Mentored / Sponsored Pilot Schemes - The industry gone mad

[Wannabe24]

Dear all,

We have all seen the recent ‘Mentored Pilot’ and ‘sponsorship’ schemes. Essentially the same thing, these are aimed at ab-initio candidates i.e. people with very little (trial hour) or no flying experience.

Oxford are currently training cadets on behalf of Thomas Cook and Excel Airways. FlyBE have always used Cabair for their sponsorships but are also currently offering a scheme through FTE in Jerez. ThomsonFly have chosen FTE in the past, as have British Airways Citiexpress. I would like to ask:

Do the above mentioned airlines *really* think low hours f(ATPL) candidates, trained outside of an "approved" organisation are a training/employment risk or are they just being seduced by the sales/marketing staff of the likes of Oxford, FTE and Cabair who through clever marketing of their integrated courses ‘seem’ to be offering a better kind of candidate?

[Artificial Horizon]

This relationship between the schools and the airlines has nothing to do with the airlines only believing that these schools produce good candidates, it is a marriage of convenience. The schools put the candidates through a selection process and then can focus the training on areas of interest that the airlines have asked them to do. At the end when the student is finished he/she will be put forward to interview with the airline, now up until this stage the airline has not had to put any input into the process except allowing its name to be used. The airline now has a pool of quailified, vetted students who are a known quality (not always the best quality, but a known one!!).

It is a win win situation for the school and the airlines, unfortuantly this is the was of the future.

[Wannabe24]

So the 'we only hire young unadulterated cadets' mentality is here to stay is it? doesn't this discriminate against people who can't afford the sums involved? or those who due to other commitments can only achieve their dreams the modular way?

[Wannabe24]

That is all fine, but what they are doing is discriminating against a certain kind of human being. No other industry behaves in this way. In other industries you would get a job interview regardless of how you gained your accreditations or experience (as long as the required credentials have been met). Then and only then would you be judged, i.e. at the screening/interview process. All employers in other industries acknowledge the natural elements of 'circumstance' and 'difference', they do not tar everyone with the same brush just for the sake of simplicity.

[Re-Heat]

Do the above mentioned airlines *really* think low hours f(ATPL) candidates, trained outside of an "approved" organisation are a training/employment risk
Yes, they do believe they are a training risk. Rightly or wrongly so, that is the experience that many of them have had - people who are capable of type rating in the minimum hours with minimal retraining are more likely to have come from an integrated background. The ability of modular students to work at their own pace - even if juggling jobs - is different from being forced to work at the course's pace at the same speed, a not so different environment from line training. That may be incorrect in many people's minds, but a more guaranteed product is lower risk that having outliers from modular backgrounds in their minds.

That is all fine, but what they are doing is discriminating against a certain kind of human being. No other industry behaves in this way. In other industries you would get a job interview regardless of how you gained your accreditations or experience
I am sorry, but that is simply not true. Some employers will not touch you unless you are an Oxbridge graduate; many investment banks have a list of top ten universities and those are the only from whom they recruit. Many jobs in accounting require training with Big 4 only.

Perhaps you could compare it to the argument that all degrees are alike, be they from Cambridge or Liverpool John Moores. Although some people at the latter may have worked very hard, the Cambridge degree will always trump it.

It all comes down to giving yourself the best shot you can - even if you are the exception, both ingrained beliefs and past experience have lead many airlines only to consider those from integrated backgrounds.

Although many exceptions exist, they are only there to prove the rule.

[easyflyer]

To re-heat's point, I work as a banker for a US bulge bracket and assist with the recruitment of new entrants - we only actually look at 5 UK universities, and no further.

If we can take advantage of a sufficiently large group of people already pre-selected to a known (theoretically high) standard, and educated to a known (and theoretically high) standard, why need we go to the expense (time/$) of looking elsewhere? Clearly this can mean that a smaller pool of talent is left unchecked, but the reward of searching these individuals out is simply not worth the investment - a similar approach is adopted by the airlines, and it makes financial and operational sense for any business.

I can appreciate the sense of injustice you may feel. However, no company owes any one individual a job, nor should incur additional costs to cater to a particular method of positioning for that job.

[Wannabe24]

Yes, they do believe they are a training risk. Rightly or wrongly so, that is the experience that many of them have had.

