route to becoming an airline pilot shall we?
-The Airlines (BA, BMi etc) who will only accept a pilot who has been through a very expensive (in terms of price, and lost earnings) category of flight training. That’s Integrated Training Lucifer and Re-Heat!
-The Flight School who charges £60,000 for the flight training
-The bank who has virtually no hesitation in handing a young pubescent a £60,000 loan. Considering that the most this person would’ve ever saved would probably be less than a 1/10th of that!
-The regulatory body which charges obscene amounts for the luxury of sitting required exams and for issuing a paper license.
Of course no one needs to take out a loan if they can't repay it, but then the dream dies.
Interest rate rises cannot be controlled by us mere mortals. The fact of the matter is they are controlled by people they affect the least. Does it make any sense then for anyone to take out a loan of staggering proportions (the likes of which Oxford and FTE students are seduced into doing) not knowing what the exact repayments are going to be?
Whilst WWW's idea of planned bankruptcy is shocking to hear I understand his mindset, it's not a moral way out but a practical way out. On the whole lets see how many moral people/organisations are involved on the route to becoming an airline pilot shall we?
-The Airlines (BA, BMi etc) who will only accept a pilot who has been through a very expensive (in terms of price, and lost earnings) category of flight training. That’s Integrated Training Lucifer and Re-Heat!
-The Flight School who charges £60,000 for the flight training
-The bank who has virtually no hesitation in handing a young pubescent a £60,000 loan. Considering that the most this person would’ve ever saved would probably be less than a 1/10th of that!
-The regulatory body which charges obscene amounts for the luxury of sitting required exams and for issuing a paper license.
Of course no one needs to take out a loan if they can't repay it, but then the dream dies.
Last edited by Superpilot; 12th Jan 2007 at 14:00.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 59
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have a fair point about who signs for it.
But its borderline fraud in my opinion.
The banks say here you go I am giving you money which you can spend but its putting you in a difficult position.
And you have a wannabie who says well if they are stupid enough to give me it and I can't afford it when after a couple of years things don't work out so be it.
Both are on the same dodgy moral grounds. The pilot to be is taking a risk and so is the bank.
I can understand why the financial types are so bitter towards this method it completely screws the system up which effects thier profits. But yet again the system allows them to put people in this situation. They can't have it both ways.
BTW I don't think the banks are totally at fault for letting wannabie pilots into the trap of high loans to fund training.
The CAA has alot to answer for with its lack of information which it gives out.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/srg_fc...es_2004_05.pdf
The stats are hard to interprete with no key and also don't give the information required.
Just from a causal glance it appears that nearly 20% of pilots trained that year won't be flying multi-crew. Thats 200 pilots a year being added to the pool of unemployed pilots.
I did ask a tame CAA person about it. And got told it was all to do with commercial sensitivity. It had the potential not only to close quite a few schools but also to completely screw up the crewing of the UK airlines in times of expansion. I did ask about the fredom of information act and getting the data. He said unless you had an insiders knowledge of the CAA files you would just get an information not stored reply.
But its borderline fraud in my opinion.
The banks say here you go I am giving you money which you can spend but its putting you in a difficult position.
And you have a wannabie who says well if they are stupid enough to give me it and I can't afford it when after a couple of years things don't work out so be it.
Both are on the same dodgy moral grounds. The pilot to be is taking a risk and so is the bank.
I can understand why the financial types are so bitter towards this method it completely screws the system up which effects thier profits. But yet again the system allows them to put people in this situation. They can't have it both ways.
BTW I don't think the banks are totally at fault for letting wannabie pilots into the trap of high loans to fund training.
The CAA has alot to answer for with its lack of information which it gives out.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/srg_fc...es_2004_05.pdf
The stats are hard to interprete with no key and also don't give the information required.
Just from a causal glance it appears that nearly 20% of pilots trained that year won't be flying multi-crew. Thats 200 pilots a year being added to the pool of unemployed pilots.
I did ask a tame CAA person about it. And got told it was all to do with commercial sensitivity. It had the potential not only to close quite a few schools but also to completely screw up the crewing of the UK airlines in times of expansion. I did ask about the fredom of information act and getting the data. He said unless you had an insiders knowledge of the CAA files you would just get an information not stored reply.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's say at 21years you have little or no money and of course no assets. Make a gameplan to work hard for 5 years in order to earn the money and then you begin training at 26 not too late at all....
