Considering a recent thread, and many like it, that has declared the pilot shortage to be an absolute myth, do you feel flight training should be subsidized by tax payers' dollars at aviaition colleges?
I think that we should not be funding the unemployment line. Nor should we be promoting newly trained young people entering an industry with the conditions newbys face. The only way to raise wages and conditions in the industry is by reducing supply. And this has to start from the bottom. Less funding, fewer pilots, more jobs avail, better wages and conditions to attract them. Those higher wages would eventually be felt all the way to the airlines.
Now, I know poor Jonny has always dreamed of flying and now could never afford it... I feel for him. But poor Johnny is probably the same guy who's more than happy to work for free to pursue his dream.
Stop funding flight training!
Pilot Supply VS Publicly Funded Flight Schools
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog
-
wha happen
- Rank 8
- Posts: 963
- Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 11:39 am
-
anotherwannabe
- Rank 0
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 11:23 am
-
cedar tree
- Rank 3
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:18 pm
http://www.cbc.ca/nl/story/nf_flight_sc ... 60316.html
A little off topic but if you stretch it you can make it fit...[/code]
A little off topic but if you stretch it you can make it fit...[/code]
-
fingersmac
- Rank 7
- Posts: 606
- Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 4:17 pm
As far as i know there are only four schools in Canada that are government subsidized:
CEGEP Chicoutimi
Confederation College
Sault College
Seneca College (although at $40K there doesn't seem to be much of a subsidy going to the students)
Those four schools accounted for approximately 100 new commercial pilots in 2005 which is about 12.5% of the 800+ commercial licenses issued by TC for that same year.
Like most of my classmates at Confederation this year, subsidized flight training made my training affordable, especially since I could qualify for OSAP. However, if I had not enrolled in Confederation College's aviation program, I, like many of my classmates, was more than willing to do my training at a private FTU.
I think the assumption that students who are fortunate enough to take advantage of subsidized flight training are the same people who would work for free is a highly ignorant opinion.
just my two cents.
CEGEP Chicoutimi
Confederation College
Sault College
Seneca College (although at $40K there doesn't seem to be much of a subsidy going to the students)
Those four schools accounted for approximately 100 new commercial pilots in 2005 which is about 12.5% of the 800+ commercial licenses issued by TC for that same year.
Like most of my classmates at Confederation this year, subsidized flight training made my training affordable, especially since I could qualify for OSAP. However, if I had not enrolled in Confederation College's aviation program, I, like many of my classmates, was more than willing to do my training at a private FTU.
I think the assumption that students who are fortunate enough to take advantage of subsidized flight training are the same people who would work for free is a highly ignorant opinion.
just my two cents.
Yes, it all makes sense when you look at it one way mduffy. I would love a bigger salary - who wouldn't, but that comes at an expense. Less competition for a good flying job - great.
Now look at it from a passenger stand-point...our customers.
All that comes at a sarcifice. Less pilots = higher wage = more comfortable lifestyle for flight crew. For companies to be able to afford higher crew salaries, they would need more income, more revenue. And where does that increase revenue come from? Increased passenger fares. Period.
If you raise the fares, you will get less travellers, to a point. Less passengers would cause less planes flying / cancelled routes. And now your increase wage means nothing because you've just laidoff.
There is a delicate balance of supply and demand. Going too far to either extreme isn't good for business, or for employees.
See your 2 cents and raise ya a couple.
RJ
Now look at it from a passenger stand-point...our customers.
All that comes at a sarcifice. Less pilots = higher wage = more comfortable lifestyle for flight crew. For companies to be able to afford higher crew salaries, they would need more income, more revenue. And where does that increase revenue come from? Increased passenger fares. Period.
If you raise the fares, you will get less travellers, to a point. Less passengers would cause less planes flying / cancelled routes. And now your increase wage means nothing because you've just laidoff.
There is a delicate balance of supply and demand. Going too far to either extreme isn't good for business, or for employees.
See your 2 cents and raise ya a couple.