Two things here. Firstly, have modular and integrated students really been given the same opportunity to show off their skills/training aptitude? Second thing, you hear this line all the time from those who are not on the receiving side of this dilemma, but there's never been any hard facts to emerge from it.

You two aren’t integrated students are you? Before people accuse me of being jealous, I admit I am, but let me explain. Several years ago when I was a certain ‘Wannabe18’, these schemes were even more common than now. On this and other forums, more experienced wannabe’s (most who had a PPL) were complaining about such schemes saying they did not have any regard for people who have a proven love for this career. Having spent in the region of 6k to prove their love for flying they would be disheartened by the fact that these schemes always seemed to specify an upper limit on the number of hours. FlyBE with their ridiculous 70 hour cap for example. In addition to this there would be an inherent disregard for ones flying experience to the point where the flying school would not discount the cost of any training that was not required. This should be ample proof that profits are far more important to a school than what’s best for the student.

To such wannabe’s I used to, in my selfish arrogance say such schemes were important to new wannabe’s, as we would find it hard to fund a PPL anyway. I honestly can’t believe it now but I used to accuse the older wannabe’s of being a risk to potential employers because they were more experienced and used to doing things “the PPL way”. Now, 5 years later, I am the experienced wannabe. For how long can someone who loves flying sit around on their arse hoping for a sponsorship to come through? It appears to me those who are prepared to do just that are more likely to get into the majors. I am now faced with the same situation those wannabe’s of past were and what have I done wrong? I’ve played the game, did nothing wrong at all. I think that comment that no business is required to give me a job if I don't meet their 'hows' (even if I meet their 'whats') is spot on, which basically confirms what I have suspected all along. And that is that snobbery and self-righteousness are still alive and well in aviation.

[The_Fat_Flyer]

And that is that snobbery and self-righteousness are still alive and well in aviation.

Wannabe - it's called the 'old boy's network'. I feel for your plight, but get used to it! It is present to some degree where-ever you go and whatever you do - that's life and those are the breaks!

[Re-Heat]

Have modular and integrated students really been given the same opportunity to show off their skills/training aptitude
Yes, BA did take some modular students in the 90s, who trained with integrated students. There were quite large problems in some instances in having to provide extra hours base training in order to get those students up to speed. Now BA have been known to take modular students in the current day and age as well, but they are highly discriminating as they don't have time to provide extra hours to those whose ability is not of the same standard as others with whom they are training.

I am not an integrated student, however I am well-versed with the facts of the above case.

You can pay for a type rating and even hours on type, but the risk now is to you and paid for from your pocket. Arguably the talent and spare mental capacity of such students may still be lower than for other whom have been selected - be it GAPAN or for integrated courses - but the crucial point is that much does rest with ability, proven capacity to cope with intensive courses, and having been selected.

Now I know that many can prove me wrong as say that airline x has taken many from a modular background, but when you are BA or another top tier airline for whom most would rationally, ultimately want to work, then you can afford to be very picky.

On this and other forums, more experienced wannabe’s (most who had a PPL) were complaining about such schemes saying they did not have any regard for people who have a proven love for this career. Having spent in the region of 6k to prove their love for flying they would be disheartened by the fact that these schemes always seemed to specify an upper limit on the number of hours.
1) Proven love of anything is no indicator of ability. Otherwise a lot of teenagers would be rock stars.

2) Excessive hours after PPL without being under a course of instruction is proven to lead to a lowering of ability - hence it being known as the death zone.

And that is that snobbery and self-righteousness are still alive and well in aviation.
As I said recently on another thread relating again to BA, those children of BA staff were in fact far less likely to be successful at interview and selection than those of a non-BA background. Go figure - there is no old boys network worth a mention in the UK of which I am at all aware.

I’ve played the game, did nothing wrong at all
But fools with the 'love' but untested ability have ploughed ahead in obtaining debt financing for integrated and modular courses, flooding the market and ensuring that airlines no longer have to be quite so careful to nurture future talent.

Welcome to the marketplace.

[Wannabe24]

Welcome to the marketplace.

Wise guy :cool:

[scroggs]

BA and others using integrated or structured modular suppliers are simply contracting out the training they are neither equipped nor wish to provide themselves. Contracting out of specialist services, including training, is common in all industries and is not indicative of discrimination.

