Jump to content

fry

VIP Member
  • Content Count

    579
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About fry

  • Rank
    VR Veteran Poster
  1. Anyone really interested in the outcome of the Silver State Helicopter fiasco probably already knows about the settlement of the bankruptcy trustee's adversary filing against Airola, Pickett, et al but just to wrap up this thread here it is: http://www.bankruptcypower.blogspot.com/ The bad news (aside from that the legal actions against Airola were civil and not criminal) is that Airola will walk away with yet more ill gotten gains from the sale of the Provo UT property...property that was originally purchased entirely with the students' borrowed funds. That is a travesty. If there is any good news in the settlement filing...and it ain't much...it is in one sentence by the trustee justifying why the court should accept the settlement agreement. Under the heading The Difficulties in the Matter of Collection he writes, "Both Airola and Pickett are individuals with possibily insufficient funds to pay a judgment against them. Enforcement of a judgment against them would therefore pose a difficulty." So, while in all probability Airola did not get a big payday from the sale of SSH to that investment group, he may still be getting a check as a result of this settlement. After the motion to accept the settlement was filed on November 11th there were objections to the settlement from former SSH victims sent to the trustee which he has filed with the court. Here are some parts: Sir, My name is Renata (redacted). I’m Alex (redacted) mother of one of the 2,700 SSH victims. I saw my son almost commit suicide when he found out about the situation with Silver State Helicopter. He went in a very deep depression. I can not believe what I just read on Mr. Michael Berger blog!!! The scum bag of Jerry Ariola and his complice will receive money back after stilling it from the students? With the research you have done in this case, you know this guy did wrong. How in the world he will be rewarded to keep one penny? Another objection said: Dear Sirs: I would like to go on record to oppose the proposed settlement between the bankruptcy court, Jerry Airola and Steve Pickett. It is extremely unjust to allow Jerry and Steve to keep anything from SSH. The helicopter that was purchased for the Orange County Chopper deal, was purchased with company funds, reconditioned with company funds and flown for OCC as a trade for the motorcycles. The motorcycles should be sold with all the other assets. And another said in part: Mr. Lisowski, I am one of the student-victims of the Silver State Helicopters scam. I am very dismayed, disgusted and angered to learn that you have entered into a settlement agreement with the primary criminals in this matter. Airola and Pickett made millions of dollars off the back of thousands of us. And now you are giving him more money, money that we were told does not exist. As we have always held since the beginning that any monies recovered from Silver State should be applied to the victims fraudulent loans, I believe you are doing a grave injustice against us. You may have the legal authority to enter this action, but I find you to be just as morally bankrupt as airola and pickett. The court has not yet ruled on the motion to accept the settlement agreement and the trustee, in filing the settlement "with prejudice" and by making these objections available to the court, does not appear to be committed to the settlement. More objections from SSH victims might prompt the court to throw out the settlement (or at least any portion that awards anything to Airola). The trustee's (Lisowski)attorneys' (Zmaila and Goatz) e-mail addresses are: jfltrustee@aol.com NV15@ecfcbis.com tony@aaznevada.com Drop 'em a line. Be respectful but let them know how you feel...it's probably the last shot. Happy holidays.
  2. It's not likely "all helicopter schools" will qualify...probably only 141 schools. How much assistance will be provided? From SB3447: (g) Programs of Education Pursued at Institutions Other Than Institutions of Higher Learning- (1) IN GENERAL- Educational assistance is payable under this chapter for pursuit of an approved program of education at an institution other than an institution of higher learning. (2) AMOUNT OF ASSISTANCE- The amounts of educational assistance payable under this chapter to each individual entitled to educational assistance under this chapter who is pursuing an approved program of education at an institution other than an institution of higher learning (as defined in section 3452(f) of this title) are amounts as follows: (A) In the case of an individual enrolled in a program of education (other than a program described in subparagraphs ( through (D)) in pursuit of a certificate or other non-college degree, amounts as follows: (i) The lesser of-- (I) the established charges for the program of education; or (II) the amount of the average of the established charges at all institutions of higher learning in the United States for a program of education leading to a baccalaureate degree as determined by the National Center for Education Statistics of the Department of Education for the most recent academic year. (ii) A monthly stipend in an amount equal to the monthly amount of the basic allowance for housing payable under section 403 of title 37 for a member with dependents in pay grade E-5 residing in the military housing area that encompasses all or the majority portion of the ZIP code area in which is located the institution at which the individual is enrolled. ( In the case of an individual enrolled in a program of education consisting of on-job training or a program of apprenticeship, amounts as follows: (i) For each month the individual pursues the program-- (I) in the first six-month period of the program, an amount equal to 75 percent of 1/12 of the amount of the average of the established charges at all institutions of higher learning in the United States for a program of education leading to a baccalaureate degree as determined by the National Center for Education Statistics of the Department of Education for the most recent academic year; (II) in the second six-month period of the program, an amount equal to 55 percent of 1/12 of the amount of such average; and (III) in any month after the first 12 months of such program, an amount equal to 35 percent of 1/12 of the amount of such average. (ii) A monthly stipend in an amount equal to the lesser