Indian student pilots in a tizzy

[mayurpoddar]

Those in the lower mainland airports wouldn't have missed the dozens of smartly dressed, single striped, Company red tie bearing East Indian student pilots buzzing around in the 152s and 172s. They were sent here by Spicejet (Spicejet = low cost carrier in India), as cadet pilots. The cadets were being paid a stipend of $250 per month, and the entire cost of training was borne by the cadets themselves.

The BIG news is that the Spicejet has pulled the rug from under 120 of their cadets, possibly including those in the middle of B737 type rating. The cadet program is now "under abeyance". Only a handfull of the cadets have been absorbed into the airline. All of those at ProIFR (Boundary Bay) got their termination letters in their email this last week. There are dozens more at other flight schools in the USA.

Some of the cadets, or ex-cadets, say they had expected a slowdown, but this is surprising and too early. I am not a cadet, but like me, several of them have huge education bank loans from back home in India, and with the state of aviation as it is today, there's going to be a lot of frustration building up, at least in the lower mainland.

Recently Jet Airways (full service carrier in India) had a recruitment drive in India for fresh CPL holders (note: no multi-IFR required at the time of recruitment). Those who applied say there were over 3000 applicants for 40 right seats.

With this, I'm thinking the number of new student pilots coming from India MUST decrease significantly in the near term. I don't know about the others, but I have decided to complete my CPL and head back home. I'll save the cost of the Multi-IFR training to keep me afloat back home for a bit, while I figure out Plan-B.

[MichaelP]

Yes, we have been keeping an eye on this implosion.
It worried me somewhat knowing the aviation industry's fickleness.
Where I come from 'Professional Airlines' sponsor their cadets.
I wish all the SpiceJet students here the best of luck. Stick at it!

[sky's the limit]

This industry just keeps on getting better, doesn't it?

Sorry to hear about that,


stl

[E-Flyer]

So much for "asia" being the epicentre of aviation. It is still better than north america but looks like everything is going down worldwide.

[Hedley]

everything is going down worldwide

Maybe, but do you see the price of oil going back
to $20/barrel any time soon?

What does that mean for the producers of oil?

[E-Flyer]

everything is going down worldwide

Maybe, but do you see the price of oil going back
to $20/barrel any time soon?

What does that mean for the producers of oil?

Yup I've witnessed that as well, so why don't we wait and see what happens?

[Krashman]

it's like any industry thats booming. In the last 10 years there have been so many start up companies in many of the asian nations that eventually some of them just have to fail there's no way even with an ever increasing middle class that the demand can stay has high as the supply.

[duplicate2]

Where I come from 'Professional Airlines' sponsor their cadets.

Where do you come from, the 1970s? Just kidding.

[E-Flyer]

it's like any industry thats booming. In the last 10 years there have been so many start up companies in many of the asian nations that eventually some of them just have to fail there's no way even with an ever increasing middle class that the demand can stay has high as the supply.

well put.

[sportingrifle]

A few thoughts on the fickle industry. Having played in it for close to 30 years I have seen the up and down cycle more than a few times but there are some rapidly emerging differences in this one.

Generally, the low cost airlines thrive in tough times. Cheaper labor costs and highly focused business plans = cheaper fares. In the last year, most of the airlines to go under have been low costs. (Oasis, several US carriers, Kingfisher, Jetsgo, etc.) This trnd will probably continue. (Hint ...think of this before signing a training bond.)

Why the difference. Many things. The low costs have the most price sensitive customers and the thinest margins. If the economy hiccups, people stop flying and the first to stop flying are the low cost's customers. As fuel becomes a higher and higher percentage of operating cost, the low costs lower ticket agent wages become increasingly irrelevant. And if they are saving money operating cheaper, less fuel efficient airplanes, you are going to bleed dry really quickly at $140/barrel. Finally, part of the low cost philosophy is to operate only one type of airplane, thereby reducing crewing and maintenance costs. Unfortunately, it doesn't allow day be before aircraft type substitutions to best match aircraft type to load.

All of these events tip the current economic climate in favor of the likes of "Mapleflot." (I don't consider WJ a low cost carrier any more. The days of the $29 flight YVR-YYC are looong over) My prediction is that most of the capicity reduction in the industry will be born by the low costs, thereby allowing the "high costs" to gradually increase their yields.

