Oxford Air Training [Archive]

Stone Cold

30th Aug 2005, 14:35

Not so much with the ground instructors (you never really see them), it is mainly the sim instructors with a attitude problem not all of them but most of them, all but 1 on my course don't know about the Airbus guys they may be different.

I understand that CTC was a good training company years ago but I think it's all gone to their head!

Another thing that would make some of us experienced guys laugh was the school report since we are treated like children, regardless of the performance of the cadet he would always generally get a glowing report with good progress ticked despite taking 30 minutes to get a GPWS recovery correct because they kept overstressing the aircraft or landing to the side of the runway and this was generally withheld from the report, where as the experienced guys regardless of their performance would only get a normal progress at best with lots of things written up in the report saying this was wrong that was wrong despite how insignificant it was. I know that CTC would prefer the cadets and I understand why they always had glowing reports it's because the cadets are a product of CTC.

After CTC the cadet will feel on top of the world, he/she has had a excellent report and praise from the instructors. Then they go to the airline for base training just before the line training and that's when the problems start. All of a sudden the cadet realises things are not going well when they are on their 14th circuit and they should have finished by their 8th circuit, some don't even complete the base training because the training capatin needs to get other guys through and they are sent back to the sim for further training, their confidence has taking a bit of a hit and they struggle through the line training and again sent back to the sim for more training and eventually some of them were chopped with the cadet wondering what went wrong since they had such good reports from CTC.

Another thing that amazed me was that smoke in the cockpit was not taught in the sim only discussed which is not good enough. Smoke in the cockpit is one of the most scariest things that can happen, it was ok for me I have seen it and practiced it many times in the sim from my previous company but when I asked why it was not being shown to the cadets because I thought it was vital for them to go through the excercise to see what it's like and how difficult it is to see the instruments I was given a totally lame excuse that if they did it would set off the fire alarms in the building what total bo!!ocks. If this happens in real life and the cadets are inexpericened then the captain will feel very alone in dealing with the situation. As many captains that I know will always say "cadets are good at pushing buttons but when the sh!t hits the fan and they are knocked of the rails a little bit you can find yourself on your own".

I don't blame the cadets and I'm not having a go at them they were good guys and girls on my course but I think it is in the interest of the cadet that the training provider should pracitce has many types of emergencies as possible to prepare the inexpericend cadet to be able to deal with potential emergencies that may appear on the line and that the sim instructors started teaching to operate the aircraft in a standard way rather than have their own way of doing it.

Very poor in my opinion!

Mooney12

31st Aug 2005, 09:11

Stonecold,

Are you sure your not a bit bitter because maybe you didn't get such a glowing report?

Are you sure your not a bit annoyed at the fact a cadet with 250 hours on the "kartana" did a bit better than you in the sim?

You paint a picture that every cadet goes to an airline and gets completely out of his/her depth, put back in the sim and even chopped.

This is obviously not true, so there must be some reason for your outburst.

Ridgerunner

31st Aug 2005, 09:58

Don't want to be rude,

but where you getting 60 grand from for Oxford?

Globalwarning

31st Aug 2005, 10:01

Mr Stone colds views are not unique to pilots within established airlines. CTC seems to have lost its way and are starting to be a liability to the industry, particularly to pilots. Got to say if I went down there for a type change etc and they started pratting about, I'd read them the news in English.

Legally and morally they are on very thin ice.

BigGrecian

31st Aug 2005, 17:05

I'm glad to see Oxford's marketing department has got a real tight grip on madmandan1. So much so he's blinkered to the rest of the world :cool:

Stone Cold

31st Aug 2005, 17:57

Mooney12 I'm not bitter about a stupid report, I have to much experience to care less, I know my ability.

With regards to the cadet doing better than me in the sim re-read my post and you will find the cadet was struggling not by their own fault just the poor teaching practices at CTC, this is my point CTC leave a lot of things out which are very important for a INEXPERIENCED cadet to learn and practice, it seemed regardless of the performance of the cadet they would get a excellent report which was given to the airline and why? I will say it again, the cadet is a product of CTC, if CTC was to send cadets to airline with reports of a few problems encountered in the sim that airlines may take it's business elsewhere.

For your information on several occasions in a 4 hour sim slot I only got a hour and the cadet got the rest because they were having a few problems! not their fault just not taught very well because the instructors don't stick to SOP's they teach things their way and on one occasion I had to give the cadet some guidence because they were getting rattled by the instructor who was loosing patience with them.

And yes all cadets on my course went back to the sim for some additonal training and some were chopped!.

Mooney12 if you are or were a cadet take my advice you don't know it all, I have been flying for over 10 years and I still have lots to learn. Don't be arrogant you have 2 cups one filled with luck and the other one is empty on experience and what you need to do is fill up the cup of experience before the cup of luck runs out.

And that's the bottom line coz Stone Cold said so!

doo

31st Aug 2005, 18:13

Just a word of caution, at the Airline I work for I don't know of anyone lucky enough to go "back to the sim" if they didn't make the grade by the end of line training.

chris2005

31st Aug 2005, 20:45

This is all very intresting but a little one sided with respect to CTCs type rating training. If they are any Wings Cadets out there like "no sponcer" who are going through sim training, have completed line training and have been placed with an airline their comments would be useful

Any offers????????????????????????

FREDA

31st Aug 2005, 21:45

Yep, me. The scheme has done exactly what it said on the tin. I had no issues with how i was treated during all phases of my training, got through all my sim training 1st time, no extra flights. Line check passed with no problems and sitting quite happily as a permanent employee. Never had any problems with instructors offering criticism (which WILL come), review it and use it. Its being given to make you a better pilot (Whether 250hr cadet or million hour capitano extraordinaire).
:ok:

Wee Weasley Welshman

1st Sep 2005, 07:22

If you can get onto something like the CTC Wings scheme which is coming bundled with a job placement at the end then take it. It will likely cut your job hunting down to zero and help you shortcut your way into a larger airline.

BUT. Most who apply don't get selected. Some of those selected don't pass and some that pass get chopped at line training. So its no golden ticket.

In all likelihood you will find yourself needing to pay for your own training at a school of your own choice. Then job hunting like everybody else.

You may choose Modular or Integrated. There are pros and cons and they are discussed elsewhere on these forums.

Personally I recommend going Modular as you have access to the best training providers this way. Also it is more flexible and nearly always cheaper.

I would far rather train at a school with say 4 aircraft and 5 career instructors based at somewhere like Bournemouth. Compared to training at somewhere with 25 aircraft and 50 instructors based at somewhere like Kiddlington, Jerez or Cranfield.

You are far more likely to benefit from instructor continuity, the same airframe, aircraft availability is usually better and frankly your are more of a customer and less of a number.

As for groundschool you are best off nailing most of that through distance learning and brush up courses whilst still employed in your current job.

In all I wouldn't spend more than £40k on all my training. I wouldn't give up my day job until I had the PPL and ATPL exams complete or very nearly complete. I wouldn't take more than 5 months to complete the CPL and ME and IR and MCC. I would then apply to airlines for 3 months and if no job arose I would spend £4.5k on an FI rating as there are quite a few jobs around at the moment.

Don't for one second think anyone is impressed by where you trained. Its the same teaching - all that varies are the charges and the hassles.

Good luck,

WWW

The Devils Reject

1st Sep 2005, 08:32

They both have pro's and cons, but dont be fooled by people telling you about the 100 % employment rate at Oxford. I konow two guys who graduated from the integrated scheme, still no work after a year. Also BA take people from anywhere, ( I should know, self improver modular myself, from neither CTC or Oxf ). At the moment it's a great time to be looking for a job, where do you want to work ? If it's Easyjet or Monarch go to CTC, Britania/Thomson also like them ( school owned by some ex-Britania people ) Oxford have links with Otherairlines, and if you want Ryanair - you must be mad.:D :D :D

Globalwarning

1st Sep 2005, 21:03

CTC needs to watch their a.... Many have had enough of the B.S, and for those looking to join the indusrtry- do the sums- it does not add up.

Investment vs. reward = bum deal

However, with the shortage of experienced pilots (4000+ jet) might mean that wages/ T+C's head north, god willing. They need to.

SuperJet

2nd Sep 2005, 00:53

Having read this thread with some interest, I thought the view of a current CTC cadet would put a few things straight. I am out in New Zealand doing my training with CTC, and really felt that, while no company is perfect, no company sails on blissfully devoid of problems, complaints or pitfalls, I have been blown away by what CTC are doing and are aiming to do.

Before you read the rest of this, believe me, I am a pessimist and am not trusting by nature. I am not someone easily impressed by company schpiel or propaganda. I didn’t trust the CTC scheme and wasted time trying to do it all alone. If I could go back and change that, I would! I would have gone straight after the CTC scheme with what I know now! I feel I cheated myself out of a years head-start by being too sceptical and searching out other options and methods. Oh well.

The entrance standards are astronomically high, and it is correct that only 2% get through the CTC selection (it currently sits at 2.3%, for those who care). Once out here in NZ, the pace is solid-fuel-rocket fast!

As for the standard of training, I would expect everyone to be able to find niggles or picky subjects to debate over, but at the end of the day, CTC are in a position of strength, they have a very good reputation and from actually being around and knowing the CTC cadets at present, they are an excellent bunch of extremely talented guys and gals who will ALL make excellent pilots.

So far, there is no lacking or deficiency in any of the training offered, and I really don’t have any reason or evidence to suggest that this standard will deteriorate come Simulator training back in the UK. I talked to a whole host of the guys in Bournemouth doing their Simulator training, and they were pushed hard, but comfortable and eager.

As a kind of a side note, CTC have demonstrated over and over again their commitment to their cadets! The CEO himself flies out regularly to NZ and literally sits with us all and talks to us about any problem we may have. No kidding! He actually sits with us and it is open forum all the way!

CTC have spared no expense on the training and well being of their cadets. I only hope more of you guys and gals out there may get the chance to experience it! the investment in NZ and the UK is simply staggering!

Personally, I feel that if CTC is being labelled as ‘cocky’ or ‘arrogant’, perhaps this is borne of a combination of jealousy and envy concerning their strong market position. But hey, if time proves that CTC is carrying on too big for their boots, then so be it. But for now and the foreseeable future, I really do think that CTC have got it spot on.

Need proof? Ok, without giving too much away, I have not been in the CTC scheme for too long at this point, but, I already have been assigned an airline and am heading or interview really soon! I said I was blown away, and I meant it. CTC have as-good-as placed me already. And many others too.

I found it amazing that the cadets here in NZ were sitting around happily comparing their respective airlines in such sensible tones as you would expect someone to talk about an office project! This is the CTC standard – we are grateful for the placement with the airline, but at CTC, lol, its what we have come to expect! And I am pretty sure that the tendency to run CTC down is in no small part due to the fact that they have set a benchmark that few others can attain. Does OAT do better at this game? I don’t know to be fair.

