OAT/NetJets Europe Stage 2
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: at the whim of people I've never met
Age: 46
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whoa - that's crazy talk, facts are for losers, all the cool kids make wild postings on half truths overheard by some bloke down the pub they once met - that is the best way 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Everywhere
Age: 35
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey!!
I just saw your post.. I also got through to stage 2.
My dates are the 12 and 13.. so ill see ya there.. Would be cool to have a chat.. befor the whole thing starts..
Have a nice day,
T
I just saw your post.. I also got through to stage 2.
My dates are the 12 and 13.. so ill see ya there.. Would be cool to have a chat.. befor the whole thing starts..
Have a nice day,
T
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Arkesden
Age: 37
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My dates are also the 12th and 13th. I am planning on arriving at Oxford on the 11th and stay there as I live too far away. Have you managed to sort accommodation out? How is your preparation going?!
Is anyone else on these dates?
Good luck to everyone!
Andrew
Is anyone else on these dates?
Good luck to everyone!
Andrew
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Everywhere
Age: 35
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Andrew!!
Sounds Great. Umm.. nope I am also staying on campus for that one night, no i will call them on moday and book a room on site. What about you?? How is your preparation going?? Im already sooo nervous...
Cool to be in contact, keep it up.
T
Sounds Great. Umm.. nope I am also staying on campus for that one night, no i will call them on moday and book a room on site. What about you?? How is your preparation going?? Im already sooo nervous...
Cool to be in contact, keep it up.
T
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Arkesden
Age: 37
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got the cheapest room on site, just got to buy train tickets and find out how to get to the airport from Oxford. Shouldn't be to bad, bus or a taxi!
I'm reading all I can about the aviation world and NetJets, get up to scratch with maths and physics which shouldn't be too bad as I'm currently doing an aerospace engineering degree! But yes I am getting nervous but that is only natural!
Should get back to reading now!
Anyone else who has the assessment on the 12th and 13th, would be great to hear from you!
Andrew
I'm reading all I can about the aviation world and NetJets, get up to scratch with maths and physics which shouldn't be too bad as I'm currently doing an aerospace engineering degree! But yes I am getting nervous but that is only natural!
Should get back to reading now!
Anyone else who has the assessment on the 12th and 13th, would be great to hear from you!
Andrew
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 48
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just been reading all the posts regarding the costs of the NetJets scheme. I'm completely impartial - I went for Netjets last summer didnt get it and am now with a different FTO scheme tagged by a major UK airline.
Is the NetJets scheme a bad one? Ha - of course not! Its a first job with a good salary on a Jet????? I fail to see what is bad about that?
What people are forgetting is that the alternative is to go Self Sponsored (you will pay the same cost as if you were on the NetJets scheme). You will then have to find a job at the end. If you are a very good candidate (and have some luck) you may end up getting a better job/salary than NetJets can offer but the majority will prob find themselves taking a much lower salary or indeed paying more training costs to join the likes or Ryanair.
The only negative thing I would like to point out about the scheme is the accomodation issue. I understand it is compulsory to stay in OAT accomodation as it promotes "bonding".
The halls are around £150 pw and make my university Halls of Residence (£50pw) look like the Ritz! I think its unfair you are forced to do this - someone is clearly smiling about this setup but its not the cadets.
Is the NetJets scheme a bad one? Ha - of course not! Its a first job with a good salary on a Jet????? I fail to see what is bad about that?
What people are forgetting is that the alternative is to go Self Sponsored (you will pay the same cost as if you were on the NetJets scheme). You will then have to find a job at the end. If you are a very good candidate (and have some luck) you may end up getting a better job/salary than NetJets can offer but the majority will prob find themselves taking a much lower salary or indeed paying more training costs to join the likes or Ryanair.
The only negative thing I would like to point out about the scheme is the accomodation issue. I understand it is compulsory to stay in OAT accomodation as it promotes "bonding".
The halls are around £150 pw and make my university Halls of Residence (£50pw) look like the Ritz! I think its unfair you are forced to do this - someone is clearly smiling about this setup but its not the cadets.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OAA has rooms for £115 per week. Cadets are only required to use them in ground school and are free to live off site during the IR and MCC/JOC. Off site rooms seem to be about £75-£85 per week plus bills, internet (a necessity for online question banks in ground school) and transport cost. I figure you'll be at £100 per week off site, but you can save some on food prep in your own kitchen. Having to eat in the OAA canteen for six months is the worse part, not the cost of the rooms!