In realty, the true low costs were never sustainable at the fares they charged. The were being sustained by deferred maintenance, low wages, psychedellic business plans, or short term cash infusions - none of which can stand up to harsh economic realities. A smaller, stable, and profitable industry is vastly preferable to a larger industry comprised of marginally profitable companies lurching from crisis to crisis.

To those embarking on a commercial flying career, a few words of advice.

Signing a training bond is one thing, signing a loan to pay for your training is another. Most companies that require this claim it is to show you are keen. The reality is that they are cash starved and, as history has shown, are at much greater risk of failing.

Make sure you have something else that can pay the bills while you are between jobs. Even if you never use it, you will sleep better at night knowing you could if you had to.

If you leave a job, leave on great terms. You never know when you might want it back!

Have fun!!! Keep your sense of humor.

Cheers Sportingrifle.

[xsbank]

VERY good advice - pay attention!

[Strega]

A few thoughts on the fickle industry. Having played in it for close to 30 years I have seen the up and down cycle more than a few times but there are some rapidly emerging differences in this one.

Generally, the low cost airlines thrive in tough times. Cheaper labor costs and highly focused business plans = cheaper fares. In the last year, most of the airlines to go under have been low costs. (Oasis, several US carriers, Kingfisher, Jetsgo, etc.) This trnd will probably continue. (Hint ...think of this before signing a training bond.)

Why the difference. Many things. The low costs have the most price sensitive customers and the thinest margins. If the economy hiccups, people stop flying and the first to stop flying are the low cost's customers. As fuel becomes a higher and higher percentage of operating cost, the low costs lower ticket agent wages become increasingly irrelevant. And if they are saving money operating cheaper, less fuel efficient airplanes, you are going to bleed dry really quickly at $140/barrel. Finally, part of the low cost philosophy is to operate only one type of airplane, thereby reducing crewing and maintenance costs. Unfortunately, it doesn't allow day be before aircraft type substitutions to best match aircraft type to load.

All of these events tip the current economic climate in favor of the likes of "Mapleflot." (I don't consider WJ a low cost carrier any more. The days of the $29 flight YVR-YYC are looong over) My prediction is that most of the capicity reduction in the industry will be born by the low costs, thereby allowing the "high costs" to gradually increase their yields.

In realty, the true low costs were never sustainable at the fares they charged. The were being sustained by deferred maintenance, low wages, psychedellic business plans, or short term cash infusions - none of which can stand up to harsh economic realities. A smaller, stable, and profitable industry is vastly preferable to a larger industry comprised of marginally profitable companies lurching from crisis to crisis.

To those embarking on a commercial flying career, a few words of advice.

Signing a training bond is one thing, signing a loan to pay for your training is another. Most companies that require this claim it is to show you are keen. The reality is that they are cash starved and, as history has shown, are at much greater risk of failing.

Make sure you have something else that can pay the bills while you are between jobs. Even if you never use it, you will sleep better at night knowing you could if you had to.
If you leave a job, leave on great terms. You never know when you might want it back!

Have fun!!! Keep your sense of humor.

Cheers Sportingrifle.

This is something 98% of pilots cannot say!

[sportingrifle]

XS Bank...thanks for the kind words. Sorry about the lousy typing, late at night and in a hurry. I am better at entering data into the FMGC, honest. Hey by the way, did you ever fly tankers? We may have crossed paths in a previous life.
Cheers.

[SQ]

If you leave a job, leave on great terms. You never know when you might want it back!

very true

[Kelowna Pilot]

The aviation industry can be a wickedly cruel game.

I feel for these cadets.

They've spent huge sums of money and time on their training, and it's probably all going to be for nothing for 95 percent of them.

The vast majority of them in a few years time will be found working in a bank somewhere.

[square]

Sounds like all they really lost was 250 a month and an interview

[Kelowna Pilot]

I was under the impression given the original posters remark about huge bank loans that their flight training is totally self-financed (except for the measly $250 month stipend).

For the guys who had to borrow all the money and have no job prospects at the end, god help you.