Alternatively work for let's see ..... 3 years (seems about right) turn 24 years of age and then supplement with a smaller unsecured loan of £15,000. Still a big responsibility but far more manageable with or without an aviation career.
... And of course work 1-2 years full time and a go modular with a supplemental loan.
Don't go around dragging your family into your financial affairs because they'll suffer for your foolishness especially near retirement. It's your responsibility to inform them of the reaslistic risk factors involved.
Alternatively work for let's see ..... 3 years (seems about right) turn 24 years of age and then supplement with a smaller unsecured loan of £15,000. Still a big responsibility but far more manageable with or without an aviation career.
... And of course work 1-2 years full time and a go modular with a supplemental loan.
Don't go around dragging your family into your financial affairs because they'll suffer for your foolishness especially near retirement. It's your responsibility to inform them of the reaslistic risk factors involved.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The banks say here you go I am giving you money which you can spend but its putting you in a difficult position.
And you have a wannabie who says well if they are stupid enough to give me it and I can't afford it when after a couple of years things don't work out so be it.
Both are on the same dodgy moral grounds. The pilot to be is taking a risk and so is the bank.
And you have a wannabie who says well if they are stupid enough to give me it and I can't afford it when after a couple of years things don't work out so be it.
Both are on the same dodgy moral grounds. The pilot to be is taking a risk and so is the bank.
No, The banks are selling you money. It is a commercial transaction. They do not say they are "giving" you anything. If the wannabee or anyone else thinks they are being "given" money then they must be stupid or just simply greedy. They will also be required to sign a contract which will spell out the terms to them before they become committed. it would be wise to read it and understand it.
Once again it comes down to responsibility, if you haven't got it or don't want it, then you are probably barking up the wrong tree in pusuing this particular career.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 59
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said boogie.
I must admit the family bit is the worst bit of this sorry situation.
Those with enough financial savy to realise what the risks are or can afford to pay it won't get suckered into the trap. And the ones that it really will destroy will be the ones that unfortunatly get into problems.
BTW I am the bane of my Banks advisor's life she freely admits now that they make a loss on handling my cash. Every time she suggests a new product that will make my life easier she always has to admit that it will expose me to more risk. This has been a long drawn out argument ever since she announced that at 21 I really shouldn't have a Cyril the Squirrel super savers account.
And just to add it is my career and my training was payed for without a loan. And I am sitting here with only a morgage outstanding, chucking as much money at it as I can afford. So that I can escape the noose of these bastard banks.
Bad choice of words it is a transaction but also one which risk is taken on by both parties. If the bank is stupid enough to sell a product which can't realistically be fulfilled then tough.
I must admit the family bit is the worst bit of this sorry situation.
Those with enough financial savy to realise what the risks are or can afford to pay it won't get suckered into the trap. And the ones that it really will destroy will be the ones that unfortunatly get into problems.
BTW I am the bane of my Banks advisor's life she freely admits now that they make a loss on handling my cash. Every time she suggests a new product that will make my life easier she always has to admit that it will expose me to more risk. This has been a long drawn out argument ever since she announced that at 21 I really shouldn't have a Cyril the Squirrel super savers account.
And just to add it is my career and my training was payed for without a loan. And I am sitting here with only a morgage outstanding, chucking as much money at it as I can afford. So that I can escape the noose of these bastard banks.
Bad choice of words it is a transaction but also one which risk is taken on by both parties. If the bank is stupid enough to sell a product which can't realistically be fulfilled then tough.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just because loans are offered does not mean that you have to take them.
Much the same way with drugs. Just because they are readily available does not mean you have to indulge.
It seems few people these days want to take responsibility for their actions.
Much the same way with drugs. Just because they are readily available does not mean you have to indulge.
It seems few people these days want to take responsibility for their actions.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Timbuktoo
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'The banks say here you go I am giving you money which you can spend but its putting you in a difficult position'
'But yet again the system allows them to put people in this situation. They can't have it both ways'
The Banks don't put the borrower in a difficult position, the borrower put themselves in a difficult position by accepting the loan. As a smoker does by smoking or a thief does when he steals.
The system does not put people in the situation they do it to themsleves. Accordingly they did not do it to you!
The risks are known upfront and if they are not acceptable then alternative employment is always an option.
How about those that risk all setting up a business or those who simply borrow unaware they will soon be unemployed?
'But yet again the system allows them to put people in this situation. They can't have it both ways'
The Banks don't put the borrower in a difficult position, the borrower put themselves in a difficult position by accepting the loan. As a smoker does by smoking or a thief does when he steals.