of-- (I) the monthly amount of the basic allowance for housing payable under section 403 of title 37 for a member with dependents in pay grade E-5 residing in the military housing area that encompasses all or the majority portion of the ZIP code area in which is located the employer at which the individual pursues such program; or (II) the national average of the monthly amount of the basic allowance for housing payable under section 403 of title 37 for a member with dependents in pay grade E-5. © In the case of an individual enrolled in a program of education consisting of flight training, an amount equal to the lesser of-- (i) the established charges for the program of education; or (ii) 60 percent of the amount of the average of the established charges at all institutions of higher learning in the United States for a program of education leading to a baccalaureate degree as determined by the National Center for Education Statistics of the Department of Education for the most recent academic year. That seems to be saying that assistance will be limited to the lesser of the cost of flight training or 60% of the average tuition and fees associated with a bachlor's degree. If that is in fact what it means then that 60% average amount is going to be significantly less than the retail cost of flight training. In other words, this bill still may leave a lot of flight training to be paid by private lenders.
  3. Obviously no one in "the industry"...which is why it must now contend with more regulation and additional costs. One guy...literally...was allowed to screw it up for everyone else. The cost of the SSH era just continues to grow.
  4. Here's the law: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_48_bill_20091011_chaptered.pdf I don't see a requirement for an audit or the maintenance of a current assets to current liabilities ratio. Anyone know where the VM article got those?
  5. Brannan, though, is taking things seriously: he has reached out to flight schools in a letter to rally a co-ordinated opposition to the inclusion of flight schools in AB 48. A public hearing is scheduled in Sacramento on June 7th to get inputs from the flight training community. Brannan is suggesting that as many as possible attend. Further, he hopes that by working with the National Air Transportation Association (NATA), Helicopter Association International (HAI), Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and the media, the obvious flaws in this legislation will be brought to the attention of key California State Assembly representatives, as well as Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. A vocational flight school exemption sounds like a long shot given that the bill is the direct result of the failure of SSH. Where were NATA, HAI, AOPA and the other flight school owners when SSH was operating? "[T]he obvious flaws in this legislation"...are what"? The cost? Who should pay for vocational school oversight if not the schools and the students? Especially since California is broke and is raising fees on state university students..."Can you tell our readers Mr. Politician why the taxpayers are having to pay to protect students from predatory vocational schools?" This could be a good thing for well managed and adequately capitalized vocational schools (the law doesn't apply to Part 61 recreational flying clubs that offer training) by driving out all the shoestring operators and sending those students to the better run schools. A good move by California...although too late to help the SSH students...other states (like Utah that was negligent in its oversight of SSH) should implement the same protections.
  6. The judgment in the above adversary case against Airola (his training for SSH) was entered yesterday...five years and ten months after the case was filed: Based on the February 24, 2010 Settlement Agreement between Plaintiffs Equity Trader- 1, LLC and the Official Unsecured Creditors’ Committee (collectively “Equity Trader”) and Defendant Jerry M. Airola (“Airola”) (the “Settlement Agreement”). It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Equity Trader, be, and the same hereby is, granted judgment against Defendant Jerry M. Airola, as follows: 1. In the amount of $120,000.00; 2. Post-judgment interest on the entire judgment amount, at the applicable postjudgment interest rate; 3. This judgment shall be augmented in the amount of reasonable costs and attorney’s fees expended in collecting said judgment by execution or otherwise as shall be established by affidavit; and 4. This Judgment shall be held in abeyance and not enforced by Equity Trader pending Airola’s timely performance of the provisions of the Settlement Agreement between the parties.
  7. Since you asked. The "slimy side of education" is only that if the student ignores the obvious because he doesn't want to hear it. Everyone knows...at least everyone who really wants to know...that for-profit "universities'" credits will usually not transfer to accedited educational institutions. That's because the for-profits' accelerated...i.e., one month...courses do not meet most universities minimum standards. Those for-profit degree mills are for people who want to put BS or MBA on their resurme, not for a real education...and most employers (although generally not the government employers) know that and do not give the credentials much credit. Regarding the feds' direct loan program, you're right. The only change is going to be that the federal government will be making federally guaranteed student loans directly instead of through lenders like SLM. Those loans will continue to be, for the time being, under the same standards they have always been under ..to students attending accredited educational institutions...which does not include stand-alone flight schools. Private student loans will still be available through private lenders at high variable rates and with acceptable co-signors. But, what will change as the feds grow into their new role is that loan standards for students will become much easier as long as the student is going to an institution blessed by the feds as worthy. The objective of this legislation is not to save money by cutting out the private lenders but rather to make much more loan money available. The feds will be virtually giving it away. This is why the smart flight schools are becoming associated with colleges...CCs and four year schools...,because it won't be too far in the future that the feds will be financing flight training.
