College Education

[DutchFB98]

Ok, so Im new here, but Ive been trying to do some reading up to get a grip on everyone around here. Now dont get me wrong I dont want to make anyone mad with me or whatever, this is just a question or two that I have.

First, there are a lot of people that hate one academy or the other for various reasons. In general how many of you that either are going to attend, did attend, dropped out, or simply chose not to attend an academy have a Bachelors Degree? Just curious, I have my reasons

I wonder if not having this leads to failure rates due to not knowing how to handle the time, workload etc. Or am I wrong? I could accept that with due argument.

Anyway, Im just totally curious, Im honestly not picking on anyone. I just wonder if this has any reason to do with why or why not an individual would like an academy and in turn their success rate at an academy and airline career. Thanks everyone!

[Lima_Charlie]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so Im new here, but Ive been trying to do some reading up to get a grip on everyone around here. Now dont get me wrong I dont want to make anyone mad with me or whatever, this is just a question or two that I have.

First, there are a lot of people that hate one academy or the other for various reasons. In general how many of you that either are going to attend, did attend, dropped out, or simply chose not to attend an academy have a Bachelors Degree? Just curious, I have my reasons

I wonder if not having this leads to failure rates due to not knowing how to handle the time, workload etc. Or am I wrong? I could accept that with due argument.

Anyway, Im just totally curious, Im honestly not picking on anyone. I just wonder if this has any reason to do with why or why not an individual would like an academy and in turn their success rate at an academy and airline career. Thanks everyone!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if you can pin the "success or failure rate" on lack of an education. I think it has more to do w/ maturity level. Granted, to a certain extent, college is a place where some people can really come of age, but I am sure just as many don't mature at all. I think it has more to do w/ the commitment level. The people I know that have done well, have stayed focused and determined throughout their training. Many people hit a "wall", and really have to work to get through it, but that can happen in any type of environment, FBO or academy.

[DutchFB98]

Thats a good point, I guess I just feel a lot more mature over the last 3 years after having the rigors of College and balancing that with the demands of NCAA athletics has helped me mature over time more so than if I had gone straight into an academy. Hope Im not knocking anyone. Just opinions like LC.

[Lima_Charlie]

Of course... The "life experiences" one can...experience, the better. The demands of school, can be overwhleming, not to mention throwing college level athletics into the mix!! Being able to manage your time, and still maintain grades and high degree of athletic achievement makes one grow up in a hurry!!

What sport did you play? And by the way... Who is the babe in your avatar!!??

[montanapilot]

miranda lambert is smokin hot

[DE727UPS]

That's Kid Rock....

[project7]

[ QUOTE ]
In general how many of you that either are going to attend, did attend, dropped out, or simply chose not to attend an academy have a Bachelors Degree? Just curious, I have my reasons

[/ QUOTE ]

Bachelor of Science, Aviation Management, Southern Illinois University Carbondale.

A big turn-off for me when I visited Pan-Am was the students I met. I did what everyone here suggested and talked to some random students who I found walking around. My impression was that most of them were hoping to use the Pan-Am training as a way of making up for a lack of personality and/or people skills(read: networking). Of course this is not an all-encompassing statement, Lima Charlie has been on these boards awhile and he seems like an outgoing guy.

[DE727UPS]

"A big turn-off for me when I visited Pan-Am was the students I met."

I've got some PHX layovers coming up. Maybe I'll just take a little look see for myself.

With their marketing statements, why would you need networking?

[jaxpilot]

I did 3 semesters in college and attended Delta Connection Academy from private through commercial at the same time. For me DCA was not overly difficult and I did not hit a "wall". I got Private thru Commercial quicker than most students but then I discovered JC, started reading what was said and found a cheaper place to train. 3 months after I left DCA I am now an MEI. I dont know if students that go to these acadamies wash out (some do), as much as discover Jetcareers or some other credible source that makes them think to themselves: "Why am I here spending all of this money and wearing these uniforms just for some guaranteed interview/airline connection that the school has when the regionals are hiring guys that paid 1/3 as much as me for their training?" I know that is a common thought among many of the students that still go to DCA and whom I talk to on a day to day basis. I dont believe it takes college experience for most people to have success at an academy, although for some it does. It is all in the individual person and their attitude, with or without college.

