So who can beat the dual training costs in Qld RAA $310 hour - Sling 2

[M61A1]

People go for the cheapest air fares too. it's ONLY your life so don't let that worry you. Pretend they are all as safe as each other, but don't make a fuss if you are wrong. Likewise if a flying school does the right thing it has to cost a bit more or they go out of business. Of course it doesn't mean the dearest is the best but it would be odd if the cheapest was. Same with red wine. Nev

Isn't that what the rules are for, to ensure that all the training organisations meet a minimum standard?

 

You are not self-employed, are you?

Doesn't really matter whether you are self employed or work for someone else....if your prices are too high, you will price yourself out of the market, in any industry.

 

 

[ian00798]

Most tradesmen charge around 80-100 per hour, so why is it not reasonable for an instructor to get similar? And for the record, while the dual rate may be $100 per hour more, the instructor is lucky to get half of that.

 

Perhaps we should do some maths? Most instructors only get paid while they fly, and are realistically limited to 900 hours per year. $45 per hour is about what the instructor gets, which equates to an annual income of $40 500. That is not much above the Australian minimum wage which is about $36 000 per year. For someone who has invested at least $50-60k for their qualification.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Most tradesmen charge around 80-100 per hour, so why is it not reasonable for an instructor to get similar? And for the record, while the dual rate may be $100 per hour more, the instructor is lucky to get half of that.Perhaps we should do some maths? Most instructors only get paid while they fly, and are realistically limited to 900 hours per year. $45 per hour is about what the instructor gets, which equates to an annual income of $40 500. That is not much above the Australian minimum wage which is about $36 000 per year. For someone who has invested at least $50-60k for their qualification.

In the GA system, the instructors usually came from people who had passed their PPL, and were racking up CPL time prior to their intended career as an airline or commercial pilot.

So the above $40,500.00 was a good stepping stone to pay for CPL training costs before the step up to the intended salary.

 

I know things have changed with incomes being depressed outside the very top of RPT today, but my point is this:

 

An RA instructor is more likely to be an enthusiast, and in some cases a volunteer, not charging for his services.

 

It's a little like amateur sports - not something you can make a career out of as an employee.

 

Maybe some lateral thinker can come up with a business model to make RA work.

 

 

[kgwilson]

The hourly rate tradesmen charge also covers their tools and often their ute. It is also their livelihood. An instructor is charging for his time and expertise only.

 

I agree with Turbo most of the GA instructors were using instructing as a way to get their hours up so they could move into the commercial sector. When I was training these instructors had another full or part time job.

 

The salaries offered at the low end of the commercial sector used to be very low as the companies knew there were plenty of newly qualified CPLs scrambling for few jobs. Classic supply and demand.

 

I also agree that RA instructors tend to be enthusiasts with a job elsewhere and their reward is twofold in that they get some payment for instructing but also the satisfaction of seeing the RA sector improving with new well trained pilots. If an instructor charges $100 an hour because it is his full time job then he'd better have a good business plan in place because most students are going to look around for a better deal. They may even get a better instructor for less as well.

 

 

[M61A1]

Most tradesmen charge around 80-100 per hour, so why is it not reasonable for an instructor to get similar? And for the record, while the dual rate may be $100 per hour more, the instructor is lucky to get half of that.Perhaps we should do some maths? Most instructors only get paid while they fly, and are realistically limited to 900 hours per year. $45 per hour is about what the instructor gets, which equates to an annual income of $40 500. That is not much above the Australian minimum wage which is about $36 000 per year. For someone who has invested at least $50-60k for their qualification.

Maybe some of the failing schools should do some maths. People only have so much money to spend on their hobby. If it's more than they can afford, they will do something else. It's unfortunate, but it's how the market works.

People mostly need tradesmen, they don't need to learn to fly for recreation, it's a want.

