Airline and students raise concerns over pilot college

An airline and the parents of students owed money by a pilot training school expressed concern in the High Court yesterday about the running of the school in the last 18 months.

A lawyer for the Kazakhstan national carrier, Air Astana, and a number of parents and students, were among those who turned up in court yesterday when Mr Justice Brian McGovern confirmed the appointment of Michael McAteer as examiner to the Waterford-based Pilot Training College of Ireland.

The company last week sought and was given temporary court protection to give it time to come up with a scheme aimed at securing its survival.

Earlier this month, around 80 people who were undergoing part of their training at a facility in Florida were left stranded after being told it would not be continuing, each having paid around €80,000 for the course. Around 350 trainees and prospective trainees are now owed money in fees paid to the pilot training college.

As part of a survival plan proposed by an independent accountant, the company is to concentrate on what has been its core activity, multi engine instrument rating training, in Waterford.

Frank McManus, whose daughter is one of the trainees, told the court yesterday he was concerned that many of the students who had not reached that stage of training would have to find and fund alternative interim training, which had previously been sub-contracted out by the college.

Brian Kealy, another parent, said he would like to see the examiner look at the performance of the firm in the last 18 months because it appeared to be trading with continuing losses and deferring substantial amounts of income when at the same time it was having difficulty in getting students.

Air Astana, which had 76 pilots training with the college and is owed up to $1.9m (€1.54m), was also concerned about the manner of the company’s trading in recent months. Kelley Smith, counsel for the airline, said it might be necessary to write to the directors of the company about this.

Mr Justice McGovern said his only function at this stage was to decide whether to confirm the appointment of the examiner on the basis that the company had a reasonable prospect of survival which would ensure creditors, including the 350 students, would get something rather than nothing if the company was wound up.

Some of the issues raised by the parents may be a matter, backed up by evidence, for the Director of Corporate Enforcement, he said. But they were not relevant to what the court was dealing with in terms of the examinership.