When CTC have me in the right hand seat of one of the latest aircraft in 18 months, and I didn’t have to dig up my great grandfather to pay for it, will I care which training organisation has the best 'reputation'? Hmmm. Will I care what the pass rate was? Is? Which organisation helps the most after training? Well, CTC don’t need to offer help after the event, because it is addressed DURING the training. I have an airline already, as do a number of others! Trust me, it is a huge weight off the mind.

So, please feel free to bombard me with CTC-related questions. Are they perfect? No. Are they better than OAT? Dunno, to be honest. But should we care which of the two we get into? Not really. We are all aiming for the skies, so does it matter how we get there?

I preferred the certainty and honesty of the guys and gals at CTC. I prefer the idea of being given an airline rather than go hunt for it later. I prefer the loan guarantee with CTC and I don’t mind that the training is paid for later on over 7 years. Christ! I remember in my naiive youth writing to BA and a handful of other airlines doing my best to offer to pay for my training out of my salary over the next 15 years if they would just train and employ me NOW! Lol. How things change! Now that’s EXACTLY what is happening!

It is true that CTC look after their own, and of course they are proud and protective of their cadets. CTC does have a real family feel about it!

Look forward to more comments and questions!

Superjet

:ok: :ok:

HAHA

2nd Sep 2005, 08:03

Yeah, nice one Rod...

they are an excellent bunch of extremely talented guys and gals

erm... no gals out here.

pace is solid-fuel-rocket fast

when you get to fly.

The CEO himself flies out regularly to NZ and literally sits with us all and talks to us about any problem we may have

fair enough, he does and is a thoroughly nice chap.

Many have had enough of the B.S

agreed.

If you can get onto something like the CTC Wings scheme which is coming bundled with a job placement at the end then take it

Nothing EVER comes with that guarantee. CTC seem to be pretty good though.

scroggs

2nd Sep 2005, 10:36

OAT and CTC are both excellent schools. Cabair and FTE are also. However, they rely for their continued existence on the money you pay them for their services. To convince you to buy what they have to offer, they will all tell you more or less what you want to hear - which is that their training is the best, and that their students get the best jobs with the biggest airlines, and that you have more chance of getting a job after their training than anyone else's.

Well, they can't all be right. And, if you believed even half of what these four schools say, no-one who trained anywhere else would ever be employed by anyone. Patently, this is not the case. In fact, I'd guess that these four schools together probably don't provide more than 50% of fATPL recruits for UK airlines (though I don't have figures). So don't go thinking you have to go to OAT, CTC, FTE or Cabair to have any chance of getting a job.

Equally, whichever school you elect to give your business to, don't go in with the attitude that you are 'lucky' to be there, or that you owe them anything. YOU ARE THE CUTOMER!! Don't forget that. If they treat you like sh*t, tell them where to get off. Not rudely or aggressively, but remind them who's paying - and paying heavily. It's not the school, or an airline, it's you. If things aren't right, get them changed.

Scroggs

Globalwarning

2nd Sep 2005, 10:44

Superjet

Good to hear you are enjoying it. I hope it works out and you get to fly with a decent employer, on decent money, and a final salary pension. You most likely deserve it.

One word of warning- when you get to said airline- listen and listen and learn, as well as enjoy.

omoko joe

2nd Sep 2005, 21:33

Having met a few 'wings cadets' I would have to say I'm generally impressed by their attitude (with the odd exception). By the time they get to type rating training though, they do seem a little worn down by the system. Unfortunately the type ratings provided by CTC can only be descibed as 'minimum standard'. Groundschool instruction is virtually non-existent with the preferred method being CBT which was probably relevant in 1970 but bears little relation to what candidates are examined on. Ground instruction varies from good to rubbish. Sim instruction is the same. Pure luck dictates how good your sim course will be with instruction varying widely from excellent (provided by some of the industry's best) to appawling (often from the those who passed their sell-by date before crm was invented). There is a lack of standardisation and little will to address this issue. Having completed a fair few type rating courses in my time I can honestly say that CTC is unquestionably the worst training establishment I have dealt with. Sad really as there are some very good instructors but its always the bad bits we remember most!

AMiller

3rd Sep 2005, 01:05

omoko joe,

I ask you -

Have you failed a CTC course, or, have you been f++ed over by them in the past??

Andy

omoko joe

3rd Sep 2005, 09:39

no I havn't failed a CTC course and I never worked for them nor would I want to but I have been through their type rating system. Unfortunately the cadet and TRSS/self sponsorsed guys have little to compare it to. I have lots to compare it to.

SuperJet

5th Sep 2005, 09:01

Just thought another tid-bit of info might help,

Having asked around the CTC warehouses of information, it seems a little of the 'low-grade' performance of CTC cadets at line training level is simply a human factor :O

Apparently a lot of cadets from CTC, having been through the hard times of the courses leading up to the line training, then sit back with the attitude of "Phew! Now I have made it" and back off the pace a little, only to be stung by their own complacency in ceratin areas.

Just what I have heard mind...

SJ

chocky

5th Sep 2005, 19:11

Haha (nice name) You said that there are no 'gals' out in New Zealand...are you actually out there? And how true is that statement if you are? Surely there must be some out there on courses?

ehumpadink

5th Sep 2005, 22:08

Hmm, very true his statement is…

I imagine when he says “no girls out here”, he is out there.

I can confirm there are no girls in NZ (well, there are a few locals but I wouldn’t if I were you..) and if memory serves, there have only ever been two in CTC. Rumour is rife of two about to join.. the air must be heavy with testosterone..

Show yourself SuperJet! And hand in your Meet&Greet propaganda pamphlets; they’re messing with your brain :E

E.

chocky

6th Sep 2005, 15:56

hmmm, I can confirm that 2 girls are about to join. :ok:

Caracul

7th Sep 2005, 12:56

Would that be in two weeks time by any chance? :hmm:

chocky

7th Sep 2005, 13:59

Well if there are only two due to come out
then dates have yet to be confirmed

G-BURR

15th Sep 2005, 15:59

I am seriously considering civil avaiation as a career and have been looking into the Airline Preparation Programme at Oxford Aviation Training. However someone told me that they have had staff leaving recently for one reason or another.
Can anyone possibly enlighten me further? I'm going to one of their APP seminars in November, should I mention it then?

Thanks very much

Blinkz

15th Sep 2005, 16:15

Ask them any questions you want answers for, thats the point of seminars. Just look around all the schools that you like the look of and go where your gut tells you :)

G-SP0T

16th Sep 2005, 20:21

many leave bcoz of how the management treat them/the students. I know alot of the ground instructors who left, if they are anything to go by the rest will be excellent.

but be carefull, the are many horror storys abt OAT... mostly the flying

geraldn

17th Sep 2005, 19:59

G-SPOT check pm

stue

17th Sep 2005, 20:07

Whats the horra storys at OAT??

Thinking about going there, but would like some "real" info on them, apart from what they tell you?

Cheers all!! :D

Lee Frost

17th Sep 2005, 21:34

"As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions"

PPRuNe forums are useful up to a point but there are so many people here with little agendas - I'd say if you want to hear about any particular school, then talk to someone credible (ie has attended, or used to work at the place).

I wonder how much "real" you'll get by browsing these forums! Also bear in mind, people with negative feedback are generally more active than those who were happy with their experiences.

Good luck for your training.

LF

dlav

18th Sep 2005, 11:52

well said LF. Out of interest, who has left?

G-ANDY

18th Sep 2005, 16:22

My old flying instructor moved over to OAT recently and he seems to be happy there. I don't think instructors leaving is directly related to employment conditions. Many instructors only teach to build hours before moving onto the airlines.

Go check-out the place and have a chat with the instructors and students. The landing fee is only £6!!!

:)

CPL_Ace

18th Sep 2005, 17:31

I agree with a lot of what has been said about this forum and it's varied uses. I was in your position 10 months ago.I chose to go to OAT - It was highly recomended to me by a friend/helicopter pilot
I will not give any information about it for fear of contradicting my first sentence but will officially invite you to pop into the pilot's lounge when you have finished with your "formal forum" with OAT staff. Alternatively, hang out around the smoking areas or the picnic tables by the exit to the aircraft.
There will be many of us hanging around who will answer your "real" questions without bias - or just a friendly chat!!
Yes there are horror stories and some of them are based on actual events (loosely). You'll hear the facts from people who experienced the good and the bad. None of them will try the hard sell on you. Some may even try and put you off. From experience, this will happen at most of the training centres around.

G-BURR

19th Sep 2005, 10:53

Thanks very much, I've booked to attend the November APP seminar and hopefully all will be revealed to me then. Can anyone recommend any similar insititutions worth visiting? (Preferably around the South of England...?)

davepearsall

19th Sep 2005, 10:58

there is CTC in bournemouth. Not too sure if they do a seminar though. look into it www.ctcaviation.co.uk

fly616

19th Sep 2005, 13:11

I am looking at going modular at Oxford.
Anyone been grond or flying recently?

Any PM's would be appreciated with your experiences.

Cheers.

chris2005

19th Sep 2005, 17:39

I think a lot of what has been said is very true. Any large training organisation OAT, CTC, FTE etc is bound to have its enemies and when a company is as large as these it will never be able to please all of its customers all of the time. Best to just read up or go visit and see how you feel about the place.

DrRedHead

11th Oct 2005, 15:48

Hey guys/gals

I have my view on things although I’ve just got a date for an aptitude test for oxford. The thing that puts me of CTC is that I have to be 18 and have A levels which will be AUG next year which if I’m skilled enough I could have started my training already with Oxford. I can defer my entry to oxford for up to a year which means I can complete my A levels before I start training. I don’t know if this is true with CTC, if anyone could inform me with this info PM me or summik.
I’m also put of CTC because of the long wait before I can apply , although a year would be nice off the 2.3% chance of getting in compared to the 40%ish compared to oxford seems a better deal and turning down a good chance for a risk at something very slim I don’t think it is worth it.

I did pop down to one of the seminars (Newcastle to Oxford is a long trip) and yea they run a business very professionally, as is the goal of most places. The facilities down there seem pleasant but I do not have anything to compare it with.

The Dr

A330 Biggles

11th Oct 2005, 20:36

I trained at Oxford and had to put up with a lot. There fleet problem was a major snag!

But at the end of the day the groundschool was 1st class as was all the flying and MCC/ JOT at the end. Throughout my training they helped prepare me for what it would be like in a major airline.

The instructors are all very proffessional and at the end of the day the school is held in very high regard by many airlines including BA.

The APP course is definatly one to look at and with the industry going the way it is i believe Oxford will be one of the schools to be at.

