Originally Posted by
BobbyLeeSwagger
I think wider access to financing is maybe more effective, but that's my hunch. You don't have any access to federally back loans unless you go through a university (I think). I'm a little out of my depth here, obviously. But my point remains, the pay has been so low at the entry to mid levels for so long- I think we can all agree on that. We've come a long way since pay-for-training, but the indentured servitude is alive and well through the details of signing bonuses (*cough* financially coerced retention programs)..
How bout people get access to fed loans and everyone comes into solid 6 figure salaries no matter where you land. We're getting there, but the implications for the higher tiers means pay has to come up for everyone.
Fed support can be considered as two categories:
Higher Education: This includes aviation colleges, and is politically easier to support.
Vocational: Pilots have one foot in this camp, but gov funding for vocational training is not as expansive as for "higher education". Politics IMO. I've observed that mostly in the context of re-training for laid-off workers. I'd grant there's a legit concern with funding vocational training, in that it could be a slippery slope where .gov (taxpayers) could end up paying for training which really should be provided by employers. There's a grey area there, but could be categorized by jobs which require professional certificates/licenses. But there are many trades which have industry-established certification, should they be excluded, even though the industries in question are doing good by setting and enforcing standards?
I think Mike Rowe has it nailed, I'd be in favor of more government support for vocational training and careers in general. That might even extend to pilot training.