RJ
-
Redneck_pilot86
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:47 pm
- Location: between 60 and 70
I agree, the assumption that a person who gets their licence through a subsidized program is also prone to working for free is borderline offensive. I'm graduating Confed this year, but I refuse to consider working for free to build hours. I think the pilots that do this are more of a hinderance to the industry than those of us who get their licence subsidized. If I hadn't been able to get my licence through Confed, or another school, I still would have paid to do it, although I wouldnt be able to get it as quickly, as I would be forced to work elsewhere to pay for it. Thats my opinion anyway.
ST
ST
The only three things a wingman should ever say: 1. "Two's up" 2. "You're on fire" 3. "I'll take the fat one"
I knew of a guy who was rather slow who worked seasonally as a grounds keeper at a golf course. He also had a glider licence, but was not known for his prowess. One year talking to his EI officer, she suggested that perhaps he change careers and get some training to help him. Here goes the conversation:
EI Officer: What do you know how to do?
Slow Pilot: Fly Gliders
EI Officer: Would you be interested in becoming a commercial pilot?
Slow Pilot: Yes
EI Officer: OK we'll pay for your PPL through to your Commercial/Multi IFR. Sign on the dotted line please.
EI Officer: What do you know how to do?
Slow Pilot: Fly Gliders
EI Officer: Would you be interested in becoming a commercial pilot?
Slow Pilot: Yes
EI Officer: OK we'll pay for your PPL through to your Commercial/Multi IFR. Sign on the dotted line please.
-
monkeyspankmasterflex
- Rank 7
- Posts: 517
- Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 1:12 pm
I went to a subsidized school and I'll readily admit that it is a complete waste if taxpayers money (don't hate the player, hate the game). However, if you're looking to curb the pilot population I think raising the prerequisite time and experience required for an instructor rating would affect a much greater change.
Here in lies the problem with the whole industry....Jeremy wrote:
See your 2 cents and raise ya a couple.
RJ
Everybody is willing to undercut the next guy and do the same thing cheaper.
In my day, it was "just my 2 bits worth" (a bit being 25 cents). Now you guys have whittled it down to "2 cents". Is ALPA doing your negotiating??
Having instructed at one of the aformentioned funded schools, I was told that Sault College and Seneca were the first to be funded. They came into their funding during 70s when the demand for pilots was high and the government was appalled by the fact that (in general) it was the fortunate few who could afford to fly that were getting into the biz. Basically they wanted to make it accessible to anyone. While this may or may not apply today (depends on who you talk to), the fact that the students aren't paying for their flying allows these schools to require their students to meet higher standards than your average mom and pop flight school. While I am admittedly biassed, I really feel like you have to have been through the system to understand some of the BS that these schools put the kids through. Without elaborating too much, it's stuff that wouldn't be tollerated by someone paying $65k for their training. In the end, love it or hate it, it generally makes for a good product. These schools know that, the integrity of their diplomas rely on these high standards, and thus the funding.
PS. Saying that any of those who graduated from one of those schools is likely to work for free is probably the single most stupid thing I've ever seen on this forum. Congrats for setting a new standard of stupidity mduffy.
PS. Saying that any of those who graduated from one of those schools is likely to work for free is probably the single most stupid thing I've ever seen on this forum. Congrats for setting a new standard of stupidity mduffy.
-
. ._
- Top Poster
- Posts: 7374
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:50 pm
- Location: Cowering in my little room because the Water Cooler is locked.
- Contact:
Free flying rocks!
I researched the cheapest place in Canada to get a Comm Multi-IFR, and came up with Sault College. About $15,000.
Of course you still have to pay for a place to stay, food, booze, smokes, car insurance, books, etc. And it takes you 3 years to get through.
It taught me some stuff I'd never learn on my own, and in that regard, I'd say it's training is pretty good. And if that training saves my life one day, maybe the money I saved was money well not spent. Well, you know what I mean.
But they do train you for the "real world". ie. getting fucked over here and there. Learning how to fly with people you hate, but still perform the task at hand. Dealing with double standards and many, many more!
Don't get me wrong, it's still the best thing that ever happened to me, and I'm glad I did it.