Registered User **
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Balhambob,
I don't agree with you. Yes, it is marvelous compared to the OAA self sponsoring integrated that doesn't offer you a job for 60K, but one can't say that the latter has the best value of the market.
You can very well go modular self sponsored, spend a total of less than 30K (which is not much more than the 15K you need for the costs and expenses such as accommodation at OAA and other expenses associated with the scheme) while working on the side to pay for it (which is not possible in integrated) start at a small air taxi operator or airline 1 year after training and move to NJE 2 years later, starting at the full NJE F/O salary while your mates of OAA will be writing down 1600GBP per month to the bank for another 3 years...
Another disadvantage is the fact that you are bonded. They can use you as a slave if they want, and you will not have much to say about it.
I don't say that OAA is bad or the scheme is bad, I have no personal interest as many pretend (which is funny) etc...
There are just better solutions in this world and such schemes should be looked at from a certain distance.
I don't agree with you. Yes, it is marvelous compared to the OAA self sponsoring integrated that doesn't offer you a job for 60K, but one can't say that the latter has the best value of the market.
You can very well go modular self sponsored, spend a total of less than 30K (which is not much more than the 15K you need for the costs and expenses such as accommodation at OAA and other expenses associated with the scheme) while working on the side to pay for it (which is not possible in integrated) start at a small air taxi operator or airline 1 year after training and move to NJE 2 years later, starting at the full NJE F/O salary while your mates of OAA will be writing down 1600GBP per month to the bank for another 3 years...
Another disadvantage is the fact that you are bonded. They can use you as a slave if they want, and you will not have much to say about it.
I don't say that OAA is bad or the scheme is bad, I have no personal interest as many pretend (which is funny) etc...
There are just better solutions in this world and such schemes should be looked at from a certain distance.
Last edited by Nichibei Aviation; 26th Mar 2008 at 04:15.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, you can save some quid by going modular. You could even do your PPL and hour building here: http://www.ncb-aviation.com/
Click the link if you wonder why the endless M versus I debate keeps creeping into threads where the employer has chosen an integrated course for their cadets.
Click the link if you wonder why the endless M versus I debate keeps creeping into threads where the employer has chosen an integrated course for their cadets.
Registered User **
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You got it all Adios...except that we're not JAA and that we won't start PPL/CPL training until 2009.
Yes, it is now possible to get a JAA CPL for 20K GBP: http://www.gsaviation.it/scuola.php
So much for the "Nichibei is biased" theory...
I'm sure some OAA/NJE candidates are having second thoughts now after spending huge amounts on transportation, accommodation and "exam participation fees" for the selections...
I strongly doubt that it has anything to do with "quality". I think that there's some kind of financial arrangement. OAA has enough spare money to spend into marketing, and such a scheme does serve them as a good advertising tool.
NJE doesn't need OAA, it's rather the opposite.
Yes, it is now possible to get a JAA CPL for 20K GBP: http://www.gsaviation.it/scuola.php
So much for the "Nichibei is biased" theory...
I'm sure some OAA/NJE candidates are having second thoughts now after spending huge amounts on transportation, accommodation and "exam participation fees" for the selections...
the employer has chosen an integrated course for their cadets.
NJE doesn't need OAA, it's rather the opposite.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nichibei,
The PPL is the first step in JAA modular training, but it does not need to be a JAA PPL, merely ICAO. Same for the hours building. Forgive me if I was not aware that NCB doesn't yet offer PPLs. I assume you do offer hour building already though.
I never stated NJE need OAA or vice versa, just that they chose them. If you think NJE doesn't focus on quality, you are very sadly mistaken. Berkshire Hathaway and Warren Buffet don't do low quality anything. They spend a lot of money on quality and they charge a hefty premium for their service.
The fact they attract customers willing to pay for quality might explain why they never considered the lowest cost modular options for their cadet programme, as their cadets could end up being the exact opposite of their target customers.
The PPL is the first step in JAA modular training, but it does not need to be a JAA PPL, merely ICAO. Same for the hours building. Forgive me if I was not aware that NCB doesn't yet offer PPLs. I assume you do offer hour building already though.