Dom McNeill

12th Oct 2005, 23:13

WWW,

With regards to your reply,

I have to disagree almost entirely. The intergated Vs Modular route has been argued to the bone, but your post irratated me somewhat. Perhaps a lot of wanabees these days have 'blind' passion for flying and will go into something with their eyes closed tight, but your attitude appears to be the complete opposite. You seem to have taken no real information about what airlines want from Low hours, Ab initio pilots these days. I know for a fact that Ba City Express, who happened to recieve 1300 applications for a few position in two weeks, will take a recommended application direct form Oxford (Kidlington as you call it) bypasisng those 1300. And you only if it was from the integrated route. Similarly, Bmed (Formally British Mediterranean) Said a similar thing. They would look far more favourably on an applicant having completed an integrated training route than a Modular. To me, anybody who wants to enter the Airline world in the current political and economical climate with regards to Aviation should realise that at any moment, the market could hit a deep depression and we would be left with a large pool of trained pilots - with the same 'Blue book' and hours all wanting jobs. And who are those jobs going to go to? Applicants with a recommendation from a reputable FTO (Oxford for example) from an integrated route with a good groundschool passrate, first time flight test passes, MCC, and lets say a jet orientation course with around 40 hours on a 737 sim. Would you look at that, it just so happens that Oxford gives you exactly that. The groundschool instructors are fantastic for getting you good results in you ground exams, and similarly the flight instructors are great at getting you first time passes in you flight tests. This is no accident. The facility at this large FTO with more than 20 a/c and lots of students are second to none. And in my opinion, And it is an opinion (albeit educated), if you want the BEST CHANCE of getting a job at the end of your training, Go intergrated. More specifically, Go APP First officer with OAT.

Wee Weasley Welshman

13th Oct 2005, 14:02

Yes there are some airlines which express a preference for Integrated students. However, time and again, it has been retold how that they have neglected their espoused preference and hired a Modular guy. In addition there are many airlines that don't care how your first 180hrs were structured.

You also have to consider the fact that there is a great deal more to an aviation career than simply getting into a household name airline with 200hrs. A great many pilots out there in those airlines started in much smaller outfits and many of them positively abhor Integrated students who, as the schools themselves boast long and loud, have been trained specially for airline training and progression.

A further consideration to your recommendation of the most expensive Frzn ATPL course in the country is that some people just can't afford it. Or that to stretch to it would leave them dangerously indebted.

There simply is no 'best' option. Just different ones with differing pros and cons. As debated ad infinitum on these forums.

If indeed there was another Sept11th event tomorrow then ALL 200hr aspiring pilots would be knackered. Arguably it is better to be in that unhappy state owing £40k than £70k.

I'm sure you found the groundschool instructors fantastic. As are the ones at many other Modular schools. And at a substantial discount.

As I said in my post with which you disagreed. I believe I would prefer, were I to be starting out again, to be at an excellent Modular school with less than 10 aircraft and an instructor to student ratio of 1:2. I have come to this opinion after years spent in the flying training business at both an Integrated and Modular school.

The large FTO's can seem like sausage factories and the aircraft and your instructor slots are harder to come by than rocking horse manure.

The fact that some airline express a preference which they sometimes don't stick to is the slightly intangible reward you get for the very tangible higher fees.

Cheers

WWW

just_go_to

14th Oct 2005, 08:29

SJ,

Sorry I need some clarity on your earlier post.

So where these guys at CTC just on standard integrated courses and BA, First Choice, EJ, and Thomas Cook came along and 'affiliated' the whole class? And some of them had only been at CTC for a month or two?

Wow!

JGT

AMiller

14th Oct 2005, 10:17

Dom McNeill you say

"if you want the BEST CHANCE of getting a job at the end of your training, Go intergrated. More specifically, Go APP First officer with OAT"

Yes true (sort of) See you;ve been brain washed too. Who gets the best first time IR/CPL results? Who gets the higest ATPL Theory results? Might just add that CTC does not provide and form of GS, they just do it along side their training. They select people who can do two things at the sametime, and well - as opposed to the chumps (40% selection rate for the APP isn;t it, compared to 2% at CTC) at OAT who cant even do well even AFTER full time GS!

CTC defo the way forward, and no i;m not on it, and yes I failed the selction

Andy

chris2005

14th Oct 2005, 10:34

Think you are right A Miller, also agree with Wee Weasley Welshman. From talking to pilots that I know I think many airlines do not care where they pilots come from, as long as they get the right type of people they will take guys/girls from intergrated and modular courses and dont really care what school they came from.

Oxford although are no doubt a very good school are also very good at marketing/brainwashing and have many people under the impression that if you train with OAT, you will get a job at the end of it all (although they may help you to find one). I know a guy who did APP at OAT tried for 2 years to get a job with no sucesses until he did the CTC ATP programme.

Chris

Rod Eddington

14th Oct 2005, 11:29

just_to_go

most ctc cadets are selected by an airline before they start training. usually an airline selects a whole class (of 6 when i did it, think it's 8 now) but thats not always the case.

AirHart

14th Oct 2005, 13:13

Chris

I know a guy who did APP at OAT tried for 2 years to get a job with no sucesses until he did the CTC ATP programme.

Just a quick correction, First OAT APP course didn't graduate until last summer and I'm pretty sure most if not all off that course, and subsequent courses for that matter are employed as pilots.

chris2005

14th Oct 2005, 14:17

Thanks for the correction AirHart

This guy fly's for Monarch now on the bus fleet after the CTC ATP scheme though I know he did do his fATPL training with OAT. The conversation was a while ago so I may have mistaken the course that he was on/or the number of years he was searching for a job.

Going back to employment statistics I know that CTC can make the claim that all their wings cadets have been placed with an airline (even after Sept 11 the holding pool was empty in about 6 months) and whilst OAT may have a good record of helping/finding cadets jobs their record is by no meens 100%.

Although in any course or airline sponsorship a job is never guaranteed!

Chris

JT8

14th Oct 2005, 14:46

RE: Modular/integrated/CTC/Oxford:

I did integrated and would do again should I have to make a choice. I felt personally it was the environment where I would do best. However when visiting schools I found some smaller modular schools (eg. PAT, BFC) better in many aspects.

I ended up on a jet via the CTC ATP scheme. Others joining me included plently of modular trained people with 250ish hours, some with maybe a little instructional or air taxi work under their belt.

The CTC wings scheme from what I understand is modular anyway!

I would personally NEVER go to Oxford simply because the price is silly.... (i am sure the training is first class) and before somebody starts raving about the 40 hours 737 sim training... well it aint a 737 simulator even though they seem to insist it is (its an FNPT2) .

Do the course you feel suits your needs. Plenty of students at integrated schools have done badly and therefore have a reduced chance of employment. A modular student may have chosen his school(s) wisely and finished up with first time passes throughout and may be more employable.

I would say CTC is by far the best way into an airline job at the current time.

For myself the hard choice was integrated or modular. Once I had decided integrated it was simply take the cheapest in the UK ( the standard at all integrated schools being good).

Finally as WWW mentioned, dont think the CP at X airways where you are trying to get a job was oxford trained. Maybe he has worked his way up the ranks and would much prefer the same sort of background in his recruits.

Who knows!!??! :confused: :rolleyes:

FatboyTim

17th Oct 2005, 00:59

Been reading with slight interest, both suprised and amused at the anger and tension created by a simple question

'which is better?'

I would have expected a slightly more mature attitude from some, I mean a question which could promt a good, productive and fairly useful discussion subject has turned into a football hooligan style slanging match, just without the beer glasses and violence (bitchy arguing on PPrune??!! Never!) I would dread to think that our beloved profession's workforce has changed from a mature and well respected one, to one of a bunch of moaning kids who get all p*ssed off when a "rival" FTO says something they dont like! Grow up people!!!

I am currently out with CTC in NZ, and im not going to do the whole OAT-bashing thing, because quite frankly, I dont know what theyre like, I never looked into them, I stumbled across CTC first, was impressed, and signed up. One thing I would say though from speaking to many airline pilots is that the dominating concern for many new pilots is simply finding a job, almost everywhere you look, airlines are offering jobs to pilots with +1500 hours or a huge number of hours on a specific type, usually a jet of some description, how is one to find a job when this seems to be the general requirement?

I am not asking a rhetorical question, to which I will put a witty or persuasive comment, I am genuinely asking, I have never been through this process of job-hunting, as well as the whole finance issue, I saw the career possibilities associated with being a low-hour pilot as quite concerning, its a catch 22, you need hours to get a job and you need a job to get hours.

This will probably get argued against no end by one of the many short-fused and angry people who post on this forum, and before I get a load of nasty replies contradicting what I just said, I would like to make it clear, I am not implying that this is fact, this is just what I have been told by many Pilots, from a variety of different nationalities and a variety of airlines.

This prompted me to prioritise the negatives of the industry, finance and job availability topped my list in big bold letters, and this lead to the attraction to CTC, it is true that a job is NOT A GUARANTEE, and they make no effort to hide this fact, it is printed everywhere, probably for moral and legal reasons combined, however, after being told that a new pilot has a very hard time getting a job, I was confronted by a company who not only had airlines pulling pilots in by the dozen (literally in alot of cases), they were paying for the priviledge!

I was thinking whether or not this is natural, this seemed to be an industry where you need to have a Pilot CV the length of an A340 and more hours logged than a DHL 727 to get a job, and suddenly, airlines are turning away from experienced Pilots and rushing to CTC? Thats what pulled me in, thats what made me apply, it took one of the huge negatives away, yeah, I didnt have a guaranteed job, but I had a big chance of getting one. As a bonus, the other big negative, finance, that was taken care of too.

A few months ago whilst on my lunch break at Bristol Ground School, I got an e-mail telling me EJ wanted to offer me an interview along with another 14 cadets at CTC, I have since been selected for employment by them, without lifting a finger, I can only assume this is purely based on the reputation of CTC.

As I said, I have made no attempt to imply that my assumptions are fact, so dont go bombarding me with nasty comments about how wrong I am, please, by all means prove me wrong, I would be interested to find out some FACTS, however I dont care for the usual mindless "youre a :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:" etc etc.

It is human nature to take a perspective on what we are told and shown and make up assumptions on it, I took the info given to me by Pilots and CTC and based my career decisions on it, and now I am out in NZ, training hard and waiting to start with EJ, so its not exactly done me a huge misfortune applying to CTC has it?

Again, to the angry people who post on here, please, feel free to call me names, insult me, tell me I am stupid, tell me I dont know what I am talking about, etc etc, it doesnt bother me, I know as much as anyone that this profession is hard enough to get into and I wish anyone and everyone the best of luck in the future (even you angry posters). I just hope I can get some feedback as to whether my views are correct or not and/or some closure on whether or not my opinions are fact. I also hope some people find my post useful.