I'm incredibly biased, but the government funding changed my life for the better in a way I never could have done on my own.
Is subsidizing a good thing? Yes.
Does Ontario need 3 schools to do this? No.
Does Quebec need one? I don't care. I'll never pay property tax in that province.
I'd also take a free government paid PPC any day of the week!
-istp
I researched the cheapest place in Canada to get a Comm Multi-IFR, and came up with Sault College. About $15,000.
Of course you still have to pay for a place to stay, food, booze, smokes, car insurance, books, etc. And it takes you 3 years to get through.
It taught me some stuff I'd never learn on my own, and in that regard, I'd say it's training is pretty good. And if that training saves my life one day, maybe the money I saved was money well not spent. Well, you know what I mean.
But they do train you for the "real world". ie. getting fucked over here and there. Learning how to fly with people you hate, but still perform the task at hand. Dealing with double standards and many, many more!
Don't get me wrong, it's still the best thing that ever happened to me, and I'm glad I did it.
I'm incredibly biased, but the government funding changed my life for the better in a way I never could have done on my own.
Is subsidizing a good thing? Yes.
Does Ontario need 3 schools to do this? No.
Does Quebec need one? I don't care. I'll never pay property tax in that province.
I'd also take a free government paid PPC any day of the week!
-istp
I have no problem whatsoever with a person getting their funds for flying from wherever they are able, be it EI or mom and dad.
WHAT I personally have a problem with is the total "disconnect" between what the industry "needs" and what it doesn't. If the industry "needs" pilots then openings will be readily available for pilots and they might even start recruiting for the top students at the Flight Schools, Tech or College level at some point if the need is strong enough.
NOTHING like that or anythig else is going to change as long as more pilots are being produced than are needed in any given year at the "bottom end". It's Economics 100.........the wages, the need and the "in-house" training will rise in direct proportion to the personnel available for the given position(s) within the industry or given company. It's the same way within the industry with regards "routes". If too many companies are operating on certain routes and nobody is getting their required passenger load, etc. then nobody is making any money. If nobody is making any money and they all continue, then "something gotta give" sooner or later.......wages, maintenance, safety, company "failure" or all four.
WHAT I personally have a problem with is the total "disconnect" between what the industry "needs" and what it doesn't. If the industry "needs" pilots then openings will be readily available for pilots and they might even start recruiting for the top students at the Flight Schools, Tech or College level at some point if the need is strong enough.
NOTHING like that or anythig else is going to change as long as more pilots are being produced than are needed in any given year at the "bottom end". It's Economics 100.........the wages, the need and the "in-house" training will rise in direct proportion to the personnel available for the given position(s) within the industry or given company. It's the same way within the industry with regards "routes". If too many companies are operating on certain routes and nobody is getting their required passenger load, etc. then nobody is making any money. If nobody is making any money and they all continue, then "something gotta give" sooner or later.......wages, maintenance, safety, company "failure" or all four.
Funny; usually in that order, too.LH wrote:If nobody is making any money and they all continue, then "something gotta give" sooner or later.......wages, maintenance, safety, company "failure" or all four.
ISTP. Seems like you may have gotten more out of the experience than just flight training that you are happy with. Good on ya.
Aviation- the hardest way possible to make an easy living!
"You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb it into peace!" Michael Franti- Spearhead
"Trust everyone, but cut the cards". My Grandma.
"You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb it into peace!" Michael Franti- Spearhead
"Trust everyone, but cut the cards". My Grandma.
-
fingersmac
- Rank 7
- Posts: 606
- Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 4:17 pm
i dunno about Sault... but at Confed our instructors don't try to sugar coat anything. they're the first to tell us that we are gonna have a hard time finding work after graduating and that the industry has changed substantially in the last decade or two.istp wrote:But they do train you for the "real world". ie. getting fucked over here and there. Learning how to fly with people you hate, but still perform the task at hand. Dealing with double standards and many, many more!
looproll,
You still incure 10-15k/yr worth of expenses at those "subsudized" colleges. 3 yr program =$30 000 MINIMUM. Unless your family situation can provided funding. Plus if you like beer and partying, gambling and strippers, that number increases dramatically
How much did your flight training cost you?