 

Essentially, it's just supply and demand. The maths here is really simple. If it cost more than people are willing to pay, they won't do it. They'll just go and do something they can afford. How many people would have JetSkis, boats or 4WDs if they had to spend thousands just to be authorised to use it?

 

 

[KRviator]

And spend thousands more every year to keep being permitted to use it!

 

 

[fly_tornado]

you have ordinary people, who just happened to be born in Sydney in the right decade that end up as multi-millionaires just by selling their ordinary houses and move to the sunshine coast to retire, $310 is nothing to them, absolutely nothing.

 

 

[ben87r]

At the end of the day GA companies go broke on a monthly basis and their staff probably live on 2 min noodles so they're not charging enough generally. Are they charging more than what people will pay? Probably. Does that mean the staff should work for free to reduce your cost? I'm not going to dignify that with an answer.

 

 

[ian00798]

Maybe some of the failing schools should do some maths. People only have so much money to spend on their hobby. If it's more than they can afford, they will do something else. It's unfortunate, but it's how the market works.People mostly need tradesmen, they don't need to learn to fly for recreation, it's a want.

Essentially, it's just supply and demand. The maths here is really simple. If it cost more than people are willing to pay, they won't do it. They'll just go and do something they can afford. How many people would have JetSkis, boats or 4WDs if they had to spend thousands just to be authorised to use it?

People might consider it less of a hobby when there is no one left to fly them to Bali for their annual piss up

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Don't panic, China is churning out thousands and thousands of pilots every year

 

 

[ian00798]

Well that will fix australias love of flying, with our xenophobia when all the flying is done by Muslims and Asians no Australian will ever fly

 

 

[facthunter]

Proper and adequate training is required whatever race you are. SELF regulation is a cruel joke and reporting faults can sometimes be frowned on and whistleblowers don't do well. That's the environment you are dealing with. Companies hate going broke for some reason and WILL cut corners if they have to , to stay in business. Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

People might consider it less of a hobby when there is no one left to fly them to Bali for their annual piss up

I was under the impression that this thread was about rec flying not RPT

 

 

[facthunter]

Flying standards and costs. Plenty of rec flying pilots might go on to "better"? things. There will always be someone to fly them (unless most or enough crash when the seller of the planes steps in and wants the training improved). THAT does happen. Nev

 

 

[APenNameAndThatA]

People go for the cheapest air fares too. it's ONLY your life so don't let that worry you. Pretend they are all as safe as each other, but don't make a fuss if you are wrong. Likewise if a flying school does the right thing it has to cost a bit more or they go out of business. Of course it doesn't mean the dearest is the best but it would be odd if the cheapest was. Same with red wine. Nev

Economists have a term for goods where the purchaser is unable to tell the quality of the goods. An example would be getting your car serviced. You have no way of knowing if the dealer did ANY of the things they say they did. You can only infer from indirect things like cleanliness and politeness, and cost. Apparently economists have another term, for where if something is more expensive it is perceived as better. So, if you raise the price of Scotch you are selling, you might actually sell more. That is a reason not to lower prices to try and increase turnover. In the light of those two things, which may, and may not apply here, is there evidence that cheaper flying schools are less safe? I am not saying that there is not, BTW.

 

 

[turboplanner]

And spend thousands more every year to keep being permitted to use it!

If you are spending thousands every year before you fly, you are doing something horribly wrong; there are choices; I know one guy who flies for 30 minutes every week with the odd tip here a

and there, solo hire only, pay as you go.

 

 

[ben87r]

The hourly rate tradesmen charge also covers their tools and often their ute. It is also their livelihood. An instructor is charging for his time and expertise only.

Tradesmen also charge for what would be considered duty for a pilot, so It would be more like $300 if they were only charging for a third of their time. These insturctors would be making less than $35 (based of pots 3-1 ratio at $100ph) per hour BEFORE expenses (which are thousands per year), without any guarantee of an income at all half the time. I can't actually believe that we're having this discussion. Hands up how many here would do it?