Best of luck everyone

AMiller

17th Oct 2005, 06:57

hi all,

Fatboy tim like your comments along with everyone that has had something constructive to say. I've noticed that the OAT guys can't speak at all highly of the CTC, FTE and CABAIR people but the CTC, FTE and CABAIR guys can say that they respect the OAT guys. Go figure for yourselves.

Whats with OAT students thinking that CTC is an easier course than OAT -> HAVE A WORD! CTC is a structured modular course (very soon to be integrated i've heard) therefore they do more hours than OAT, ergo its harder. OAT students get taught their ATPL theory stuff so if you like being spoon fed information go there, oh but also they dont get the best results. If you can work on your own in a harder faster paced flying environment and also get good results go to CTC. I unfortunately failed CTC and I am gutted but not bitter, thats why I am coming out in support of them. The CTC guys respect OAT as a good FTO but just because it has people that may not have got onto the CTC Wings scheme does not make it a sxxt FTO.

CTC is the only FTO offering the highest chance of employment through their sponsorship arrangements. Airlines are paying CTC for their pilots. Do they at OAT? No, so get off your high horses! I would have had to have gone to OAT seeing as I failed CTC selection but I dont want to mix with the people I see there. Simple. Yes, i've been for a "visit" to their so called boeing 737 sim but did not feel at all welcome.

Good luck all

veetwo

17th Oct 2005, 09:51

Airlines are paying CTC for their pilots. Do they at OAT? No, so get off your high horses!

What high horses?? For gods sake! I really don't know why people post things like this. Why are you so upset? If a bunch of people go to OAT and say good things about it, so what? It was and is their choice and not yours. Get over it.

OAT students get taught their ATPL theory stuff so if you like being spoon fed information go there

Wow. Really impressed how well you've hidden the cynicism there. I suppose we were all spoon fed information at School as well? Oh well, have a word with Tony Blair and no doubt he'll introduce distance learning for GCSE's and everyone can feel much better about themselves.

On a serious note though, the reason people ask questions like "Oxford or CTC?" is surely to get a reasoned response about the quality of the FTO rather than these mindless arguments?

V2

FatboyTim

17th Oct 2005, 10:50

Mindless arguments,

I think a few underlying points of my post went a little unnoticed, to summarise my lengthy post, I believe the question at hand, "which is better", should have been re-worded to 'please list the pros and cons' a few people have touched on that, but most of this has been the usual high school style 'Yeah well our school football team is better than yours because of this...' which to anyone reading this trying to dig some useful info out of it is completely useless, now im no philosopher, nor am I a psychologist, but 2 things strike me from the perspective of a potential applicant to either CTC or OAT

1) it wouldnt be my preference or be particularly beneficial to see 2 companies's cadets slagging eachother off, I would want to know hard facts, based on experience from cadets, I wouldnt want to be a spectator, sitting on the sidelines with 60 grand in my hand waiting to throw it at the winner of a petty argument, and...

2) it would make me a little concerned to see cadets from some very reputable companies engaging in this 'mindless arguing'

is there a reason behind this arguing people?? I'm not taking the father-figure role or trying to pretend I am 'wiser' than anyone or anything, I just know that I didnt even know about PPrune when I was going through applications to CTC and I would have seen it as a valuable resourse on which to base decisions and guide me into my career. The general summary of this discussion seems to be 'were the best and lets prove it!!'

It could be said that people at OAT are happy there enough to defend it to the last, likewise with people at CTC, another way to look at it would be to say that cadets from both companies want to reassure themselves that they made the right company decision and shed any thoughts of 'the grass is greener on the other side'.

The truth is people, we cant prove anything, I bet no-one here has been on both courses and therefore has no basis for comparison, I dont know what OAT is like, from what I can tell they are a reputable training organisation, and as for their general goal of getting people to become airline pilots, they must be doing something right otherwise they would have probably folded before now, as would have CTC.

I believe the choice of company depends many things, but for anyone basing a life changing decision on what they read here, please FOR GOD SAKE dont just go for the company whose cadets have 'wittier smart-alec comments' than the other! Its insanity!

Cadets in New Zealand, Arizona, Jerez or wherever have a valuable experience that can be offered as help, or not, but for any of this to be useful, we need to grow up and accept that each company has pros and cons. Simple as.

Be nice people!!! :D

(ps. sorry it didnt turn out to be much of a "summary")

MonarchA330

17th Oct 2005, 13:36

Give up smoking... eat lots of BBQ food and rant on Prune. Stop winding Fatboy up, he's doing really well. :}

FatboyTim

17th Oct 2005, 17:11

lol, looks like we have an anonymous CTC cadets amongst us!

Yeah all this ranting on here definately encourages one to leg it to the nearest BP and bark '20 Marlboro Lights' to the cashier!

but I wont!!!;)

As for my BBQ eating antics, that cow died for a good cause, I believe eating a Kilo of it's muscular behind is a new record in these parts, I await a challenge!!

(not too soon though, I felt pretty sick after eating that...)

chris2005

17th Oct 2005, 21:33

Nice to see someone talking some sence FatboyTim

I think which of the to you go to is more of a personal choice dependent upon what you see as your prioreites. I chose the CTC Scheme based upon them being a reputable firm offering high quality training and with an 100% success rate at placing cadets with an airline. I also see OAT as a reputable firm who no doubt also offer high quality training. However CTC offered a better chance of employment than OAT.

That was what was most important to me at the time. Some people may be more concered about cost, or whether the course is intergrated or modular, but to me that was not really an issue.

To add to that point I think all A Miller ment by

"OAT guys being spoon fed info"

Veetwo was that the OAT ATP shceme is a more structed learning enviroment, which some people may prefer espically those not used to studying independently. I dont think he was implying that OAT guys cannot absorb information for themselves.

Good luck all

Chris

supercruise593

25th Oct 2005, 13:01

Fatboytim,

It was all about the Chicken drumsticks mate… lol

For anyone who hasn’t twigged on the BBQ banter, yes I am a CTC cadet training out in NZ.

I've already written a fair whack of ‘factual’ information about CTC. So I’ll leave most of that out.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1960811#post1960811

My main point is that I support exactly what you are saying.

To all other readers & posters,

The commonality is that we all want to get our licences, pick up as much experience as we can and get the ‘holy grail’ (right hand seat of a jet belonging to a major airline). Unfortunately, this thread hasn’t really done much to assist the person who first started it.

It leaves me concerned only for people who are trying to research how to get into this industry. Guys don’t be put off by what you read on PPrune! There’s a lot of attitude on here and a good 80% of what you read comes straight out of a Donkey’s ars*. (In fact; my apologies to the Donkey race). This is partly contributed by:

1) Cadets from each school.

(This is useful only when they support their own establishment with objective factual information).

2) People who actually work for these schools/companies and who try to sound like cadets etc.

(They generally tend to be more constructive in what they say but are rather biased).

3) People who unfortunately got stung by one of these schools/companies at some point &/ failed/missed the required standard in some part of selection/currency testing. Of course they rarely admit this!

(However, there have been some admirable objective comments by some people who have openly admitted to being in this position).

The good news is that 20% of what you read is useful information. It’s just spending the time to find it and then maybe PM-ing the guys who post it as so to get some more information. Generally these will be the people that tend to get back to you as well!

When I finally accepted that the BA sponsorship scheme had been consigned to the graveyard for ever and knowing I wasn’t getting any younger; I had to think about my last stand at getting the dream job.

Without initially reading the sh*te spewed out on PPrune, I researched the 5 possible avenues left to me. CTC, OAT, FTE, Cabair or a longer modular route where I kept my current job until I had enough hours & qualifications to step over.

This involved an ‘in depth’ study of their websites, ordering every brochure they had to offer and conducting a lot of comparative analysis. After spending some time on this, I prioritised the key issues. As for with Fatboytim, the top 2 for me were PLACEMENT (a company’s ability to successfully place as many cadets as possible derives from many other attributes) & FINANCE (I had no money to spend on training. This meant firstly I had to have a way of getting the money and secondly because I was borrowing it; I had to be as sure as I could that it was being invested wisely). My order of preference in terms of making applications was as listed above.

I was lucky enough to succeed with CTC. This was the best option for me. OAT would have been next. They have an initiative that assists cadets in finding employment & openly publicise they’re success rates in terms of numbers & airlines. They also offer similar financial arrangements with a bank as with CTC.

However the important philosophy with CTC is that the ‘airlines’ are the ‘customers’. We are not! Therefore CTC don’t advertise in the industry press & their selection process is by far the hardest. I’ve only been training for just over 2 months now and I should know in the next few weeks which airline I will be working for, upon successful completion of the course. You then have to ask yourself, why do several major UK airlines have this type of confidence in CTC?

I’d just like to provide some general stuff in response to OAT-BA related stuff posted on here as well.

1. BA have a good relationship with OAT, they used to send a lot of their cadets to them for training back in the day. OAT provides more cadets to BA than they do to any other airline (when I last checked).
2. Far from everyone wants to work for BA once all the cards have been laid on the table.
3. CTC are again providing more cadets to BA and have the potential to provide a lot more once they get ‘integrated’ status.
4. Regardless of where you come from, if you are earmarked for BA, you’ll have to go through their entire selection process as it was for their sponsorship scheme. Ouch, if you’re fully qualified and fail a PILAPT test or worse still one of those 500Q personality checks (Madmandan1, Globalwarning & Ston’ed’ Cold :} :})!

Good luck to everyone trying to get the dream job! :ok:

P.S. Fatboy, I happen to know who Monarch A330 is! If can you sort me out with some more flights I may be prepared to break with convention & betray him to you.. :}

Orvil

25th Oct 2005, 18:27

Hello,

I've been reading this forum with continued interest and now would like my conundrum to be put forward with some advice from yourselves.

I am a modular student , having done no training with the big four.
I passed most of the ground school first time (Perf !! on the second attempt), Distance Learning.
Did PPL at Oxford (not OAT but another school)
Hour building, Night and IMC in Florida.
IR in Spain. Yes, I did that first due time constraints at work.

I'm about to complete the Modular flight training, ie,the CPL part in Florida.
I have been quite shrewed and only owe about 8000 quid.

Having read this thread and the BALPA conference thread.
I have concluded that if you want a job, you must do the following:
1 Gone to one of the big four FTO.
2 Intergrated or Full-time Modular (CTC)
3 Be prepared to fund an extra 15-20 thousand for a type rating.

If this is the case. I am now considering ceasing training and cutting my losses.

What are your suggestions.