Aviation is unusual (but not unique) in that the entirety of training is generally paid for by the student at his or her own financial risk, and this is simply down to market forces generated by the numbers of wannabes wishing to fly. However standardising the provision of training is important to a large organisation like BA who find it very difficult, time consuming and expensive to themselves standardise new pilots from too many different training backgrounds - which has to be done before they enter type and line training.

Ideally, I'm sure BA would like all its ab-initio pilots to come from a single source. Trouble is, no school these days is going to put all its eggs in one customer's basket - the income ramifications of even small changes in demand are huge. Therefore, organisations like BA with a large demand (at least currently) for new pilots will need to contract with more than one training provider, and may even, at times of peak demand, have to look elsewhere. But that causes the standarisation issues I referred to above, and won't go down well either with the training department professionals or the accountants.

I repeat: it's not about discrimination, it's about quality control and standardisation.

Scroggs

[Wannabe24]

If what Re-Heat is saying about BA taking on modular candidates back in the 90’s is correct then it has been over 10 years since they last tried. Since then we have moved on to JAA JAA land. There are some differences between modular and integrated these days that appear to be deliberate . They needn’t be that way but just for the sake of it - they are. Without these differences an integrated course could not earn it’s name. Like I said, the work of clever marketing bods.

These days, one could do their PPL, structurally build hours, do their ATPL theory, CPL, ME and then IR all with the same school; under the guidance of instructors all the way through; without any breaks; pretty much full time and at a school that provides integrated training! This isn’t majorly different to integrated and if the school wanted to teach the pilot “to think like an airline pilot”, like they claim to do with integrated students, they could do it for modular students too. I think by discounting all modular pilots without paying any attention to their training record is senseless. The ‘self improvers’ of the past would’ve encompassed everyone from farmers (agri pilots) and aerobatic types to our humble selves, but this has changed recently. Most people DO do their modular training in the same time it takes for an integrated student to complete his/hers.

I think the question should be, what percentage of those candidates that required additional training were modular compared to integrated and what was the difference. We don’t even know if BA were actively seeking out to find the “better” training method (integrated or modular). Obviously, these are facts and figures BA are not required to make public, but they should. Until then it appears that what is being done is indeed discrimination.

I’m just explaining to you how I and I’m sure many more modern day modular students see things. Some of you guys, although vastly experienced, and no doubt have a good understanding of airline requirements seem to be a bit outdated when it comes to comparing the two routes. Another point, in all other walks of life, if you purchase something as part of a packaged deal, it's usually cheaper. But in the wonderful world of aviation it doesn't work that way. One would think, to go modular, i.e. to buy a bit of flexibility would cost you more....it's actually cheaper.

[scroggs]

These days, one could do their PPL, structurally build hours, do their ATPL theory, CPL, ME and then IR all with the same school; under the guidance of instructors all the way through; without any breaks; pretty much full time and at a school that provides integrated training! This isn’t majorly different to integrated and if the school wanted to teach the pilot “to think like an airline pilot”, like they claim to do with integrated students, they could do it for modular students too. I think by discounting all modular pilots without paying any attention to their training record is senseless.

They do. It's called 'structured modular', and CTC is its chief proponent.

Scroggs

[Wodka]

From my experience as a crew planner for a certain well know airline (no i'm not working there anymore - off for a summers tugging :D) you have to look at it from the business point of view.

Pilots are numbers on a spreadsheet. Sorry but thats it! - I used to sit there and work out I needed x pilots online by y date in order to keep the program running etc.

I would then go round to pilot recruitment and say right I need 10 FO's on this course on this aircraft - usually this would be a last minute decison because a route/base etc had been introduced at the last minute.

The pilot recuitment manager then has to fill a course quickly with people who he knows are low risk - i.e. can pass the training in the specified footprint and get online by the required date. People dropping off the course halfway though can cause huge problems with rosters having to re-written + replacement crews found at short notice (most of the line guys being at max hours already :})

I.e. - the pilot recuitment manager goes for the easy option - ready packaged cadets which are seen as a sure bet or guys with lots of turboprop or other jet exp.

When I first did this job it was acceptable to run the line in a slight surplus to create a buffer - and this allowed more time to get people online so perhaps a recruiter would take a punt on a marginal guy + we had some slack in the system to allow for drop outs etc... NOW its run by accountants as said above and they said "Lose the buffer, its additional cost" Bloody madness if you ask me but thats the world today :{