I never stated NJE need OAA or vice versa, just that they chose them. If you think NJE doesn't focus on quality, you are very sadly mistaken. Berkshire Hathaway and Warren Buffet don't do low quality anything. They spend a lot of money on quality and they charge a hefty premium for their service.
The fact they attract customers willing to pay for quality might explain why they never considered the lowest cost modular options for their cadet programme, as their cadets could end up being the exact opposite of their target customers.
Registered User **
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never stated NJE need OAA or vice versa, just that they chose them. If you think NJE doesn't focus on quality, you are very sadly mistaken.
So I don't see why NJE should be interested in OAA 200 hours cadets unless they pulled a good deal (in money and conditions) from OAA.
If OAA does advertise that NJE went for their quality, that doesn't mean that it's true.
Every student pays 60K.
The actual costs can't be higher than 15K since actual flight time is only 150 hours (at £60 on a SEP) and ground lesson costs are spread by teaching huge groups.
That leaves them with 45K to play with (plus the money they earn on the accommodation)
Pay NJE 35K in exchange for hiring each student and a sentence saying "we selected OAA because of their quality".
That still leaves 10K of profit to OAA.
Why OAA was selected? Because the margins at a modular school are too low to offer such deals to any airline.
To an airline this is pure profit so it should be seen as very welcome.
It's sad to see flight schools being reduced to marketing machines and making over 10-15 million pounds of yearly profits (which is more than some airlines with fleets counting 50 jets are making) and such schools being recommended by internet communities.
It's time to wake up people!!
Last edited by Nichibei Aviation; 27th Mar 2008 at 03:06.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nichibei,
So you are accusing OAA of paying NetJets £35K to hire each cadet? I think they could spend a quarter of such a budget on ads and fill every seat. Funny thing is, until their recent re-brand, I almost never saw an OAT advert, so one would think they didn't have a lot of empty seats. All of the recent ads I have seen focus on the new brand, so I suspect the motivation for this spending is probably to build awareness rather than purely to fill empty seats, though it will likely do both.
Maybe NetJets doesn't think there is much quality in that huge pile of CVs you say they have. Perhaps they have already mined the good ones and there is a reason the others are still in the pile. Perhaps they think they will do better by mentoring their own FOs from day one. Oh, but that would be a quality thing, not a profiteering scam, so it just can't be their real motivation.
So you are accusing OAA of paying NetJets £35K to hire each cadet? I think they could spend a quarter of such a budget on ads and fill every seat. Funny thing is, until their recent re-brand, I almost never saw an OAT advert, so one would think they didn't have a lot of empty seats. All of the recent ads I have seen focus on the new brand, so I suspect the motivation for this spending is probably to build awareness rather than purely to fill empty seats, though it will likely do both.
Maybe NetJets doesn't think there is much quality in that huge pile of CVs you say they have. Perhaps they have already mined the good ones and there is a reason the others are still in the pile. Perhaps they think they will do better by mentoring their own FOs from day one. Oh, but that would be a quality thing, not a profiteering scam, so it just can't be their real motivation.
Registered User **
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, the problem with advertising pilot training is that it is very difficult to reach the customer.
You can't put an add on a newspaper (costs a few thousand bucks per day and the reactions way too small for the price because the portion of interested readers is limited), you can put an add on a weekly magazine, but not every wannabe reads them and even if the advertser brings forward its "superior quality", no advertiser would say that he's selling trash...
You can for instance put a very well designed ad on Pprune, it still doesn't echo the "quality" that OAA seems to use as keyword for their advertising.
OAA made a win=win=win scheme here.
Student buys a job, OAA earns its part while advertising how good they are and NJE earns an extra profit (I have put some rough figures of 35k but it could be less, I don't have an insight on the transaction) by taking these guys instead of the 1500+ houred pilots. What's the earnig at NJE? like 50 million euro per year after tax?
I guess they can use another 3 million without needing to work for it...
As I said win=win=win but there are harder and alot cheaper ways to get there. These harder ways do also make you feel like you worked for it while this scheme will make you feel like you just paid for it...
The only part that would be challenging would be the selections... which many schools use as marketing tool: "The fact that you can pay for it doesn't mean that you can actually achieve it". This defers the attention from the high prices to focus candidates on the selections. The thousands of threads about selections on this forum will serve as proof.
How can they determine in 2 or 3 selection sessions based on many things that have nothing to do with flying an aircraft, whether a candidate is good for the job? Absurd.