P.S I'm 34. So no spring chicken.
:)

AMiller

30th Oct 2005, 05:43

Oxford (OAT) is full of CTC rejects, Discuss.

scroggs

30th Oct 2005, 08:11

CTC's entry standards are higher than Oxford's? Not surprising really, as anyone with the right amount of money can get a place at Oxford. This is not a criticism of OAT; they are a commercial school that sells speculative training to potential pilots; CTC is a commercial pilot provider that sells baby pilots to the airlines, and charges both the airlines and the baby pilots for the privilege

If a self-sponsoring Oxford student fails, only that student is out of pocket. If a CTC student fails, the student and CTC are out of pocket, and the customer airline's plans are screwed up. That's why CTC must select their students to minimise the risk of failure, and why Oxford are very happy to take those who didn't quite make it.

Scroggs

Crazypilot A

30th Oct 2005, 11:03

Not surprising really, as anyone with the right amount of money can get a place at Oxford

Erm no lol...thats the first bad comment i have ever heard from you Scroggs...:ooh: There are plenty of people i have heard about that have loads of cash and not get in because they don't meet the standard...

367outbound

30th Oct 2005, 12:15

what a load of rubbish.....i know of at least 3 or 4 people who have been unsuccessful at Oxfords selection, and I have friends at Oxford who also know people who were unsuccessful....remember Oxford don't want to have a load of people who are only going to scrap through, it hardly makes them look good as a school if they get unmotivated people doing courses who only want to pass with the bare minimum grades.

scroggs

30th Oct 2005, 17:26

Crazypilot and 367outbound as far as I am aware, the only course at Oxford that currently requires potential students to undergo an aptitude, ability and attitude assessment procedure prior to starting the course is their 'APP First Officer' programme. Indeed, a post on 9th of this month on their forum by their Marketing Manager, Marty White, reveals that the only way to attend this selection procedure is to apply for the APP course and pay the required £195 to do so. Naturally, some people will fail this selection.

However, students who opt for the standard Oxford integrated course, or elect to purchase Oxford's modular products (other than their forthcoming 'Waypoint' product, and then only at a late stage in the course), face no such selection - and thus cannot fail it. This is no different to the majority of schools; many schools offer flying training products to whoever has the money to pay, and there is no reason why they shouldn't do so. The risk is purely financial, and is fully accepted by the customer in the contract with the FTO.

CTC, for better or worse, has chosen (as far as I can see) to put pretty much all its eggs in one basket: becoming a training provider to the airlines, rather than to the potential pilot (although the training is largely at the potential pilot's expense - but that's another argument!). Thus all its students face a selection procedure, and one which is essentially uninfluenced by the student's ability to pay. Oxford's APP is superficially similar, though their approach is in fact still contracted to the student rather than to an airline, and is intended to make the student as attractive as possible to whatever airlines are in the market at the time of the student's graduation. Thus the student's ability to pay is paramount, as there is no airline effectively underwriting the student's loan at the commencement of training (though I do accept that OAT 'facilitate' the loan).

I repeat: this is in no way a criticism of Oxford. It is simply a statement of the consequences of the differing commercial approaches taken by Oxford and CTC.

Scroggs

bestkeptsecret

30th Oct 2005, 23:05

CTC, for better or worse, has chosen (as far as I can see) to put pretty much all its eggs in one basket: becoming a training provider to the airlines, rather than to the potential pilot (although the training is largely at the potential pilot's expense - but that's another argument!).

Scroggs is quite correct and I see this as a key area, not only in terms of selection but in terms of being a 'training provider', a training provider for whom?

CTC clearly views the airlines as the customers, the student pilot is seen as the product, never the customer.

OAT and the other schools are more acutely aware that the student pilot is the customer.

Why is this important?

Because in the customer centred evironment that the business of training delivery should be you focus on your customer's needs and satisfying those needs. For CTC, whose needs are more important, the trainees, or the airlines...!? Does this outlook affect the training received in any way, especially regarding the way the student pilots are treated!? I wonder...

A330 Biggles

30th Oct 2005, 23:07

I know im biting but....

'Oxford (OAT) is full of CTC rejects'

Presumably then every other proffesional flight school in the UK should fall into this catagory? Including Cabair, Jerez etc.

Thats a massive chip you have on your shoulder AMiller you fail APP selection or something?!

A fairly pointless thread if you ask me.

supercruise593

31st Oct 2005, 00:54

Lol...

Discuss to what end AMiller? Who gives a monkeys?

Good little stir up though... ;)

What was your trade(s) during the 4 years you 'spent' with the Royal Air Force prior to you then going through selection for CTC Wings?? :)

Did you follow up on your plan to go to FTE when you didn't get through?

Cheers.

593..

Pilot Ginj

31st Oct 2005, 02:58

AMiller is a CTC & Oxford reject discuss?

Discuss what? I should imagine chaps on both courses will be happy to be there. Nuff said.

With an outlook like yours, and a personality which enjoys stiring up bad feeling and arguments, are you suprised your not on either of these courses?

PG

scroggs

31st Oct 2005, 08:49

Actually, although the motives for the original post may be a bit suspect, this is an interesting topic. CTC's approach is in contrast to that of almost every other FTO. Who is correct - and who is more likely to survive the next, inevitable, downturn?

My own feeling is that CTC's model is probably the right one for the established, mainstream airline industry. There will never be a national aviation college, paid for out of taxation (and nor, in my opinion, should there be), but there should be an industry-funded training establishment to provide pilots for the major airlines. It doesn't yet exist, but CTC's approach suggests that it might in future - though I doubt that industry will ever fully fund it while people are willing to pay so much to get into this field.

There will always be room for the smaller, bespoke training provider to provide people for smaller airlines and non-airline commercial operators, and to provide the surge capacity in times of heavy recruiting (and to take the pain in times of zero recruiting!), and to provide a way for those who have no desire to fly professionally to get professional qualifications if they want to.

cparker I don't understand your point. This is a UK-based site. Why should it not discuss the UK situation? The fact that the jobs market is currently more difficult elsewhere is irrelevant to this discussion.

Scroggs

scroggs

31st Oct 2005, 09:56

At what point has anyone suggested that one is better than the other? In any case, as the majority of UK participants in Wannabes are hoping for a 'jet job', as you put it, topics discussing the issue are very much more than 'small talk'. The fact that you are unlikely to enjoy the same opportunities in NZ or Australia is unfortunate, but irrelevant to the discussion.

Scroggs

AMiller

31st Oct 2005, 15:29

Scroggs.
The very fact I said OAT is full of CTC rejects pretty much stated that I thought CTC was better than OAT. SO it was me who suggested one was better than the other!
What Cparker was saying is that OAT and CTC have similar results - a jet job. I think though that OAT is full of people that wanted CTC but did not get it. Cant you understand this or does it need more explanation Scroggs?

Andy

Blinkz

31st Oct 2005, 15:39

AMiller, can you say why CTC is so much better then OAT? Personally I don't think theres much in it and it certainly doesn't make much difference to the rest of your career. The only thing thats so different about CTC is their tougher entry requirements. altho its clear that you have a very unbiased view :rolleyes:

bigdunc

31st Oct 2005, 15:52

I don't see how there can be any debate. It is obvious that CTC has stricter entry requirements overall than OAT.

What does that tell you? Go figure! :hmm:

chris2005

31st Oct 2005, 16:48

I would say that this is really an open ended questios with know answer. You are better looking at the thread "oxford or OAT?" for the pros and cons.

Both schools offer high quality training, some people may have had problems with the schools but you cant please everyone. IN terms of training it is difficult to compare without going to both schools. The key difference is in how much risk OAT and CTC are willing to take. Someone said rightly CTC customers are the airlines and not the cadet. If CTC takes anyone on the course who fails they will have lost a heck of a lot of time and money. Also if CTC does not deliever good cadets to the partner airlines the airline will pull out and they would lose EVEN MORE MONEY! OAT does not have this risk although they do have a reputation to maintain (espically if theur guys/girls do go to airlines) hence the selection process on the APP scheme.

The only difference to the cadets is job prospects and finance. The job propests are very high with CTC. Oxford also have a good repuatioon for graduates but cannot claim 100% of cadets have been placed. I think because of this more people will be tempted to get a place on the CTC wings scheme before considering other options. Those who dont make it will have to go somewhere and I dont see why OAT is not a bad choice. I think rejects is a much to strong a word when only 2% of applicants get on the CTC scheme does that mean the other 98% are idots - i dont think so. Im sure most of the ones who are didicated enough will make it whichever way they go!

Chris

AMiller

31st Oct 2005, 17:14

Chris2005, music to my ears! the other 98% are certainly not idoits. The key issue or difference I can work out over and above what you have stated re risk between the two is that CTC deliver a type rated cadet. This is something that the OAT student might have to pay for.

supercruise593

31st Oct 2005, 17:58

Andy,

Did you make it to FTE in the end then? :eek:

593...

367outbound

31st Oct 2005, 20:17

Oxford is full of CTC rejects....ummmmm NO!!
I and many other people on my course didnt even look at CTC
In fact I dont know anyone in OAT who even went for selection at CTC....
Its modular anyway and most people I know went integrated at OAT (APP).
OAT is undoubtedly a quality school, always has been. The vast majority of people i know at Oxford said it was an easy decision, OXFORD.
Very few people ever even mentioned CTC at OAT

scroggs

31st Oct 2005, 21:43

The very fact I said OAT is full of CTC rejects pretty much stated that I thought CTC was better than OAT. SO it was me who suggested one was better than the other! What Cparker was saying is that OAT and CTC have similar results - a jet job. I think though that OAT is full of people that wanted CTC but did not get it. Cant you understand this or does it need more explanation Scroggs? Andy

No, Mr Miller, I don't quite understand what you're getting at. Up to now I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I assumed that your original post was a slightly ironic way of introducing a debate about the differences between Oxford's and CTC's commercial aims and methods. Instead, it now seems to have been a simple attack on the students of OAT and an attempt to boost the ego of one particular ex-RAF student who applied for - and failed, it would seem - CTC's selection, but still for some reason has the hots for their course.

I'm sorry, but this kind of inter-school points-scoring is a waste of my and the Wannabes readership's time.

Scroggs

Blinkz

31st Oct 2005, 21:57

Well said Scroggs, can't wait to share a cockpit with him :{

el00oc

1st Nov 2005, 02:25

Seriously what is the point of this entire thread? It's really very simple to answer OAT or CTC...

Any wannabe without access to personal funds of £60,000+ would be pretty moronic to not first attempt gaining sponsorship (CTC). OAT IS NOT SPONSORSHIP.

Therefore, to me anyway, this entire thread has been 'self-sponsored versus sponsored'. Whatever route taken the wannabe always, and has always, eventually paid for/paid back their training, but the difference in job opportunities between sponsored and self-sponsored is only a dictionary read away.

To suggest OAT cadets are CTC rejects is the kind of elitest banter I'd expect to find between a couple of arrogant ivy league yanks arguing between Harvard and Yale because I don't think it should be forgotten just how prestigious both routes are. As for the quality of schooling who cares--any evidence other than employment statistics is anecdotal and should be saved for people who have an alternative deciding priority to employment prospects.

