Oxford and CTC

[R T Jones]

Now please before any flaming and saying that oxford selection is all about the size of your wallet please wait!

I don’t know if any of you would agree or have similar views but on reading through the Oxford selection for the APP course I did notice similarities to the CTC selection. First stage is the application, second is aptitude tests, third is group exercises and interview and both finish with a simulator check ride.

Now if you believe what is written on the oxford website it says only 1 in 4 of the people that apply is selected for the APP programme. Anyone have any idea what the ratio for CTC is? I've heard a figure as low as 2% who apply make it all the way.

Both FTO's include 8-10 months away doing basic training with Oxford in Phoenix and CTC in NZ where I believe both ATPL theory and basic flying are completed.

CTC requires a bond of £60,000 and Oxford is £55,000, but of course with living costs etc you will probably pay a bit more for Oxford.

The difference comes with jobs at the end. With CTC the majority of cadets will have airlines to go to on completion of training and Oxford you don’t, however from what I’ve read on the Oxford website the APP programme seems quite good at placing cadets with airlines. It seems to me that the only difference between them is the airline involvement is much earlier in the CTC scheme than Oxford.

Hope this is food for thought and any feedback on my ideas here is defiantly welcome :)

[lscajp]

I have a friend on the CTC wings scheme. I vaguely remember him saying that its about 4% that get accepted onto the wings scheme.

Apart from that I can't help you. But i'd like to see what other people say....

[Timeout]

The CTC Wings Course is by far the better course to be on.

In theory you are not really paying for your training. When I start with my airline I will be paid a salary of £21k with sector pay on top, so in all about £26k in my first year. The £60000 bond is repaid by my airline in addition to my salary.

With CTC you will train in a very impressive crew training centre, and you end up with 285 hours at the end of the course (I believe). In addition I will get a type rating and line training all provided, which you don't with Oxford.

You won't have to worry about paying for retests etc. Your accommodation is all paid for (which is very good accommodation with ensuite bathrooms etc), you get cars to drive and all your training equipment provided.

Even if you are not a pre-sponsored cadet, you are almost guaranteed a job at the end of the course.

If you can get on the CTC course, I highly recommend it!

Timeout

[BoraBora007]

I think its pretty obvious that everybody starting out on the trail to becoming a pilot would prefer to be on the CTC scheme.

The fact that they sort you out with a top job is the main plus point. Easy's sponsorship terms are excellent with Thomas Cooks being very good also. Those not immediately sponsored also to all intents and purposes are guaranteed a job. Indeed I believe from a friend there is more than a healthy demand for cadets.

A type rating, expenses all included as part of the course.

A 65k unsecured loan from the HSBC bank no questions asked.

Well it seems clear to me why so few people make it through selection. It may be very similar to Oxfords process, but the standard required to get on the CTC scheme is undoubtedly a lot higher.

[scroggs]

The reason for the difference between Oxford's and CTC's applicant success ratio is obvious: Oxford's 'applicants' (really potential customers) have already sourced the money and are in the process of deciding where to spend it. Therefore they have self-selected long before Oxford gets hold of them. CTC's applicants are hopefuls who are looking for a way to have their training paid for (even though it is later deducted from their pay), and who want as near as they can get to the guarantee of a job, therefore loads of people will apply even if their chances are minimal.

If Oxford's scheme arranged and deferred payment until after pre-arranged employment by a contracted airline, I'm sure they would have the numbers of applicants that CTC have, and the ratio of success at application would be similar. As it is, they are offering an enhanced integrated course to those who have the money to pay for it. They can't afford to turn too many of those away...

Scroggs

[R T Jones]

I would agree that CTC is streaks ahead of OAT. An interesting point made by scroggs though, about the fact every wannabe will apply to CTC and not all will apply to OAT.

I agree that the standard of selection at CTC must be higher than Oxford, simply because CTC are taking the risk, whereas at OAT the student is taking it.

It is clear that CTC is the place to be so of course I will be doing every thing I can to get there, but OAT doesn't seem an awful second choice. Assuming you have the money and the luck!

