Let's discuss:
A Crisis in Flight Training
I just spent a day at <st1><st1>Delta</st1><st1> Connection</st1></st1><st1><st1> Academy (DCA)</st1></st1> listening to industry experts discuss the state of airline flying and the industry training programs that feed the profession.
Hmmm....from my experience, little from DCA would qualify them as "experts". I don't recall many textbooks, papers, studies and other academia products of DCA.
The big questions raised at the round-table conference centered around what<st1><st1> D<st1>C<st1>A</st1></st1>, which sponsored the event, said was a coming shortage of pilots. Many furloughed pilots have been out of the cockpit for more than five years, and many of those pilots say that they don’t plan on coming back to an airline job.
</st1></st1><st1><st1>
So apparently DCA paid for the rights to Kit Darby's scheme. Great. Now, about the guys furloughed for more than 5 years not wanting to come back, I wonder why? Is it they got burned and don't trust the system?</st1></st1><st1><st1>
On top of that, training providers across the industry say that business is off. Several said during the conference that nobody believes there will be enough new pilots to fill the seats on regional airliners even in a couple of years.
</st1></st1><st1><st1>
I just want to know one thing. Where is the massive number of new airframes coming from that need filled? Isn't that what caused the hiring booms at the regional level on and off over the last 10 years? First the 50 seaters, then the 70+? Now that the 50 seaters are getting parked, they are being swapped out for the new generation of tprops and 70+ seat RJs on about a 1 for 1 basis.</st1></st1>
<st1><st1>
There are still fleet adjustments going on for the "mainline" carriers. Obviously the new Delta will have to rationalize it's fleet in the coming years. Yields are down, Boeing is late with the miracle jet (thus causing the jet my company's expansion plan is founded upon to also be late).</st1></st1><st1><st1>
So, other than the trickle of retirements, where will the giant hiring void be?</st1></st1>
The coming shortage--of pilots and students--is based on a number of factors, some of which are frightening to the training providers because there’s very little they can do about them.
What's more frightening? The shortage of pilots (I almost blew soda out my nose reading this one), or students, which are units of revenue to "pilot mills" like DCA.
Perhaps the biggest factor is the drying up of financing to prospective students. Many students who want to fly—and <st1><st1>D<st1>C<st1>A says that it’s getting as many applications as ever—simply can’t get loans.<st1><st1>D<st1>C<st1>A</st1></st1>’s Jason Dauderman says that the company’s loan application acceptance rate is down to about 30 percent, and the amount of the loans that lenders approve has decreased, as well.
</st1></st1></st1></st1></st1></st1><st1><st1><st1><st1><st1><st1>
Getting as many applications as ever? I wonder what one's SAT score or ACT or transcript must look like to get into such a prestigious institution.</st1></st1></st1></st1></st1></st1>
Part of why it’s harder for students to get loans is because of the sub-prime mortgage crisis that caused a worldwide recession. The same thing happened with student loans, as you might know, as the sub-prime market spread into the student loan market, with lenders okaying loans to inumerable students who had poor credit, poor academic records, and little prospects of paying off the loans. As a result, Sallie Mae, the private lending company, is writing off a billion dollars of bad student loans. Long story short, the crisis in student loans prompted many lenders to leave the student loan market altogether.
I wonder if it's because several of these "institutions" took the student's money upfront, closed up shop, filed bankruptcy and left the students with debt, and no means to repay it.
While the biggest reason that many lenders have fled the aviation student loan market is related to the financial crisis, the recession has made it harder than ever for students to pay off their loans, which are typically between $100,000 and $200,000 per student, if the entire two-to-four-year education is financed. And there's little chance of those costs coming down. Flight instruction, as Dauderman pointed out, is an expensive proposition. We as pilots understand that all too well.
I went to a 4 year college and didn't have 100k in costs. And I majored in Flight, paying the "lab fees" and what not. At least I have a BS degree from a nationally recognized university, in addition to my FAA cards.
What does a DCA student have for 100k besides the FAA cards?
And when lenders look at the risk, they see some big question marks. Will the student actually be able to earn their ratings? Some do wash out. And if they're successful, will they be able to land a job and be able to pay off their loans? And if they do wind up in the right seat of an airliner, will they be able to pay off those loans on the $18,000 annual salary they might earn for starters? Of course not.
There are no flying jobs now, so the odds of that loan being paid back, is probably in the single digit percentages.