The system does not put people in the situation they do it to themsleves. Accordingly they did not do it to you!
The risks are known upfront and if they are not acceptable then alternative employment is always an option.
How about those that risk all setting up a business or those who simply borrow unaware they will soon be unemployed?
I'll mak siccar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Tir nan Og
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There will probably be a time limit to all of this, though.
I will add, with the greatest respect to the good folks at PPRuNe, myself included, that this is not the place to go for professional advice in a matter like this. Over and again in my career I have had to untangle messes made on the advice of the frankly ignorant, just as I am ignorant of the facts in your case ("I went to this young lawyer, just graduated, and he did the whole thing for $250.00. Fantastic!". Yes, and it will cost you $5,000.00 to unscramble the omelet that the boy fried up).
If you are as deep in the hole as you say, you need the best advice you can get, not the cheapest.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 59
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The risks are known upfront
Which is why the banks have nothing to moan about if someone plays the bankrupt card. Its part of the risk they take.
To be honest I really hope that lots of wannabies do go bankrupt and put this practise to bed.
By far the most sensible suggestion is the one above.
The only other advice is don't get into debt in the first place.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately if you try to screw the banks, the only person that will really be bending over and dropping them is you. That is not someone with "spirit". That is "idiot".
I would STRONGLY advise anyone considering declaring themselves bankrupt to fully research the matter. The posts on here re how easy it is to get on with your life afterwards seem to be written by people with little actual knowledge. It will cause serious disruption to your life.
There are many, much easier ways of obtaining cash, many of which are more "legal" than setting out with the intent to bankrupt yourself.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cambridge/Cambodia
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maltese Falcon,
I'm intrigued that you consider yourself to have "messed up" and that this justifies bankruptcy. Surely, by all accounts, a poorly paid instructing job and a TP job should the horizon that all potential ATPL graduates are aiming for?
You have an airline job, many people's dream and you have undertaken its required training - training which rightly incurs a very large cost.
But now, with all due respect, you have had your cake and eaten it too - training for free (well, not for free, we have all now paid for it for you), you have the job and as you say yourself you now live comfortably.
Why shouldn't I go rack up debts a fraction of the cost of an ATPL course on frivolous activites and then likewise declare myself bankrupt? What gives you the right to justify clearing your training debts especially when you have then got your foot on the airline ladder? Would you deny the same right to someone who racked up the same debts on women, gambling and fast cars?
I understand bankruptcy where a business has gone under and you have already lost everything, but by all accounts, far from losing anything you now have it all - and have topped that off by never having to repay the expense of what got you there.
I'm intrigued that you consider yourself to have "messed up" and that this justifies bankruptcy. Surely, by all accounts, a poorly paid instructing job and a TP job should the horizon that all potential ATPL graduates are aiming for?
You have an airline job, many people's dream and you have undertaken its required training - training which rightly incurs a very large cost.
But now, with all due respect, you have had your cake and eaten it too - training for free (well, not for free, we have all now paid for it for you), you have the job and as you say yourself you now live comfortably.
Why shouldn't I go rack up debts a fraction of the cost of an ATPL course on frivolous activites and then likewise declare myself bankrupt? What gives you the right to justify clearing your training debts especially when you have then got your foot on the airline ladder? Would you deny the same right to someone who racked up the same debts on women, gambling and fast cars?
I understand bankruptcy where a business has gone under and you have already lost everything, but by all accounts, far from losing anything you now have it all - and have topped that off by never having to repay the expense of what got you there.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cambridge/Cambodia
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re-Heat,
As much as I find WWW's proposition abhorant, he is logically correct. The flaw is that the law is so lax in this area.
For myself it would clearly be beneficial. Hell, I could go for an integrated course tomorrow as funding and my ability to repay is all that stopped me. I have no house, car or serious assets to lose and have no intention of starting a business anytime in the next 2-6 years.
That said, I wouldn't do it on principal. Bankruptcy in this kind is no morally different from theft.
As much as I find WWW's proposition abhorant, he is logically correct. The flaw is that the law is so lax in this area.
For myself it would clearly be beneficial. Hell, I could go for an integrated course tomorrow as funding and my ability to repay is all that stopped me. I have no house, car or serious assets to lose and have no intention of starting a business anytime in the next 2-6 years.
That said, I wouldn't do it on principal. Bankruptcy in this kind is no morally different from theft.