My proof of the hierarchy lies with HSBC's professional studies loan. For a long time this has been how quite a few wannabes have, at least partially, funded their training. However this has recently been taken away but for only two routes--OAT and CTC.

I detest banks but do have faith in their research when it comes to ensuring their profit. HSBC lend up to £50,000 on secured terms for those wishing to go to OAT and demand a viable business plan. However, with CTC they lend £60,000 unsecured and require no business plan. I think they'll have done more research than anyone on this thread when it comes to ensuring there'll be a job at the end to ensure monthly repayments. This is certainly not to say OAT doesn't ensure good job prospects--rememer this is the ONLY self-sponsored route the bank will lend for.

The only reasons I could ever see not to apply to CTC before OAT first is location of training or a desire to go into the air taxi side of aviation, piloting on smaller planes.

Frankly I wish the originator of this thread had read more on both routes before posting his question. He's either adorably naive, a lazy researcher, or a complete ****stirrer.

scroggs

1st Nov 2005, 11:11

I would counter your suggestion that CTC's cadets are sponsored; they are not. The responsibility for the costs of training at CTC rests with the student, not with an airline. Successful students who achieve a position with some of the airlines CTC supply may find that some of their costs are covered (or at least deferred) by their employer, but that is not guaranteed - nor is any job at the end of training. Should a cadet fail the course, again, the financial responsibility rests with him, not with his target airline. That, to me, is not sponsorship.

Sponsorship is what the military does, and BA used to: accepting all of the costs and all of the risks of training, including failure, while paying the student (an employee throughout) a useful salary. Successful students are, at the end of training, then contracted to a minimum period of service, say 10 years.

As for having faith in the banks, I think you are dreaming in your suggestion that HSBC has researched the market more than wannabes! Banks just aren't like that, I'm afraid. CTC and OAT have access to HSBC funds because they have made their own business cases to the bank. OAT's students have a lower expectation of employment on graduation because that is the nature of the course, so it is not surprising that HSBC demands greater security than for CTC's cadets, of whom the majority have an airline place allocated (though not guaranteed) at the start of their training.

HSBC have withdrawn the individual prefessional studies loan for pilots precisely because they didn't research the market they were in, and lost a good deal of money as a result. The current situation saves them the bother of researching it; OAT and CTC do it for them. Incidentally, I wonder if CTC and OAT are risk- (and thus profit-) sharing partners with HSBC in this?

Anyway, the point of this thread is that wannabes have a choice, and are entitled to inform that choice. This thread - indeed, this entire forum - is intended to provide information to help with this and other choices that face wannabes.

Scroggs

el00oc

1st Nov 2005, 12:59

Hi Scroggs

I understand the idea of sponsorship in the old sense of what BA offered no longer exists but even when it did there was no guarantee of a job and failing the course was still possible, albeit with no financial risks (no semantics I promise!).

As you rightly pointed out the idea of sponsorship has become diluted since those days, and the training/employment risks are now also on the wannabe. I completely agree there are financial ramifications involved with CTC. But, they are not as bleak as you make out, and certainly not on a par with OAT as your post suggested. With CTC you are not liable for the first 30k spent on training should you fail, and Im sure you would have a good idea of how you were getting on by the time that much has been spent. I agree its no BA, but to say it is not at all sponsorship is surely slightly fallacious.

Believe me, when I say sponsorship I fully understand it in its modern form. Nonetheless I stand by the the fact that CTC should be the first port of call due to its financial connections with the airlines.

As for HSBC I still believe it to be at least an indication of the difference in job prospects between OAT and CTC. However I fully apologise for my assumptions in research undertaken by banks. I just really fail to see why anyone would not attempt CTC first as it offers vastly greater job prospects (statistically). This thread is called 'Oxford or CTC' afterall.

I completely agree with what you said at the end of your post, and I did not mean to sound brash; I just see OAT and CTC not as two different training schools (like the orginal poster suggests) but as two very different methods into the aviation industry.

scroggs

1st Nov 2005, 17:51

I think that the fact you fully understand the financial ramifications of the CTC deal, yet refer to it as sponsorship, is interesting. As long as CTC's potential applicants understand it, I guess it really doesn't matter what you call it! However, I have a worry that people expect 'sponsorship' to have the meaning I outlined, and are going to be somewhat disappointed by the reality. But as long as it's fully explained before anyone signs on any dotted line, hopefully my worries are unfounded.

I agree that CTC and OAT are very different animals. I'm less convinced that one is better than the other; it seems to me more a case that one will be more appropriate than the other for each individual - and that other solutions may be more appropriate still. For example, there are many, many wannabes who could never qualify for CTC's scheme simply through age. It is no good telling these guys how wonderful the CTC scheme is when they can't do it!

There's a place for all of the various routes into professional aviation, and none can claim to be better than the others for all wannabes.

Scroggs

el00oc

2nd Nov 2005, 00:56

You make some good points and I thoroughly agree that there is a danger in some people's idea of modern sponsorship. I still respectfully disagree that CTC does not at least partially qualify as sponsorship. Anyway if you truely feel CTC is not sponsorship in any form perhaps a revision of the forum title 'Interviews, jobs & sponsorships' is necessary.

I'm not being obtuse; and I don't know if this title was conceived at a time when schemes run by BA were in operation, but unless you can think of any schemes that fit the bill in commercial aviation today more so that CTC, Flybe, BAX etc, I would suggest at least a permanent thread explaining exactly what sponsorship in the commercial sector means these days, because as you rightly point out, to a first time pprune reader this is rather misleading--conjuring up the image of BA/RAF style sponsorship.

scroggs

2nd Nov 2005, 09:06

Well, I suppose we live in hope that proper sponsorships will return at some stage. Actually, strictly speaking this thread should be on the other forum, as it's really about training choices, not sponsorship. I may well move it!

Scroggs

dlav

2nd Nov 2005, 22:57

like the new personal title scroggs, very appropiate!

scroggs

3rd Nov 2005, 09:17

I think Danny or Rob has been having a little play at my expense!!

Scroggs

geturwingover

4th Nov 2005, 21:38

The "is CTC sponsorship" question raises a lot of interest - it should also raise some speculation - of course it is not truly sponsorship, moreover I think the differences perceived between CTC and OAT are not as vast as many people would think.... CTC cadets are constantly told that they are NOT customers, however I'm sure many of them certainly feel like customers with all the invoices that appear in the cadet post boxes!!!!!

"We provide accomodation"
- Yes, but if you want to move into a clean room then you have to pay for it to be cleaned.

"We provide all equipment"
- Yes, but if you want laminated maps so they actually last then you have to pay for that"

"We provided training geared towards preparing you to be a professional airline pilot"
- Yes, but if your family/partner/friends pay £800+ to come and visit, then you now have to pay for a private hire flight to show them what you've been training towards. If you can't take passengers from A-B in your training, what exactly are you training for?!

"The 60k is not paying for your training, it is just a security bond - the airline pay for your training"
- Interesting - funny how the CTC cadet salary for easyJet almost exactly equals a direct entry salary minus the bond repayments they make, once to take into account tax. And I'm sure the CTC cadets who are on their way to BA (hopefully) will feel like they've paid for their training when they are getting the same salary as an OAT cadet and NO bond repayments.

And so on...

As far as I can tell, the 2 most important distinctions are:

CTC get paid when they place a cadet, so they have a huge incentive to place you, as mentioned before.

The tough selection means they can cover you for the first half of the training costs if you don't meet the standard.

Lord Daddy Flash

4th Nov 2005, 22:52

geturwingover,

At the end of the day, CTC place you with an airline, flying a big shiny jet. Nuff said.

LDF

bestkeptsecret

5th Nov 2005, 00:12

They do not 'cover you' for the first half of the training costs...if you do not meet the standard they will refund up to £30k 'at their discretion'. Well before half way through you've already parted - or the bank has on your behalf - with the full £60k (not including interest). Therefore you may as well have paid your local club £30k (but at their discretion it could be £60k) for 80 or so hours...and in fact that would be better, because at least you would be in UK airspace with all of its intricacies rather than the apparant airspace void that is NZ!

geturwingover

5th Nov 2005, 14:41

bestkeptsecret,
No, no and so what! At least they have RT standards better than a U.S. trucker, which you could expect anywhere in North America. Look into the details before posting something like that.

LDF,
Hell yes!! And I bet you can't wait.... but the best on offer is by no means perfect.......

chris2005

5th Nov 2005, 18:09

geturwingover

I have to, not disagree ,but to really put into perspective what you said in your first post on this topic.

1 - I think the issue of clean rooms is not really important, I would be more than glad to have free accomedation throughout the training. I assume they are of fairly good quality and cant be as bad as some of the houses ive seen at uni lol

2 - small points about the map, I wouldnt be to bothered about that when you put up a 60K loan, although a laminate would be nice.

3 - I dont think CTC as a training organisation are required to offer cadets friends and family free trips and I doubt very few FTO's would, its just not good business sence, eats into profit.

4 - sorta let you have this one too. I see your point but at the end of the day CTC does offer a higher chance of employment than other schemes. If you take Easy's cadet salary of about 22K a year by the time you add sector pay that will be about 26K a year, which is stil pretty good for someone my age with your loan payments on top. If you take someone who took a 60K loan out for OAT they will still be paying it, but out of there salary, whilst the guy from CTC will have it added to their salarly so in the end the numbers probably equal out in the end, roughly.

BitMoreRightRudder

6th Nov 2005, 11:33

I've always found the difference in opinions on the finances of the CTC scheme fascinating. To be honest I still can't work out if I regard it as sponsorship of any form, and it really does depend which way you choose to look at it.

It is interesting that Scroggs views it in no way as sponsorship, and I'm not going to argue with that too much - he knows far more than I. The term 'partnership' is used regularly by CTC, and perhaps that is the best way to look at it. You do your bit (stump up cash via a loan and pass the course) and CTC do the rest.

For those who are planning to join the scheme perhaps the best way to look at it is to view the bond as a notional value - if all goes to plan with your training it is not something that will have a major financial bearing on your future. The only case in which the bond really becomes a tangible debt is if things go wrong, which is a risk you have to accept.

As for the chaps in NZ worried about the cost of laminating maps -it's ok guys, all maps in Bournemouth are laminated.

;)

Lord Daddy Flash

6th Nov 2005, 20:24

Thanks BitMoreRightRudder, geturwingover will sleep easy tonight :cool:

AMiller

10th Nov 2005, 09:32

CTC cadets are sponsored during their training.

Pilot Ginj

10th Nov 2005, 21:55

CTC cadets are sponsored during their training.

Really? Someone owes me some cold hard cash then!!