  8. There's really nothing to answer that you don't already know. If you can get federally guaranteed loans by attending an accredited educational institution all well and good but they will not pay for the entire training so you will have to use your savings and maybe continue working. As for "alternative educational loans", if you mean private...not federally guaranteed...loans you're looking at high rates, probably needing a co-signor and also likely not enough to fully fund the training. That's pretty much the options...unless you go into the service.
  9. That GI Bill is a good deal...in fact, the only way to get occupational flight training that makes any sense...if it really works out that way. And it looks like it might according to the VA website: http://www.gibill.va.gov/GI_Bill_Info/CH33...on_and_fees.htm School tuition, flight training costs and a monthly housing allowance...is that right? Now that's the way to support vets.
  10. "...I think someone told me..."???? Why not go to their website and read the information? Residency Policy Determination of residency for purposes of tuition will be made according to the following definitions. Applicants to the nursing program must satisfy in-district residency requirements as outlined in the nursing program application packet. In district An individual who owns property, or who has maintained a permanent and continuous residence, in the district for one full year prior to the beginning of the first term of enrollment will be classified as an in-district resident. The COCC District consists of all of Deschutes, Crook and Jefferson Counties, the northern portion of Klamath and Lake Counties, and the Warm Springs Indian Reservation in Jefferson and Wasco Counties. Out of district (in state) An individual who has maintained a permanent and continuous residence in the state of Oregon but outside of the COCC district during the full year prior to the beginning of the first term of enrollment will be classified as “out of district.” The student’s residency will convert to in-district two calendar years after the term in which the student began classes. Out of state An individual who has not maintained a permanent and continuous residence in the state of Oregon during the full year prior to the beginning of the first term of enrollment will be classified as “out of state.” The student’s residency will convert to in-district two calendar years after the term in which the student began classes. Sounds to me like if you were not a resident of the district for one year before enrolling you will be paying Out of District rates ($91 per unit) or Out of State rates ($186 per unit) for two years after enrolling. How hard was that?
  11. Here's a piece from the Wall Street Journal about the changes to the student loan program: New Help for Some College Borrowers Buried in the health-care and education bill that Congress passed Thursday is modest help for parents borrowing to pay college costs. But the legislation doesn't address current and former students who are wrestling with education debt. Under financial-aid provisions in the bill, all students and parents beginning next fall will borrow directly from the federal government, ending a program in which the government subsidized private lenders to provide federal loans. Parents pay an annual interest rate of 7.9% under the direct program, compared with 8.5% under the old program. Student borrowing rates for federal loans aren't affected: They will be 4.5% this coming school year for students with financial need and 6.8% for everybody else. A second provision in the bill sweetens a program that caps student-debt payments based on income and family size—but only for students who begin school in 2014 or later. The current income-based repayment program, begun in July, limits payments to 15% of a borrower's discretionary income and forgives any debt that isn't paid off in 25 years. The future changes limit payments to 10% of discretionary income and forgive debt after 20 years. The bill also provides more funding for Pell Grants, which are available mostly to students from families making $50,000 a year or less. The changes come as tuition, fees and room and board continue to grow faster than inflation, reaching eye-popping levels at top schools amid state budget crises and declines in endowments. The University of California system, for example, has raised tuition and fees to more than $11,000 next year, from about $8,700 last fall. Brown, Dartmouth, Duke, Harvard and Stanford universities, among many others, say that their tuition, room, board and fees will top $50,000 for the first time in 2010-11. So despite the new benefits for borrowers, paying for college remains a monumental task. Here are some ways to make it less painful: • Don't assume a school's sticker price is real. Many public and private schools have raised their financial aid along with tuition, and some have committed to packages that limit or eliminate student loans. Roughly 50% of students at top schools receive financial aid, and even families with incomes of $200,000 or more may qualify. At Brown, for instance, more than 40% of the students receive some aid, with the average annual package around $31,000. Provost David Kertzer says the school's income from tuition, after subtracting financial aid, was essentially flat in 2009 compared with 2006. Experts say that some students may actually pay less at a private school than a public one. But competition for aid is tough: More than 18.8 million Free Application for Federal Student Aid forms have been filed so far this school year, up 20% over a year ago. • Parent borrowers need a better credit record than students. Parents can take out federal PLUS loans at a 7.9% interest rate. But while FICO scores aren't a factor, parent borrowers can't have any missed payments in the previous 90 days or had a bankruptcy or foreclosure in the past five years. If parents don't qualify, students can borrow more in federal Stafford loans. • Students should limit their total education debt to about what they expect to earn their first year out of school, says Mark Kantrowitz, publisher of finaid.org. If you need to borrow much more than $40,000, you probably ought to consider whether that school is the right fit. • If the government loan programs aren't enough, financial-aid experts say parents should compare the rates for a home-equity loan before taking out a private education loan, which can carry a double-digit interest rate. While a home-equity loan can put a borrower's house at risk, rates on such loans are often lower—and the interest may be tax-deductible.