[DE727UPS]

Nice Post. I've been thinking the big DCA draw of the guaranteed interview is highly overrated in this day and age. In the past, there was probably a time where it could have been a good business decision to pay the extra money for a shot at a regional job with less time. I sure don't see it that way now, though.

Do you think guys are still putting a lot of value in the guaranteed interview when they make the decision to go to DCA?

[dakovich]

maybe we should be asking the question in regards to how many students had mommy and daddy paying their way through training. i swear, that was the biggest group of people i saw that just didn't take the whole thing seriously.

[Kristie]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice Post. I've been thinking the big DCA draw of the guaranteed interview is highly overrated in this day and age. In the past, there was probably a time where it could have been a good business decision to pay the extra money for a shot at a regional job with less time. I sure don't see it that way now, though.

Do you think guys are still putting a lot of value in the guaranteed interview when they make the decision to go to DCA?

[/ QUOTE ]probably better to ask that in the DCA forum or FBO forum really....I wonder the same about RAA as well because they recently put an ad out about "guaranteed JOB"... which is just SO wrong on SO many levels because NOBODY can guarantee a JOB now a days! from reading the past posts about them, something needs to be done there as well....but i digress!

[Lima_Charlie]

[ QUOTE ]
miranda lambert is smokin hot

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh Mamma!! I agree!!! Daddy Likey!!!

[jaxpilot]

DE727UPS- yeah a lot of the students think that the guaranteed interview means a guaranteed job. A lot of them dont know the industry at all and still think that they will be making big bucks when/if they become a regional airline pilot. Their only time exposed to the aviation world is when they show up at the flight school to fly 3 times a week, and in that time they see the posters on the walls and hear the success stories of "so and so got their class date at Comair". The two things that changed that mindset for me are 1)working line service at an FBO and talking to experienced pilots and 2) Jetcareers.

[DE727UPS]

You're proving my point that these academies spread misinformation. Or, perhaps to say it more lightly, don't educate their students (I think on purpose) to the realities of the industry.

Which gets us back to the question:

What responsibility does a big academy have in being sure their students are prepared for real life when they walk out the door?

The academy apologists are going to say "it's not our problem if someone enters the career without doing their homework about it first". And, ya know, I'd agree with that if it wasn't for the marketing statements and all the "things are great" news the student is exposed to.

I wonder if DCA and PanAm would let Jetcareers advertise in their school propaganda newletter?

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
You're proving my point that these academies spread misinformation. Or, perhaps to say it more lightly, don't educate their students (I think on purpose) to the realities of the industry.

Which gets us back to the question:

What responsibility does a big academy have in being sure their students are prepared for real life when they walk out the door?

The academy apologists are going to say "it's not our problem if someone enters the career without doing their homework about it first". And, ya know, I'd agree with that if it wasn't for the marketing statements and all the "things are great" news the student is exposed to.

I wonder if DCA and PanAm would let Jetcareers advertise in their school propaganda newletter?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's like I wrote in this post about a month ago. I think there is a responsibility for the academy or FBO to brief the young stud on the state of the industry. I agree there should be homework done on their end, but someone with no knowlege of the industry, and who might or might run across this site or ones similiar, only has so much he can study.......kinda like the blindman trying to find his way. In that sense, I feel it is the responsibility of an academy/flight university/FBO to definately be up front regards what the industry is like. As I wrote here in bold for my proposed flight school:

[ QUOTE ]

I really wish I could win the Powerball and start a flightschool where I can hand-pick the IPs. There would be standardization and high quality training, from the most basic of the basics up to the advanced stuff. You'd start learning damn-near like Orville and Wright, and grad up to things like IFR and advanced nav equipment. None of the stupid crap that Sporty's comes up with and tries to market to the aviation world as a "must have", yet it's being sold at Sharper Image prices.