Many candidates who pass such selections and are half way in training (and in some exceptional cases graduated already) wouldn't be able to tell you whether they're looking at a B737 or A320 if showed a picture. Interest and motivation should be the first selecting criteria and not stupid personnality question papers.
My opinion I expressed over the last 2 paragraphs applies to all schools, whether it's modular or integrated.
Funny thing is that schools with lower earning margins won't hold selections...
You can't put an add on a newspaper (costs a few thousand bucks per day and the reactions way too small for the price because the portion of interested readers is limited), you can put an add on a weekly magazine, but not every wannabe reads them and even if the advertser brings forward its "superior quality", no advertiser would say that he's selling trash...
You can for instance put a very well designed ad on Pprune, it still doesn't echo the "quality" that OAA seems to use as keyword for their advertising.
OAA made a win=win=win scheme here.
Student buys a job, OAA earns its part while advertising how good they are and NJE earns an extra profit (I have put some rough figures of 35k but it could be less, I don't have an insight on the transaction) by taking these guys instead of the 1500+ houred pilots. What's the earnig at NJE? like 50 million euro per year after tax?
I guess they can use another 3 million without needing to work for it...
As I said win=win=win but there are harder and alot cheaper ways to get there. These harder ways do also make you feel like you worked for it while this scheme will make you feel like you just paid for it...
The only part that would be challenging would be the selections... which many schools use as marketing tool: "The fact that you can pay for it doesn't mean that you can actually achieve it". This defers the attention from the high prices to focus candidates on the selections. The thousands of threads about selections on this forum will serve as proof.
How can they determine in 2 or 3 selection sessions based on many things that have nothing to do with flying an aircraft, whether a candidate is good for the job? Absurd.
Many candidates who pass such selections and are half way in training (and in some exceptional cases graduated already) wouldn't be able to tell you whether they're looking at a B737 or A320 if showed a picture. Interest and motivation should be the first selecting criteria and not stupid personnality question papers.
My opinion I expressed over the last 2 paragraphs applies to all schools, whether it's modular or integrated.
Funny thing is that schools with lower earning margins won't hold selections...
Last edited by Nichibei Aviation; 27th Mar 2008 at 21:51.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nichibei,
The goal of all FTOs, except maybe yours, is to make a profit. Your contention that OAA makes £35K in profit is ludicrous to start with. Your assertion that they would then give it away to another company as "advertising money" is even more ludicrous. OAA was recently purchased by venture capitalists. VCs don't give away the farm.
The only thing you have stated yet that makes any sense is that the programme is a win=win=win, yet you continue to assert that the cadets lose and OAA loses (by giving away) £35K. If OAA had that much margin to sacrifice, they could simply reduce the price and fill every seat they needed to. They could simply keep the price the same each year as their competitors raise them.
Are any other readers getting the feeling Nichibei is losing the plot?
The goal of all FTOs, except maybe yours, is to make a profit. Your contention that OAA makes £35K in profit is ludicrous to start with. Your assertion that they would then give it away to another company as "advertising money" is even more ludicrous. OAA was recently purchased by venture capitalists. VCs don't give away the farm.
The only thing you have stated yet that makes any sense is that the programme is a win=win=win, yet you continue to assert that the cadets lose and OAA loses (by giving away) £35K. If OAA had that much margin to sacrifice, they could simply reduce the price and fill every seat they needed to. They could simply keep the price the same each year as their competitors raise them.
Are any other readers getting the feeling Nichibei is losing the plot?
Last edited by Adios; 28th Mar 2008 at 09:15.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been watching this thread develop with amusement and bewilderment!
Nichibei, I'm sorry but I've got to agree with Adios - you're losing the plot! I really don't understand what your point is! You appear to have a massive axe to grind against NJE and OAA and you're just going round in circles and I don't understand it. What is so different about the OAA/NJE arrangement compared with the OAA/Flybe, FTE/Cityflier arrangements? Or do you hate any kind of sponsorship/part-sponsorship schemes? Perhaps you weren't fortunate enough to get accepted onto such a scheme, I don't know.