:}

PG

Lord Daddy Flash

15th Nov 2005, 04:49

AMiller,

Where exactly do you source your information?! :\

LDF

Mooney12

15th Nov 2005, 20:12

geturwingover,

some good points but...

The accomodation is free minus two cleaning bills throughout your entire stay in NZ (all bills are paid for in NZ also). You do pay bills in Bournemouth but the standard of accomodation is excellent.

OAT guys pay £60k and on top of that have to pay for all their accomodation.....and quite possibly a type rating (another £25k).

The lamination of maps is a strange one though....

Regarding the issue of taking family/friends up on flights. Well basically cadets were taking family/girlfriends up on cross country flights on a frequent basis. What CTC have said is that these are training flights, so you should be concentrating on preparation for the end of phase test, not showing friends/family the sites.

I think thats fair enough. You can obviously take other cadets up.

As for the CTC cadets going to BA. Well they are basically self sponsored.

The scheme is essentially designed around EasyJet and Thomas Cook. Cadets not going to either of those airlines obviously lose some of the tax advantages. However, BA being the exception, they won't have to do any formal selection to get into any of the partner airlines. This is the major benefit of CTC. Access to all the best jobs around, with no experience. You can also turn two airlines down if your not interested. But you have to take the third offer or your on your own!

d-ball

15th Nov 2005, 21:14

....sorry bout before, pressed the ejector button!May i add my two penny's worth.
After alot of soul searching i finally ended up going to OAT.
Whoever says OAT promises a 98% chance of getting a job is telling pokies. On the current waypoint programme which am on,you have to achieve the neccessary criteria while doing your ground school in order to qualify for a place on the programme.Should you be successful at the end of it they then recommend you,but no gurantees.
Otherwise so far,am glad i chose OAT after having toured EPTA,Cabair cranfield and AFT.You pay more than other outfits but you get quality training and by the way you also have to put in some effort.The teaching process is so simplified and the instructors are great. Week 4 is down,22 to go........

king rooney

3rd Jan 2006, 13:19

The following is taken off OATs new "waypoint scheme" website:

"We are pleased to announce our new Modular Training Programme - waypoint.

waypoint is a new Modular training course solution from OAT to enable some of the airlines with whom we work closely to consider recruiting modular graduates for their first airline job. However, they will only do so provided they achieve the required standard, but more importantly, provided they have carried out all their training with one provider - Oxford Aviation Training."

So, after years of telling us that airlines only like integrated students OAT are now telling us that they will after all take modular students, but ONLY IF THEY COME FROM THEIR SCHOOL!

What a compete load of tosh. The way that they have taken the business of flight training into being a marketing game which plays of the hopes and fears of young pilot wannabes to gain custom for their flashy, overpriced training programmes quite frankly disgusts me! The problem is that for every cynical, mature wannabe such as myself and many other PPRUNERS there will be many more fresh faced, straight from school, daddy funded wannabes who believe the hype.

My advice to any potential suckers out there,
if your gonna go integrated choose Cabair, a real flying school not a marketing circus.

Better still in my mind to go modular, there is still little chance of getting a job with minimum hours after finishing an integrated course. With the money you save by choosing this route you will be able to get yer FI rating and build your hours up to a more credible level, or even do a type rating and be better off in each case.

Rant over!

Draven

3rd Jan 2006, 13:37

What makes Cabair better than the rest :confused:

Draven

mad_jock

3rd Jan 2006, 15:38

well actually even though i am quite anti the marketing blurb for the intergrated course.

The way point modular has alot going for it.

The price is towards the top of the market but isn't the most expensive.

The ground school course does the job.

The instructors will be the same as the guys on the intergrated course get so nothing new there.

You do get the name and the report if they do make a difference. ( I suspect not though but it might give you the edge with 2-3 carriers).

Oxford isn't a bad school you could do alot worse but also a lot better depending on YOUR method of learning. Some people prefer the small personal school and others the big crowd. Visit and make your mind up.

MJ

englishal

3rd Jan 2006, 15:48

Ho ho. Here, get this, my mate learned to fly in America, and guess what? He's now flying JAR Land Airbuses :}

Blinkz

3rd Jan 2006, 16:12

It really amazes me how some people can be so stuck up. As has been said, if you don't like it, don't go there! Why do you feel the need to come here and shout about how crap you think it is? Have you been on the course?? If not then your not in much of a position to comment. If you DO feel the need to comment then why don't you consider maybe making your point in a slightly more mature and reasoned way.

Yes oxford are well known for the strong, and sometimes misleading marketing, but thats life! Oxford is a business and without people going to it then it would fail, there is nothing wrong with trying to attract customers. In all my conversations with oxford I have NEVER been told that they are the only option and that they will get you a job. All I have ever been told is what they think are their strong points and that I should visit all the schools and make MY OWN decision about the courses.

stue

3rd Jan 2006, 19:40

Fully agree Blinkz, it was because of what i was told at Oxford that i went and had a look at all the other schools. Im still going to Oxford though because i think that it is better than the other schools that i looked round. Your decision may be different rooney

Anyways which ever way you go, good luck!

king rooney

3rd Jan 2006, 22:04

I take it that all you jokers are Oxford students.

I never said that OAT was crap, my guess is its no better or worse than any other school out there. I was merely commenting on their marketing statements, which are CRAP even if the school might not be. All im saying is THINK FOR YOURSELVES PEOPLE, DO NOT BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ!

Blinkz

3rd Jan 2006, 23:05

Rooney, tbh it was more about how u go about making your point rather then the content of it.

stue

4th Jan 2006, 08:39

rooney, chill man. Like i said, you have made your choice and i have made mine. No one believes everything that they read and are told but that doesnt mean that everything that is said to you is crap. Alot of it is, like with everything in life, you have to pick out the good and bad points and make your decisions from there. Your decision is different too mine and its good that people can have a choice.

Like i said mate, Good luck!

wbryce

4th Jan 2006, 08:54

Oxfords modular course looks quite tempting only because of there training reputation but the only concern I would have is over instructor/student ratio and aircraft availability....a few posts in the past have led me to believe that delays in the region of 1-6wks can be expected. Although, dont know how accurate that is...I will look into this nearer my time, but Oxford is definately on my list of modular schools to consider for CPL/IR....

Dave Martin

4th Jan 2006, 09:16

Wbryce,

Have to say, for the first time ever I am getting interested in modular too (guess I'm a sucker for marketting).

The info on this one still seems a little vague, but it will be interesting to see how well the employment opportunites offered under the Waypoint scheme compare with the APP.

A quick back of the hand calculation shows this approach will cost about £30,000 incl. JOC, plus about another £15,000 for the first 150 hours. Still a substantial sum of money, but a little easier to cope with than the £60K odd. Seems odd that OAT is no longer offering PPL training, when I would expect demand for this would probably improve now they have created this new programme.

Regarding these delays, what exactly do you mean by this? Is this 1-6 weeks the delay before you can start, or are you talkign about missed days flying causing the training to be extended by this length of time?

scroggs

4th Jan 2006, 10:27

'Marketing' - in other words, a selective presentation of statements intended to give an impression of being factual, though without necessarily being so, is used by every organisation that you guys look at, from your first trial lesson to your final longhaul employer. It's up to you to see through the hype and decide whether what's actually on offer is what you really want or need - and can afford. 'Caveat Emptor' as always.

Scroggs

Slow Down

18th Jan 2006, 17:42

I'm a British B737 FO with a major European carrier. I can honestly say none of the European Captains have heard of Oxford or Cabair. They themselves don't give a damn where you trained so long as you've got hours on type.

My advice to wannabees. Go to S. Africa / USA and get your licence the cheapest possible way, buy a type rating and some hours on type. Its not how I did it. But in todays market there are thousands of CV's on every chief pilots table and all he wants to know is are you type rated with some line experience!!

I never trained in the UK but I was a QFI at Oxford Aviation Training School for a few months. I have never seen such a robbing organisation!!

rons22

18th Jan 2006, 18:01

This is good info for inexperienced people to know before they part with £60000. I recently tried to sell OAT staff that I dont need on ebay and OAT asked ebay to block my account. I was just trying to sell the staff legally purchased in reputable pilot shop that I didn't need.

king rooney

18th Jan 2006, 20:08

rons22, your comment says it all. Surely it cant be ilegal to sell on books etc that uve finished with on e-bay, as long as you mark them as second hand.

If that was the case then second hand bookshops would not exist!

OAT actions in trying to block ur account are dispicable and imoral. Obviously all training schools are out to make a profit, but the way these boys go about their business is a complete disgrace.

In the eyes of OAT, a trainee pilot is a walking pound sign, simple as that.
You dont get anything more for your money there than at anywhere else. Who do you think pays for their adverts, marketing efforts, air conditioned, carpeted headquarters, staff pensions, share holders mercs, etc. The paying customers thats who!

At the end of the day, when stripped down, flying training costs are essentially the same where ever you go. Plane maintainance costs, fuel costs, instructor wages, etc do not vary greatly from place to place. The extra money you pay at OAT does not go towards better training but to all the unnecessary extras mentioned above, plus it helps line the partners'/ shareholders' pockets.

They're on to a nice little earner there, all at the expense of their students/ students parents.
Dont make them any richer.

With the 20/30 grand you could save by going somewhere else you could buy ur own cessna! Check it out:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/NO-RESERVE-1979-Cessna-152-II_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ63677QQitemZ4604130214QQrdZ1

Slow Down

18th Jan 2006, 22:18

Ron22

Oxford are charging £65,000 for what I paid £22,500 (0 hrs - MCC)

Go overseas and do it as cheaply as possible. And with the change buy a house have a life, rent a room, get an income to pay off outstanding debts, and if you have no luck with the job market after doing it the cheap way, buy an A320 / B737 rating for £16k, and if you have to, anothe £11k for 300 hours with Eagle Jet.

The 2 Oxford guys on my type rating course who paid £65k at Oxford, anda further £25k for a type rating with a package of hours are very very bitter about Oxford.

I never went there so I am in no way bitter towards OATS. But dont be blinded by the big names and in what they can offer you.

Megaton

18th Jan 2006, 22:35

Slow own,

QFI? Didn't think they had military instructors at OATS. Perhaps you meant FI?

Anyway, I neither attended OATS nor any integrated cse and I work for a major airline flying the Airbus. Don't believe all they tell you.

Superpilot

19th Jan 2006, 07:46

How can you be sure it was Oxford that tried to have your account blocked and not some too-much-time-to-waste lonely nosey git who thought you were infringing copyrights? Also, Ebay staff go around looking at their pages once in a while and if they sense anything dodgy they will shut down the ad. I've had completely legitimate ads closed down for reasons that I'll never know. Ebay do not disclose who was responsible for the complaint.