And if Congress has its way, we might be looking at the need for first officers to have an ATP, a requirement that will add tens of thousands of dollars to these students' debt, making it more difficult for students to get loans and for school to attract young people to their programs.
Just for the record, there are other flying jobs than at the airlines. In these other "jobs" a commercial pilot can build time, get paid, and even actually be paid to complete their ATP. At that point, they are free to sling gear at an airline. Without "tens of thousands of dollars to these students' debt."
For the record, no one at the conference thought the right-seat ATP provision would improve safety.
Here is one person who was a check airman at the regional level who disagrees. While I don't feel it's necessary, to say it wouldn't improve safety is silly. We all know it's silly to say such things.
Perhaps the most troubling question raised at the event was whether airline flying was a profession that any young person should pursue.
Why is that a troubling question? If a person wants to fly for a living, they should do their own research and see what a typical career path should be. If you get a few breaks, like I did, well, lucky you. Unfortunately, that has as much to do with timing as anything.
One attendee, a bright young many who got his ratings at DCA and now flies left seat in an AirBus for JetBlue said that he loves his job and still backs the profession. But he admitted on numerous occasions that there were big factors--chiefly economic ones--that should give any prospective student pause.
He's a smart cat. Most of us love it when the door is closed and the BS of the job is not causing us issues too.
Would I advise my kids to become airline pilots? As much as I love flying, in this day and age, it would be hard advice to give unless conditions changed substantially.
I'm just a dad. I will support my kids no matter what career they tend to choose. Even if it's not a popular, "it" job. I'll make sure they do their due diligence to know what they are getting into.
One thing has to happen. The airlines need to start paying starting pilots more money, a lot more money. A starting salary of $30,000 would go a long way toward making the transition to professional life if not attractive, then at least survivable, though barely. Starting teachers in almost every state make more.
Agreed, but let's make it 50k at least to fly professionally under 135 or 121.
And there’s no doubt that the airlines should start subsidizing training a great deal more than they already do.
There are
still no jobs to be had, especially entry level ones at 121. There is no reason a business that tries to make a profit should subsidize training.
Today their subsidies consist largely of partnerships with training academies to give jobs to their graduating students, a good marketing approach but one that does nothing to help students cut their indebtedness.
Which is worthless marketing since there are
NO JOBS to be had out there by entry-level pilots.
Why not have the airlines foot part of the training bill? It would be to everyone’s advantage, especially theirs. After all, they're the ones who need the pilots.
Huh? Why foot the bill of people they don't need. Pay attention one more time. T-H-E-R-E A-R-E N-O J-O-B-S.
And it's not all the regional airlines' fault. The major airlines share much of the blame. After all, they're the ones who on a daily basis squeeze their regional partners to cut costs--especially labor costs--to the bone, and then some.
I sincerely hope it's realized that there is approximately a 10% mark up in over the base cost for the regionals. But yes, the majors are a bit at fault. All their flying should be done by pilots on a master seniority list of that company.
And schools need to start pre-qualifying students, helping to ensure that those who can get loans have what it takes to get their ratings. That's a tough thing to do when times are hard. To be sure, some schools view a "qualified" student as one who can get a loan, as opposed to one who has the right stuff to fly an airliner. That kind of cynical view isn't fair to anybody.
When you graduate a "pilot mill" like DCA, you're not qualified (thus not the "right stuff") to fly an airliner. It's not to say that they
can't have the right stuff after they get some experience, but flying in central Florida with it's flat terrain, highly predictable weather and great ATC system hardly count as gaining a wide cross section of experience and skills one will use every day flying part 135 or 121.
Right now schools are doing a lot of selling from the point of view that pilots will need to make a sacrifice to get into the profession. (That's also talking point number one for the Regional Airline Association.) The truth is, that's the absolute truth. And it just might pay off for those pilots in the long run. I for one sure hope so,
100k of debt for your ratings that you can get for a far smaller price at an FBO or you can get a college degree in addition to your ratings for the same price. 100k of debt is a huge sacrifice. One that will prevent most people with a debt load like that from owning a house. Especially with entry level wages at the airlines.
But as it stands today, the sacrifice is just too much, far too much, to ask.
It is, but only for people that waste money at such "institutions", which turn out a low quality product in comparison to other forms of training.
As someone that trained a broad cross section of pilots, including pilots from DCA, at the airline level, I can say this as an "industry expert".