And best of all, I would want morale to be high, so very decent pay, benefits, QOL, and lifestyle would be the name of the game. Just like school teachers, you'd in-effect be "breeding the young for their future", and in doing so, I believe should be paid a very decent wage, have good time off, fly good equipment....not necessarily expensive equipment....but good, servicable equipment. Curriculum would include low level flight and nav, mountain flying, huge emphasis on emergency procedures and how to build SA in your career, an appropriate few aircraft (maybe T-28s) for a mandatory aerobatic/unusual attitude/spin course, and more, including career seminars and instruction in the art of Networking (no.....not Kit Darby style and no set of books to buy). Most importantly, I'd try to find some way to avoid a Key Bank/Sallie Mae rip-off loan style, and try to find something more decent and affordable for the studs.

Basically, it would be no BS. Every stud would be evaluated for what his/her aviation goal is, and the program tailored as much as possible for that. Everyone would be briefed on a nearly weekly basis of the state of the industry and it's different parts. There would be no CAPT-style BS, no PACE, no "high altitude signoff/checkout" in a King Aire 90 that is never around (ERAU). However there would be introduction to CRM......and no, there would be no "pushback" call with 172s.


It would be nearly a USAF UPT without the jets.

Anyone in?


[/ QUOTE ]

[dakovich]

it sucks being new at this whole aviation thing. looking back to when i began flying, i really had no clue what was going on and thats how many people start out. the big question is:

-how do we promote the industry without freaking out the people who really want to fly??

i understand that the "propoganda" everyone is speaking about from these academies is kind of painting a false picture of how things are, but how do we tone it down to reflect the realities of the industry? and once we explain what things are like, how do we get people to want to still do it? how do we present the pros/cons honestly and in a none threating or overly optimistic manor?

[SteveC]

[ QUOTE ]
it sucks being new at this whole aviation thing. looking back to when i began flying, i really had no clue what was going on and thats how many people start out. the big question is:

-how do we promote the industry without freaking out the people who really want to fly??

i understand that the "propoganda" everyone is speaking about from these academies is kind of painting a false picture of how things are, but how do we tone it down to reflect the realities of the industry? and once we explain what things are like, how do we get people to want to still do it? how do we present the pros/cons honestly and in a none threating or overly optimistic manor?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the industry should be presented in an honest manner and let the chips fall where they may. We don't need to "get people to want to still do it" since there are; 1) too many pilots chasing too few jobs already, 2) some of those pilots are disilusioned and bitter because of item 1) and make life miserable for the rest of us.

If the picture is too rosy there are too many starry-eyed newcomers expecting that if they only sacrifice now (read that as low/no pay jobs with poor QOL) they can get the Golden Ring at the end. Too many pilots with low expectations = crappy pay and poor conditions for everyone.

If the picture is realistic (or even pessimistic) then there will be fewer candidates, allowing the pay levels to rise. Added bonus is that there will be fewer disillusioned pilots that get into the profession for the wrong reason, thus less PITA cockpit partners.

Bottom line: spread the gloom and doom for the benefit of all!

(sort of)

[DE727UPS]

"but how do we tone it down to reflect the realities of the industry?"

I don't think the academies are interested in reality. I think they are interested in getting new students in the door no matter what. I was once told by a DCA guy that he was cool with that, marketing BS was okay cause it brought him more students.

"once we explain what things are like, how do we get people to want to still do it?"

I don't see that as a big problem. If we weed out a few by telling the truth, those are the guys who had no business in the career, anyway. There will still be a lot of guys who are happy entering the industry even knowing all the facts.

"how do we present the pros/cons honestly and in a non-threating or overly optimistic manor?"

Now...that's a good question. I think Jetcareers does that. How do we expose Jetcareers to all the newbies that need to be exposed to more info?

[ananoman]

Back when I went to FSI, I was amazed by peoples lack of knowledge about the industry they were about to enter. Most students have no idea about anything other than the fact that they want to fly. This can be a costly mistake. Once I decided that I wanted to be a pilot, I read everything I could before I ever picked a school or took my first flight.