With my current repayment structure, I'll be paying off student debt until I'm 40. Sure, that can change, but throw on car payments, morgage, family etc. and that ammortization period isn't like to change more than a year or two if at all.
The grass isn't alway greener my friend.
You still incure 10-15k/yr worth of expenses at those "subsudized" colleges. 3 yr program =$30 000 MINIMUM. Unless your family situation can provided funding. Plus if you like beer and partying, gambling and strippers, that number increases dramatically
How much did your flight training cost you?
With my current repayment structure, I'll be paying off student debt until I'm 40. Sure, that can change, but throw on car payments, morgage, family etc. and that ammortization period isn't like to change more than a year or two if at all.
The grass isn't alway greener my friend.
So, tax payers paid for you to fly for free so you could get drunk with OSAP money? Great....Jeremy wrote:looproll,
You still incure 10-15k/yr worth of expenses at those "subsudized" colleges. 3 yr program =$30 000 MINIMUM. Unless your family situation can provided funding. Plus if you like beer and partying, gambling and strippers, that number increases dramatically
How much did your flight training cost you?
With my current repayment structure, I'll be paying off student debt until I'm 40. Sure, that can change, but throw on car payments, morgage, family etc. and that ammortization period isn't like to change more than a year or two if at all.
The grass isn't alway greener my friend.
cyyz - I think somebody is suffering a sense of humour failure... you really need to relax and step down from your high horse. It was a joke commenting on todays youth.
How people choose to spend borrowed money, is their buisness, and frankly non or yours. Taxpayers' money or no, student are an investment in this country's future. Plus, it's a loan, not free money. If you've ever needed money for education or, more accurately, for school, you would already know that financial institutions ammortize student loans over such a rediclously long period of time to allow a easier transition into the working world. What they don't consider, is with lower monthly payments, it is easy to take on more debt such as buying a house or needing another vehicle years later.
You are mistaken and assume way too much. Don't pretend to know me or what I've been through. I worked all through school, and even 3 jobs during one term. Eating mr. noodle and noname kd sure kept costs down. And, if you buy noodles and cheese in bulk, while using water instead of milk, it can make mac and cheese even cheaper:
So why don't you stop that self-righteous tangent your on and realize not everyone has what you have.....Your Highness.
Unbelievable.
How people choose to spend borrowed money, is their buisness, and frankly non or yours. Taxpayers' money or no, student are an investment in this country's future. Plus, it's a loan, not free money. If you've ever needed money for education or, more accurately, for school, you would already know that financial institutions ammortize student loans over such a rediclously long period of time to allow a easier transition into the working world. What they don't consider, is with lower monthly payments, it is easy to take on more debt such as buying a house or needing another vehicle years later.
You are mistaken and assume way too much. Don't pretend to know me or what I've been through. I worked all through school, and even 3 jobs during one term. Eating mr. noodle and noname kd sure kept costs down. And, if you buy noodles and cheese in bulk, while using water instead of milk, it can make mac and cheese even cheaper
: So why don't you stop that self-righteous tangent your on and realize not everyone has what you have.....Your Highness.
Unbelievable.
I applied for student loans and got about 3,000 in grants. So it is not all loans (thank you Canada- I promise to contribute to society). I assume most get grants when asking for 12,000 for flying.
The college I went to in Alberta is subsidized but it does not have any planes. It has not been mentioned above. In fact it got subsidized half way through - I paid over 5,000 for the 1st semester and 2,000 and change for the 2nd. (Thanks again Canada)
I hypocritically agree with the original post that flight training should not be subsidized anywhere except for the military.
The college I went to in Alberta is subsidized but it does not have any planes. It has not been mentioned above. In fact it got subsidized half way through - I paid over 5,000 for the 1st semester and 2,000 and change for the 2nd. (Thanks again Canada)
I hypocritically agree with the original post that flight training should not be subsidized anywhere except for the military.