 

 

[ian00798]

I was under the impression that this thread was about rec flying not RPT

Last time I checked most of the guys flying the RPT started down the little end of town. Let that pipeline dry up and next thing all we are left with is captains flying with very low time first officers in the right seat. Don't know about you, but that's not what I want becoming the norm. I shudder to think how QF32 might have ended if it was just the captain then two very low time pilots "helping" him.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I think a small sector of GA, some who've been rejected, some who've had their licences, justifiably, taken off them, make a lot of noise, but $350,000 for a NEW GA training aircraft is about right for the take home after tax pay rate when compared with, say the 1960s and 70s when aircraft were hired out for $20 per hour solo.

 

New students are as excited as the were in the 60s but now can pick up on the latest specifications around the world. When they roll down to the local airfield and are shown into a 50 year old aircraft for a TAF, and that's the only one available, and it's going to cost them $270.00 per hour dual, I suspect a lot of them go and find another interest.

 

There's an old saying in Sales: "Sell the sizzle, not the steak", and the old timers like Arthur Schutt who would fly all over Australia to sell a Cessna to the masses, and who knew how to market, are gone, and their successors, other than the few who have found a solution in package training overseas students, have not been able to fill their shoes.

 

Another factor is being able to fly to holiday destinations way cheaper and far faster; On Tuesdays you can fly from Melbourne to the Gold Coast or Brisbane for $89.00, and hire a car to get to many different holiday spots, where 50 years ago, you had to drive, or for what was still a budget hurter, fly yourself.

 

Another factor, when cross-country flying for whatever reason, is the limited airfields, usually deserted when you get there, so flight plannning, travel, arrival travel, flight plannng, departure travel adds up to a nuisance.

 

GA could be improved I agree, but this thread is about what should be the cheapest form of aviation beginning to out-cost the lower levels of GA, and that's something people on this site should be more concerned about; the question is, "Is RA headed in the wrong direction?"

 

 

[billwoodmason]

Yes Turbs, without doubt CASA's blueprint for RAA combined with RAA's Chairman and CEO (the two Mikes) penchant for following blindly along with CASA's Wishlist we will go the way of GA. RAA will outprice its members and be faced with a declining membership they hope will be propped up by GA pilots joining RAA.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

If you fly in Victoria you quickly learn that nearly all student pilots are Chinese with very limited English. So supply and demand have met here, Chinese willing to pay big bucks for Aussie instruction.

 

 

[facthunter]

I don't really KNOW what they, (the two Mikes) want but, "We are the new GA" is a bit disconcerting, not just for me but most of the existing GA I would think.

 

My concern is primarily with the low cost end of flying. "safe and affordable Flying" and where it's headed in this country. Neither the SAAA or RAAus are doing well by the concept but it's more RAAus's mantra. SAAA is more diverse, but I doubt it's growing. The other challenger doesn't seem to be going anyplace. I'm happy to be informed otherwise. You can't wait forever for some certainty. Nev

 

 

[billwoodmason]

The two Mikes are ushering in a massive cultural change to the members of RAA largely by stealth. Increases in maintenance requirements ( read " governance "), never ending price increases to all areas of services they provide will eventually chase away the older members who joined RAA initially to enjoy cheap, affordable minimum regulation flying promising "maximum fun". They increasingly will see the whole thing too hard. The two Mikes see the introduction of increased weight limits as being the catalyst to bringing in new members who already are used to paying through the nose for their flying. The future of RAA is as plain as the nose on your face. I am genuinely concerned.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Its not really fair to blame the RAAus , after all they are subject to CASA. Costs of keeping CASA at bay would be much higher than what funding they supply. The same goes for the GFA.

 

The most officious thing that RAAus ever did to me was to refuse a registration renewal after about 8 years because there was only a photo of one fuselage side in their records. This occurred after a CASA audit of the office.

 

 

[facthunter]

Bruce , you are contradicting yourself there. Nev