[scroggs]

I'm not saying that CTC's selection is better than Oxford's, I'm simply saying that we are not comparing apples with apples. Oxford will have far fewer aplicants for the APP course simply because the applicants are expected to have their funding already in place. The funding required is huge; very few people are going to be in a position to apply for this course.

CTC offers the funding as a result of selection, even though it is still in the form of a loan. Most of CTC's students will be pretty much guaranteed a job with one of the contract sponsoring airlines. Therefore CTC will have a vastly greater number of applicants to whittle down to a manageable number.

Scroggs

[Jodiekeyz]

Look at FTE Jerez, there good to :=

Oxford is £55,000

I do believe it works out a tad more than that when you include the american side of things....closer to 65k-70k i was quoted for my son to attend the school....:}

[mbcxharm]

Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with most of what Timeout says I have issue with one thing, that you are 'not really paying' for your training.

I guess that there has never been such a thing as a 100% sponsorship where you would not pay anything towards your training and then go straight onto a full first officer's salary. Of course, with the CTC scheme you don't go onto a full first officer's salary either. Typically, the reduced salary is 12000 pounds less per year than the full salary (coincidentally the same amount as the bond repayment from the airline).

Result: you've paid for your training with a bank loan, but are paying it back in a tax-efficient way.

I think I once calculated that during the first year with the airline if you were paying back the bank loan at the same rate (over 7 years) out of taxed salary you would have to earn 37000 to take home the same amount as a CTC cadet after the loan repayment.

[R T Jones]

Comparing the selection of OAT and CTC, is it safe to say that the CTC process is harder to get through? Simply because of the number of people applying for it.

About Jerez I made a little calculation about costs. For OAT

£56500 basic cost.
£3000 for the test package
£1638 for the accommodation in Phoenix
£3600 for accommodation in halls of resident at OAT
Then 10% added on for food etc.
Total cost approx £70500

For Jerez
£72000 basic cost. Which includes accommodation and food, but not social expenses. Adding 10%
Total cost approx £79200

If you do take an integrated course its clear that you need an understanding bank manager, good luck and a supportive family that are able to help you out financially. Of course it’s likely you will be bonded to an airline for your type rating. So add £20000 to your debt to nearly £100,000. Which is a figure quoted on many websites regarding the total cost of the CTC scheme. Absolutely amazing amounts of money involved here. I think this is the first time I've seen the true costs of the integrated course. The thing about it remains that if you want to go into airline flying quickly you pretty much have to do an integrated course.

What are other people’s thoughts on this?

[mbcxharm]

The ultimate cost of the CTC scheme in fiscal terms alone is hard to quantify. The things I would say to bear in mind when making any comparison are:

1) The CTC bond is repayed over 7 years at 1000 pounds per month which is quite a lot (but if you think of it as part of your salary then you have to take into account that you don't pay income tax on it!). This leaves you with quite a tight monthly budget compared to someone who is paying a loan back over a longer term (obviously cheaper in the long run though).

2) With the CTC scheme, on graduation, you should go straight into the RHS of a jet and have an (albeit reduced) salary commensurate with that. Not saying that you won't after an integrated course though, I know several people from (for example) Oxford's APP scheme that have done the same.

Ultimately, with CTC you are going to give the bank about 84000 pounds (but not out of your taxed salary) having borrowed 60000 to pay your bond. Any extra you take out for living expenses (on top of a potential 5000 for the 14 months or so from a sponsoring airline) will obviously increase that.

Any bond with your ultimate employer for the type rating is usually wiped out automatically after (for example) 2 years after which you would owe the company nothing for your type rating having paid nothing for it.

[Reds Blues Greens]

R T Jones, I believe the cost of the FTE integrated course is 92,000 Euro which coverts to around £63,500 at present exchange rates. Granted, there are no socialising costs included (beer is pretty cheap out there) but, on the face of it, it seems like a nice saving for 15 months in South Spain.

RBG

[BillieBob]

it's CAA/JAA regulations for an FTO offering integrated courses to asses/screen applicants prior to training. Whatever gave you that idea?

[Aviation kid]

Recently attended CTC's stage 2 selection day. Passed the numerousy test and the aptitude tests but sadly failed on the group discussion.