You seem to imply that OAA/NJE have a crap selection process and that interest and motivation should be the first thing they look for. Have you been to their selection?! As someone who has attended OAA/NJE selection I can tell you that they certainly do look for that! I had the pleasure of being interviewed by two assessors for the best part of an hour, where they asked me over and over again why I wanted to be a pilot, what I'd done so far in order to achieve that goal etc. I even got asked specifics such as "what is the range of a Gulfstream V?" so they can instantly pick out those who are genuinely interested in the industry and those who turn up for the fun of it.
The other route your anger seems to be taking is towards the fact that OAA make a profit. Of course they do, they're a business! Their sole aim is to make money, how they do that is secondary. Yes they advertise, as do 99% of other FTOs, and why wouldn't they?! You said that schools with lower margins don't hold selections - ever think why? They can't afford to turn people away because chances are they don't get many applicants - probably as a result of not advertising, funnily enough - and therefore will more than likely take anybody willing to pay. OAA find themselves in the fortunate position where demand for their product far outweighs supply so they have the choice in who they accept. It's all quite simple really isn't it?
Nichibei, I'm sorry but I've got to agree with Adios - you're losing the plot! I really don't understand what your point is! You appear to have a massive axe to grind against NJE and OAA and you're just going round in circles and I don't understand it. What is so different about the OAA/NJE arrangement compared with the OAA/Flybe, FTE/Cityflier arrangements? Or do you hate any kind of sponsorship/part-sponsorship schemes? Perhaps you weren't fortunate enough to get accepted onto such a scheme, I don't know.
You seem to imply that OAA/NJE have a crap selection process and that interest and motivation should be the first thing they look for. Have you been to their selection?! As someone who has attended OAA/NJE selection I can tell you that they certainly do look for that! I had the pleasure of being interviewed by two assessors for the best part of an hour, where they asked me over and over again why I wanted to be a pilot, what I'd done so far in order to achieve that goal etc. I even got asked specifics such as "what is the range of a Gulfstream V?" so they can instantly pick out those who are genuinely interested in the industry and those who turn up for the fun of it.
The other route your anger seems to be taking is towards the fact that OAA make a profit. Of course they do, they're a business! Their sole aim is to make money, how they do that is secondary. Yes they advertise, as do 99% of other FTOs, and why wouldn't they?! You said that schools with lower margins don't hold selections - ever think why? They can't afford to turn people away because chances are they don't get many applicants - probably as a result of not advertising, funnily enough - and therefore will more than likely take anybody willing to pay. OAA find themselves in the fortunate position where demand for their product far outweighs supply so they have the choice in who they accept. It's all quite simple really isn't it?
Registered User **
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adios, I'm telling you the sad reality of what's happening behind the scenes and you may find it very unrational but unfortunately it's the reality as it is.
Any school is the same and is working for profit, I agree.
I've been ripped off by a modular FTO myself spending over 10000 EUR for my PPL instead of the promised 7000 EUR. Nichibei people have found me complaining about this on a website and hired me after some exchanges. 2 other guys have been hired in similar circumstances.
This is a common misinterpretation. Cheap flight schools just don't need to defer the candidate's attention towards the selections because of high prices. Expensive FTO's instead have to advertise "quality" to justify their higher pricing for the exact same training.
I can tell you that anyone who can drive a car can fly a plane, no matter the quality of the FTO and that makes any such selection unjustified.
It's therefore absolutely normal that expensive FTO's have to make it look like being a pilot is an elite job, that's their selling point. Many people buy into this form of marketing and it results that more people actually enroll into such expensive programs before even considering other possibilities.
"Why do you want to become a pilot?" is a standard question that expensive schools use as part of their marketing but also a question that integrated schools no matter if they hold selections or not, have to ask to warn their students that there's no way back. That would also be an obvious question if you have a job attached to your training.
An interview should be more of the kind of questions like: "how are you going to fund your training? (reflects motivation) At what airline do you wish to work?" (shows how much energy a candidate has put into researching his possibilities), showing a picture and asking for the name of the type, etc..." That should be enough to rule out the macho's and Barbie's.
There's no point asking for the range of a Gulfstream V, that one got me laughing. I'll definitely suggest it to my co-workers. That is way too specific for a wannabe to know and has nothing to do with motivation, interest or flying skills... shows you very well that these selections are not made to test you, rather to glue you to the offer.
Now let's get back to the scheme.
You can fly a SEP (in the C-172/PA-28 class) for 50 pounds and a MEP for 100 GBP (200GBP in UK) an hour anywhere in USA, also at OAA's airfield.