Aviation Week is not cheap, but they do offer a student rate and I think it is mandatory that anyone thinking about a career in aviation read this magazine along with whatever else they can get their hands on.

As you have noted much of the marketing hype does nobody any good. I remember when I was sitting on the flight line at FSI having a discussion post 9-11 that went something like this:

"Why doesn't FSI offer 'guaranteed interviews' like Pan Am, ATA, et al."

And I had to tell these people that all the ads were pretty much BS, because none of the 'guaranteed interviews' meant anything. At the time, none of the carriers listed in most of the ads were hiring and many had furloughed. Months after 9-11 many schools were still running ads listing the schools 'regional partners' and 'guaranteed interviews'. A guaranteed interview did not mean anything at an airline that was not hiring. The people I was talking to kept asking "how can they advertise this, if it is not true?" The answer was simple, many of the schools were somewhat less than truthful. I don't think some of the people I was talking to ever did believe me. All they knew was what they read in Flying Magazine, so it must have been true, right?

As much as I dislike DCA's marketing, they were the only school that was sending students into the airlines at the time.

It took almost a year for many of the schools to 'update' their marketing and remove all the 'regional partners' from their ads, since none of them were hiring.

[ananoman]

While I am on the topic of ignorance, it sickens me everytime someone says "I don't care who I fly for, I will work for the first airline that hires me." I have always thought that this was one of the dumbest things anyone could say. How do you think the last person who was hired at TWA feels? It is impossible to look very far into the future, but you should at least know if your prospective employer is currently successful. Do you really want to resign from your current job and move to another city only to be furloughed right after you get out of training? Right now, things are looking up, but I woulden't be applying to any regional whose sole business is feeding US Air.

[Lima_Charlie]

Just for the record, and to make sure there is no confusion... Pan Am does not guarantee interviews, and have not guaranteed an interview for anyone since I started in Sept '03. Prior to that I have no idea what they did...

[ananoman]

I don't think Pan Am ever did, they just had alot of airline logos listed at the bottom of their ads. This gave the impression they were placing students into jobs when no one was hiring. I can't remember if they advertised that some of their 'industry partners' were accepting resumes at lower than average time.

Sierra and ATA both touted 'guaranteed interviews', but Sierra is under new management now and ATA is no more. Too bad, we could all have gone to ATA and gotten our ATP rating for $55,000 and skipped all the the difficulty of becoming a CFI. Over 600 hours of our total time would have been as safety pilot in a 152, but according to them, an ATP is an ATP.

I am supprised that no one ever offered a CFI program modeled on Gulfstream Airlines. You could have students pay $7,000 for you to hire them, and they you could have them sign a contract that they will instruct for 1,000 hours and be paid $7 hr. I should open a flight school!

[Lima_Charlie]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think Pan Am ever did, they just had alot of airline logos listed at the bottom of their ads. This gave the impression they were placing students into jobs when no one was hiring. I can't remember if they advertised that some of their 'industry partners' were accepting resumes at lower than average time.

Sierra and ATA both touted 'guaranteed interviews', but Sierra is under new management now and ATA is no more. Too bad, we could all have gone to ATA and gotten our ATP rating for $55,000 and skipped all the the difficulty of becoming a CFI. Over 600 hours of our total time would have been as safety pilot in a 152, but according to them, an ATP is an ATP.

I am supprised that no one ever offered a CFI program modeled on Gulfstream Airlines. You could have students pay $7,000 for you to hire them, and they you could have them sign a contract that they will instruct for 1,000 hours and be paid $7 hr. I should open a flight school!

[/ QUOTE ]

My mistake. I must have misunderstood this...

"As you have noted much of the marketing hype does nobody any good. I remember when I was sitting on the flight line at FSI having a discussion post 9-11 that went something like this:

Why doesn't FSI offer 'guaranteed interviews' like Pan Am , ATA, et al."

I guess really just don't like my school being lumped into anything associated w/ ATA!

[DE727UPS]

"could have them sign a contract that they will instruct for 1,000 hours and be paid $7 hr."

Already being done. It's DCA. 800 hours at $10/hr or you don't "graduate" from their program.