Thinking about applying for the APP at Oxford but am feeling a little disheartened by my CTC rejection!:(

So, it would be much appreciated if anyone has any info on the kind of tests, and mainly, group discussion topics expected on the APP selection

Thanks AK :ok:

[Jodiekeyz]

RT i do believe you got the figures about Jerez a little wrong old chap.

92K Euro = 63.5K GBB at present exchange rates which includes everything....

Jerez cost (http://www.flighttrainingeurope.com/page.php?section=courses_integrated)

Reds blue greens is right. If you want to do the exchange rate for yourself go to

Currency converter (http://www.xe.com) and see for yourself. I am sending my son there quite simply because its one cost nothings hidden and its all inclusive of accomodation and food and of course its a dam fine school for learning to fly {in my opinion of course!}.

[R T Jones]

I do beg your pardon; I do apologies for the misleading figures. Adding 10% for various things takes the cost of Jerez up to approx £68000.

Apologies for the mistake :)

[Mr E Pilot]

There are a few issues to consider here that have been overlooked in this thread.

1) CTC is not CAA approved for an intergrated course.

2) Has any body tried the selection for both organisations? An oppinion about the selection process is only valid from somebody who has tried both.

3) A selection process does not insure a 100% pass rate of students. Clever applicants can lack motivation, something that can be obscured in an interview but will become apparent when they fail exams.

4) All training organisations are businesses and therefore need to promote themselves. All are probably guilty of embellishment in their bumph.

5) A qualifying pilot's options are limited with CTC. Although a job is more or les certain if you pass this can be restrictive too. Oxford students, for example, tend to gain more varied positions.

6) Oxford and Jerez APP graduates also have good track records of employment.

7) Employment of pilots is demand driven. It should be taken for granted that a qualified pilot is trained to a high standard. If the demand is high airlines are not going to be picky about which school they were at. The important thing is the pilot's personality.

8) All schools have to be monitored by the CAA so the standard is bound to be high at all of them.

9) Have you ever heard of an airline accident caused by poor instruction?

10) The real learning starts when you have a job.

A pilot who spends his/her career moaning about which way into the industry is better or worse isn't worth employing anyway! If someone is moaning ignore them, its usually if they have an axe to grind or think they are better as a result of the school they were at. Both are poor qualities in a professional pilot.

Students are bound to be more enthusiastic about their own course and therefore bias. So don't ask them for advice either.

If you are making a choice, go for the one which you think suits your needs the best. Don't be swayed by the "advice" you find on this forum. It can be distorted advice. If you are serious you need to do the research yourself. Contact all the schools, they all have open or visitor days. Talk to students there and ask if they are enjoying it. Ask them what the best and the worst aspects are.

Good Luck.

[R T Jones]

Interesting post Mr E Pilot, I think the perfect person to ask is someone who has been through both selections. My original post was just meant to highlight the similarities in both selections.

[Alex Whittingham]

Quick answers to 2, 7, 8, 9 & 10 Mr E Pilot,

2. At least 2 cadets who were selected by BA and due to start at OAT pre 9/11 subsequently went through the CTC process. They are either working for Easyjet or BA at the moment. They at least could tell you.

7. Oh, dear me. Not all qualified pilots are trained to a high standard, not by a long chalk. You only have to be lucky on the day. The airlines see the failure rate on initial type rating and line training.

8. You're kidding, right? An FTO is approved if it meets the requirements of JAR FCL1, the CAA is not in a position to refuse it. There is no requirement for competence anywhere in JAR FCL1, let alone high standards.

9. Many. Off the top of my head, the Kegworth B737 accident and the Chicago O'Hare DC10 crash in the '70s.

10. If you like. Many very experienced pilots would disagree with you.

Your last two paragraphs are spot on.

[Mr E Pilot]

Alex, I can accept some of these points, but:

by qualified pilots (7) I meant pilots who are qualified, type rating included. I would be interested to know what proportion of type rating and line rating failures are sourced from ap courses. Do you know if any exists? It could be the type of info that really would help wannabes decide;

Were your examples of accidents (9) involving students from CTC, or OAT? (Don't temp Fate here, Alex, its rhetorical :D ) ;

And if experienced pilots disagree (10) how would they explain thier experience?