Fly 150 hours at 50GBP and it costs you 7500 GBP.
Fly 15 hours on MEP at 200GBP for 3000GBP.
Add 200 hours flight instruction and briefings at 20 pounds per hour (I doubt instructors are paid that much) for a total of 4000GBP.
7500GBP+3000GBP+4000GBP=14500GBP.
Ground course for 500GBP per student, (20 students per class =10000GBP)
Total cost 15000GBP.
Almost all other costs are covered by the students.
The other 45K are pure profit for such schools...
So I'm the one loosing the plot hun?
Edit: sorry, forgot to factor VAT. If the program costs 61K VAT incl. that makes it 50K Vat less.
Profit would be 35K per student... profit margin of 70%...not bad at all.
Add profit on accommodation and yes, you deduce that these organisations are taking alot of money from you.
I say again, wake up people!!
Any school is the same and is working for profit, I agree.
I've been ripped off by a modular FTO myself spending over 10000 EUR for my PPL instead of the promised 7000 EUR. Nichibei people have found me complaining about this on a website and hired me after some exchanges. 2 other guys have been hired in similar circumstances.
You said that schools with lower margins don't hold selections - ever think why? They can't afford to turn people away because chances are they don't get many applicants
I can tell you that anyone who can drive a car can fly a plane, no matter the quality of the FTO and that makes any such selection unjustified.
It's therefore absolutely normal that expensive FTO's have to make it look like being a pilot is an elite job, that's their selling point. Many people buy into this form of marketing and it results that more people actually enroll into such expensive programs before even considering other possibilities.
I had the pleasure of being interviewed by two assessors for the best part of an hour, where they asked me over and over again why I wanted to be a pilot, what I'd done so far in order to achieve that goal etc. I even got asked specifics such as "what is the range of a Gulfstream V?"
An interview should be more of the kind of questions like: "how are you going to fund your training? (reflects motivation) At what airline do you wish to work?" (shows how much energy a candidate has put into researching his possibilities), showing a picture and asking for the name of the type, etc..." That should be enough to rule out the macho's and Barbie's.
There's no point asking for the range of a Gulfstream V, that one got me laughing. I'll definitely suggest it to my co-workers. That is way too specific for a wannabe to know and has nothing to do with motivation, interest or flying skills... shows you very well that these selections are not made to test you, rather to glue you to the offer.
Now let's get back to the scheme.
You can fly a SEP (in the C-172/PA-28 class) for 50 pounds and a MEP for 100 GBP (200GBP in UK) an hour anywhere in USA, also at OAA's airfield.
Fly 150 hours at 50GBP and it costs you 7500 GBP.
Fly 15 hours on MEP at 200GBP for 3000GBP.
Add 200 hours flight instruction and briefings at 20 pounds per hour (I doubt instructors are paid that much) for a total of 4000GBP.
7500GBP+3000GBP+4000GBP=14500GBP.
Ground course for 500GBP per student, (20 students per class =10000GBP)
Total cost 15000GBP.
Almost all other costs are covered by the students.
The other 45K are pure profit for such schools...
So I'm the one loosing the plot hun?
Edit: sorry, forgot to factor VAT. If the program costs 61K VAT incl. that makes it 50K Vat less.
Profit would be 35K per student... profit margin of 70%...not bad at all.
Add profit on accommodation and yes, you deduce that these organisations are taking alot of money from you.
I say again, wake up people!!
Last edited by Nichibei Aviation; 29th Mar 2008 at 00:15.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Nichibei, you are losing the plot. I would appreciate if you are going to address me by name at the start of a post that you only include quotes from my posts in the reply. Both of the quotes above are from Woksam's post.
In his defense, if he attended OAA's NetJets selection process, then the range of a G-V is relevant to reveal how much research he has done into NetJets. Since this is a NetJets/OAA thread, I suspect that is the context of his reply. It would not surprise me if some of the NetJets applicants actually want to fly wide bodied airliners and plan to leave NetJets at the first opportunity. It is important to try to flush these motives out. I saw one person posting on OAA's NetJets forum who uses a photo of a 747 as his avatar. That's a brilliant way to convince them you want to fly Hawkers or Gulf Streams!
You can toss up all the numbers you wish, but you don't know what OAA's overhead costs are or what their profit margin is. One thing I can guarantee you though is that if any company was getting a 70% profit margin, as you state OAA does, they would have a lot more competitors. Your rants show little understanding of market forces.