  12. I hear ya ("I feel your pain"?) regarding "individuality"...but really, this legislation is not that bad. Here's a pretty good summary of what passed the Senate plus the changes the House made...the combination will be the final bill: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/03...nciliation.html The Repubs and moderate Dems fought a good fight to shoot down the most onerous parts of the original House bill...the "public option" and the "panel of government experts" who would decide the price of individual medical treatments. This bill is not a "government run health care" system...here's what a piece in the Wall Street Journal (no friend of liberals) said: Proponents of the health legislation are quick to point out that it doesn't amount to a government takeover of health care, and they are right. The legislation builds on, rather than replaces, the employer-based health-insurance system that has prevailed in this country for decades. It funnels patients getting government subsidies into private insurance policies and pools, not a government-run health plan, and is at best a small step toward the nationalized health-care system some liberals want. Those wanting a single-payer plan and a European-style nanny state will be back...but for now, they put on a full court press with all the advantages on their side and this was the best they could get. The Republic is safe for now.
  13. Ah, so this is really not about the "death of th student loan market" and its impact on the flight training industry, huh? The same sort of claims about impending insurrection were made when old age income legislation (Social Security) was passed in the 30s and again when senior medical benefits (Medicare) was enacted in the 60s. Can you imagine not having those programs today? Thirty years from now the medical program just passed will seem just as normal as its two predecessors do now. As for how we are going to pay for a trillion dollars (over ten years) of new government spending...who knows. But the federal government has been in hock to this extent before...to pay for WWII...and we got through it. To put things in perspective, the US is a $14 trillion economy...the next closest is only $6 trillion...and the entire European Union...16 countries...is only equal to us. Our military spending represents almost half of the world's total military spending...5.8 times more than China, 10.2 times more than Russia, and 98.6 times more than Iran and almost 124 times the spending of the five “rogue” states (Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria). Contrary to what the tea party folks say, this legislation does not represent the end of the American way of life. We will adapt and move forward because (cue the music..."glory, glory hallelujah...") that is the American way.
  14. What is it you think needs "recovering"? Federal student loans are not going away...the feds are just going to offer them directly without the involvement of banks. Here's a blurb from the New York Times describing the student loan portion of the health care bill: The student loan bill would allow the government to lend directly to students, bypassing payments to private lenders. It would also redirect billions of dollars to expand the Pell grant program for low-income students and to pay for other education initiatives. If anything there will more student loan money becoming available...the feds love to give money away. There may...in time...even be more loan money available for flight training. If those in the flight training industry were smart they would hire a lobbyist who could start banging on the doors in Congress to get the industry a place at the trough. But either way...relying on students with private loans or having available students able to get government money...only the large schools or those operators with work other than just instruction...are going to survive.
  15. Discontinuing the federal FFEL program won't have any additional impact on RW flight training. First because the FFEL program is only available for federally guaranteed student loans...Stafford and PLUS loans. Only flight training at accredited institutions would qualify for those loans and there is very little of that going on. Secondly, the FFEL program...in which private lenders make loans with a federal guarantee...is being discontinued so that the feds can take over the loan process and make direct loans. History has shown that when the feds take over a program the number of eligible participants increases and that is likely what will happen with student loan lending. Although they still may not allow lending for flight training. But the conclusion that flight schools will continue to close their doors is probably correct. Although not because of anything the feds are doing. The days of easy-money lending are over and private loans...far and away the source of nearly all flight school lending...will only be available to those borrowers with adequate income, co-signors and credit history. There will also likely be no impact on future pilot availability from the closing of flight schools. That's because there were too many schools started during the easy-money days for the actual number of pilot slots out there in the market. This excess training capacity will continue to dry up as the wannabe birdmen are unable to get financing. What will remain will be only the best capitalized and the largest schools...probably only those with 141 certs.
×
×
  • Create New...