My point is that there is too much emphasis on which course is "Better" here. All courses are only as good as the student. If selection helps determine the quality of students then this is positive but the proof is ultimately in the results.

[BillieBob]

Just to add to Alex's response -

1) Irrelevant - RTFQ - the question relates to the difference bertween OAT and CTC, not between integrated and modular. Many would argue that the construct of the CTC course is more within the spirit of integrated training than the severely 'modularised' construct of the OAT course.

2) Defer to Alex's superior knowledge

3) True but irrelevant. A properly conducted selection process will inevitably improve the overall pass rate and the better the process, the better the pass rate.

4) True but irrelevant

5) Depends what you mean by limited. I agree that the majority of CTC's graduates end up going straight into airline jobs, thus missing out on the 'variety' of instructing, night freight, corporate, etc. However, that's what the majority of CTC's graduates want to do.

6) So do CTC's

7) So are you suggesting that CTC's pilots have less personality?

8) A more naive statement it is difficult to imagine. All schools must meet the minimum requirements laid down in JAR-FCL and not one of the requirements therein relates to the standard of instruction. The CAA makes much of the first time pass rate ("The Authority will consider training at an FTO satisfactory when its students achieve a 70% first time pass rate at the IR Skill Test"). Most schools struggle to achieve even half of this rate but the CAA has never, to my knowledge, removed or suspended an approval on the grounds of poor training quality. Hardly surprising since there is nothing in JAR-FCL that allows them to do so.

9) Add also to Alex's list the Knight Air Bandeirante on departure from LBA that crashed in bad weather following a main AI failure. Oxford have had a long-standing contract with BMI and so it is possible that one or both Kegworth pilots were Oxford trained but, again, that's irrelevant. The question related to accidents caused by poor instruction, not accidents caused by instruction provided by a specific school.

10) If you don't understand the difference between learning and experience, there's really not much point in debating this item.

This is not meant to be a 'puff' for CTC, with who I do not now, nor have ever had, any connection. I do, however, freelance for a number of TRTOs and am in a position to compare the products of many training providers, both integrated and modular, both UK based and overseas based. I can truthfully say that there is little to choose between CTC and OAT trained pilots when it comes to pure flying skills. However, the former tend to be better prepared for the transition to big aeroplanes and have less difficulty than the latter in gaining their first MPA type rating. This could have something to do with 5) above and is not to say that OAT is not a perfectly splendid organisation - After all, I trained there myself!

[Mr E Pilot]

Your use of language suggests you do at least know about the topic, and I appreciate your contribution. I can't be bothered to supply more counter arguments involving semantics and basic reasoned logic. But it baffles me how you've apparently missed my actual point entirely. Even with a higher degree in philosophy which, although useless for many things, :rolleyes: does help with applied comprehension.

My point is that most quality of courses offered at different reputable schools are all much of a muchness, where you go depends on your personal preferences and which type of course is most suitable for your circumstances. So why agree with a counter argument?

People reading these threads are often seeking advice on where to study to become a professional pilot. Not an argument based on pissing up a wall (outdoing each other). I stand by original my advice to wannabes. Base you decision on your direct research, not on our opinions on PPRuNe where argument happens for argument’s sake.

“Contact all the schools; they all have open or visitor days. Talk to students there and ask if they are enjoying it. Ask them what the best and the worst aspects are”. And to add a bit, it can be helpful to take along your parents, family or partner so you have someone to discuss it all constructively and objectively with.

[Alex Whittingham]

Well, if that was all you were saying your advice is excellent. Why did you insert so much extra twaddle?

[Mouse Organ]

I'd just like to add to Mr E Pilot's advice and point wannabies to Flyer exhibition (http://www.flyer.co.uk/exhibitions/), a good place to go to meet many from the industry. I've never been before so I can't vouch for it's value, but it's only £8 (http://www.flyer.co.uk/shop/department.php?Submit=Tickets&department=1) per person!

MO