The FTO's you write of with low per hour prices don't even compare to OAA. Consider some of their instructors have been with them for 20 years, while you work for a startup. I once saw an advert from OAA for ME Instrument instructors and the starting salary was £40K plus productivity incentives. Imagine what their long tenure FI's must make. Frankly, I'd rather be taught my IR by a guy with 10-20 years FI experience than a newby who has just upgraded to MEII, even if it costs a lot more. Consider that Oxford has the second highest cost of living outside London and OAA's staff has to be paid more to live in that economy. There are probably at least ten more factors that raise their cost base.
You can argue that you don't want to float OAA's overhead if you think you can get comparable training elsewhere for less. I don't take exception to that argument, but your claim that they make £35,000 profit per student on a course price of £63,000 is ludicrous. This is why I say that you are losing the plot.
It is extremely difficult for a service industry to earn more than 10% profit. OAA may earn more than that, but I doubt that they even approach 20% much less the 70% that you claim.
One thing for sure, if I approached a group of venture capitalists with a sound business plan showing a reasonable chance of earning a 50% to 70% profit margin, I could get as much money as I cared to ask them for to start up such an operation.
Continuing to make such obviously ludicrous claims as you do, proves one thing. It is much better that you are an FI than a manager of a business of any kind. I am sorry that you got ripped off, but I think you are letting that experience cloud your thinking. If you are a low hour pilot aiming to be an FO, had you completed any FTO's integrated course, you'd probably be an FO at least on turboprops by now instead of an hour building instructor. Instructing is an honourable profession and I do hope you at least enjoy it and pour your heart into it rather than just passing the time while salivating for an airline job. Something tells me you are probably a good and ethical instructor. It is your business acumen that I question, not your motives or ethics.
In his defense, if he attended OAA's NetJets selection process, then the range of a G-V is relevant to reveal how much research he has done into NetJets. Since this is a NetJets/OAA thread, I suspect that is the context of his reply. It would not surprise me if some of the NetJets applicants actually want to fly wide bodied airliners and plan to leave NetJets at the first opportunity. It is important to try to flush these motives out. I saw one person posting on OAA's NetJets forum who uses a photo of a 747 as his avatar. That's a brilliant way to convince them you want to fly Hawkers or Gulf Streams!
You can toss up all the numbers you wish, but you don't know what OAA's overhead costs are or what their profit margin is. One thing I can guarantee you though is that if any company was getting a 70% profit margin, as you state OAA does, they would have a lot more competitors. Your rants show little understanding of market forces.
The FTO's you write of with low per hour prices don't even compare to OAA. Consider some of their instructors have been with them for 20 years, while you work for a startup. I once saw an advert from OAA for ME Instrument instructors and the starting salary was £40K plus productivity incentives. Imagine what their long tenure FI's must make. Frankly, I'd rather be taught my IR by a guy with 10-20 years FI experience than a newby who has just upgraded to MEII, even if it costs a lot more. Consider that Oxford has the second highest cost of living outside London and OAA's staff has to be paid more to live in that economy. There are probably at least ten more factors that raise their cost base.
You can argue that you don't want to float OAA's overhead if you think you can get comparable training elsewhere for less. I don't take exception to that argument, but your claim that they make £35,000 profit per student on a course price of £63,000 is ludicrous. This is why I say that you are losing the plot.
It is extremely difficult for a service industry to earn more than 10% profit. OAA may earn more than that, but I doubt that they even approach 20% much less the 70% that you claim.
One thing for sure, if I approached a group of venture capitalists with a sound business plan showing a reasonable chance of earning a 50% to 70% profit margin, I could get as much money as I cared to ask them for to start up such an operation.
Continuing to make such obviously ludicrous claims as you do, proves one thing. It is much better that you are an FI than a manager of a business of any kind. I am sorry that you got ripped off, but I think you are letting that experience cloud your thinking. If you are a low hour pilot aiming to be an FO, had you completed any FTO's integrated course, you'd probably be an FO at least on turboprops by now instead of an hour building instructor. Instructing is an honourable profession and I do hope you at least enjoy it and pour your heart into it rather than just passing the time while salivating for an airline job. Something tells me you are probably a good and ethical instructor. It is your business acumen that I question, not your motives or ethics.