Although I'm currently on the D.L ATPL Course with Oxford, I am still keeping my options open about the Waypoint. I agree the courses (especially Waypoint) do come across as slightly over-marketed.

waypoint is a new Modular training course solution from OAT to enable some of the airlines with whom we work closely to consider recruiting modular graduates for their first airline job. However, they will only do so provided they achieve the required standard, but more importantly, provided they have carried out all their training with one provider - Oxford Aviation Training.

However, they will only do so provided they achieve the required standard, but more importantly, provided they have carried out all their training with one provider - Oxford Aviation Training

It is a bit of rubbish because about 90% of students DO do their modular training with the same school. Oh well, still time to decide..... :rolleyes:

englishal

19th Jan 2006, 07:56

What really gets my goat with some of these JAA training providers, is that many send their students to the states for training, and then charge over TWICE the going rate.....in the name of JAR.

I can rent a Seneca II dual for CPL/IR/ME/whatever training in the USA for $220 per hour. Now ask what a JAA training provider will charge for the same aircraft, for an instructor with the same qualifications, for the same airspace.........

If a USA training provider can still make profit on USA prices, just think what profit the JAR boys are making......all from your pocket.
:hmm:

Nimbus5

20th Jan 2006, 11:38

Rons22,

I suspect the OAT guys are far too busy driving their Mercedes' to the bank to cash those fat checks to browse around eBay looking for listings to block. Besides, if they are making so much on the backs of young and wet behind the ears suckers with rich daddies, why would they bother with such trivial sums as what you'll get for your stuff on eBay?

Funny how King Rooney jumps straight on the OAT bashing bandwagon based on "what he read" without bothering to check the facts a bit yet he is perhaps the first one to shout at the top of his lungs that one should NOT believe everything they read!

FACT: eBay does not tell you why they remove a listing other than something generic like you broke the rules. In any case, they do not tell you who reported your alleged violation.

FACT: Anyone can report listing violations or copyright/trademark infringement on eBay.

FACT: OAT allow students to advertise their used stuff for sale on their own forums. I would place a link here, but links to other forums are not allowed so you'll have to look in the Any Other Business folder for yourself.

I just don't find rons22's claim that OAT stopped him from selling his stuff on eBay to be credible.

Maybe when Rons22 finishes eating his humble pie he can post his own advert there for free and sell the stuff to some unsuspecting kid. Heck, he could even include a little marketing hype in the advert and probably get twice as much if the kid believes everything they read as readily as King Rooney does!

king rooney

20th Jan 2006, 17:42

who else would have tried to stop him flogging the stuff?

rons22

20th Jan 2006, 19:03

eBay told me if I have any questions I should contact OAT. Also, been there few times and havent seen any mercs in the car park (apart from mine). :ok:
Anyway, it doesnt bother me, OAT or not, just want to let other people know, that if they sell on ebay, be carefull and probably check with OAT whats allowed etc. or ask Nimbus for "independent" advice. The reason I was selling it on ebay was cos I wanted to give it for 10% of the original cost to some student who may need it. (humbleness is good Nimbus5)
By the way, Rooney is right, who else would try to stop the sale? Unless you (Nimbus5) are payed by OAT to police eBay as well as pprune. lol
Also, your account is very recent onhere and yet you sound so knowledgable, hmmm.

Superpilot

20th Jan 2006, 20:21

transitionlevel,

check your PM's

boogie-nicey

24th Jan 2006, 16:47

I can say for SURE that when I recently attempted to sell the Oxford ATPL questions CD, they contacted ebay who informed me that they had received some form of official and signed documentation about Copyright! In my ad I even mentioned how great Oxford study material was :)

These Oxford characters are indeed bad news and really think that they have some kind of exclusive ownership of aviation science that one else can teach. Anyway I shan't be sending my 2 sons there that's for sure, in fact maybe just campaign outside their gates !!!

Muddy Boots

20th Feb 2006, 19:45

Dear All,

With King Rooney banned I seriously would like a positive post for OAT. I have chosen to start in the next couple of months and it would warm the cockles of my heart and soothe any nerves I have about doing the right thing. I am making a significant career change as an older student and do have some jitters about it.

I have visited several other FTOs including the immediate and obvious competitors and listened to their spin. With the B.S. filter on and open eyes I do believe that I have made the right choice with Oxford. Their course structure is good for me, 6 months in Oxford doing ground school, Goodyear Arizona for only 5 months flying and back to Oxford to finish IR, MCC and JOT. It means that I'm not changing country for a significant period of time so I can keep my social life and hopefully girlfriend too!

I felt their aircraft were good and also their sims were much more modern than a lot of the competition plus they have a 737 sim for JOT plus JOT is included in the course price which needs to be taken into account when comparing to other courses!

It is a much more mature campus and you're free to get away in the evening and arrange your own accomodation and can drink in any pub you like after you finish studying. I had a bad experience of the FTE bar being closed when I visited as a punishment to all for a party and had to drink beer from a vending machine.

Finally and most importantly, I do believe they help you find a job. No there are no guarentees but there is help. I hope I've got this right, 85% of last years grads have jobs? I heard of a story of one of their grads from one class who failed all his interviews but he was a bit of a quirky character, they took him back in and gave him some more interview training. Their assesment is more stringent than any of the other's I've been to (didn't do CTC, to old) because they want to make sure that you can get through and get a job and not spoil their succes rate.

I know its more money but you get what you pay for and as a mature student I want a good set of logs to help me get that job. I am expecting delays with flight scheduling but that apparently is par for the course everywhere.

With my tin hat on, I expect a barrage of abuse.

Muddy Boots

P.S. King Rooney did do some funny posts too, be good to have him back soon.

Willows

20th Feb 2006, 21:55

I dunno, getting the necessary qualifications under your belt is up to the individual. Just make sure you definitely get what you pay for. Be it at Oxford or X, Y, Z school.

There's no denying it's pricey but it's a nice set up they have.

Busbo

20th Feb 2006, 22:49

I think you should rest assured that your money (although quite a lot of it) is well spent at Oxford. If you have the ability and commitment to become a pilot then Oxford will help that become a reality. I think one of the biggest differences between Oxford and elsewhere is the instructors seem to be mainly ex Airline pilots themselves or at least pilots with a huge amount of exerience rather than some recent graduate hoping to build some hours before going on to bigger and better things.

With respect to availability of planes and scheduling I think it comes down to luck and whether or not your instructor pushes for them, getting his bid in early. If he's not so efficient you can always push for slots yourself, its no big deal. Of course aircraft do sometimes go tech and there's not a lot anyone can do about that but thats going to be the same story the world over, thats the nature of the business.

Throughout the course its important to get as many first time passes in anything that you can, the less retakes of anything at all you have the less reasons Oxford will have to not put you forward to airlines at the end of the course! With the airlines setting criteria they can afford to be pretty picky with the mass of unemployed guys and girls out there.

I'm not sure quite why OAT get such a bad press especially on here and mainly by people who haven't even been there! Oxford offer a damn good quality course and charge a permium price for it, its as simple as that. You wouldn't fly BA and expect to pay a Ryanair ticket price would you. I'm not saying its perfect by any means although in my experience they do take feedback on board and attempt to address any issues that arise.

Unless you're incredibly lucky wherever you train you're going to end up in a lot of debt, I personally think its worth the extra because of your job prospects after. Its all very well saving 20k or however much but if you're unemployed for a year or two after you might just pay most of that in interest before you can start earning serious bucks to pay it back. If I had to do it all over I would go to OAT again without a doubt, I cant say I didn't have single reason to complain while I was there but I can say I was happy with the overall package.

scroggs

21st Feb 2006, 10:59

The main reason that Oxford gets criticised is that they're the largest and best known. They also got lazy a few years ago, and their marketing spin was not matched by the reality - by far. That appears to be being addressed.

They are also criticised (and, by implication, so are the rest of the Integrated schools) because of the enormous price of their product, and the rate at which that price has increased. They would naturally claim that their costs have risen and they must cover them, but the huge difference between the basic costs of the same course elements through the modular system and that at Oxford (and Cabair and Jerez) is difficult to fully justify - from a consumer's point of view, rather than an accountant's.

The fact remains, though Oxford and the others would prefer it didn't, that modular students in reasonable numbers do still succeed in getting jobs in the airline industry. OAT and the others would like you to believe that you are unlikely to get a job unless you use their training; that is patently not true, and deserves to be criticised and highlighted at every opportunity.

King Rooney went about it the wrong way, but there is much merit in his message.

Scroggs

Busbo

21st Feb 2006, 14:11

I'm not sure I've heard Oxford say that Modular students on the whole do not get jobs. The impression I always got and not just from OAT was the idea that perhaps your chances were improved (rightly or wrongly). I dont want to turn this into yet another modular vs integrated argument but for a large number of airlines if you had two identical candidates in every way possible, one modular and one integrated then the integrated might sneak it. I'm not saying every airline and I'm not saying that there aren't a thousand modular people out there who'll be straight back at me here saying they were picked over 5 other integrated candidates.

Its all a matter of loading the dice in your favour, sure OAT may be a little pricey but thats a choice you've got to make, is it worth it for you the individual. The answer to that question wont be the same for everyone.

Send Clowns

21st Feb 2006, 14:46

Not a good way to start if you "...dont want to turn this into yet another modular vs integrated argument...", Busbo!...for a large number of airlines if you had two identical candidates in every way possible, one modular and one integrated then the integrated might sneak itWhy do you say this? I know of many where the reverse would usually be the case, as the modular student is likely to have more hours. I know of arlines saying they will only take integrated but neither caring nor, seemingly, knowing when they finally select candidates. Many others simply would not know or care - it is very clear from some that they don't even know the difference, and wouldn't even recognise which course someone had been on, as it doesn't matter to them! I could also tell you at least one flying organisation that would not use integrated graduates, as the system produces pilots with the wrong attitudes for their purpose; most of their competitors are likely to find the same.

That point is the core. The (many) people I know who have found jobs in the last few months have all got their because of their attitude and personality, that is the final point and I hbave been told attitude is the reason I got this job.

ram33

21st Feb 2006, 15:04

Muddy Boots,

I congratulate you on an excellent post. I’m off to the APP seminar on Saturday. I attended the Waypoint seminar late last year and was very impressed with there whole operation.

Yes, like you I’m an older pilot err’ing on the other side of thirty therefore it is deemed that one should get as much help as possible securing that first job.
Also I’m a firm believer in ‘getting what you pay for’.

Elixir

21st Feb 2006, 15:05

Muddy Boots

It sounds as though you've made the decision based on a bit of research into the various schools and for what is right for you. That is the most important as you are the only person who can say whether it is the right decision to make for yourself.

As for my experience of OAT, I can honestly say that initially I was worried about spending a bit more to go there and whether it was going to be worth it. It was the right decision for me....I had 2 great flying instructors in Scottsdale and back here for IR. The training on the MCC/JOT was really excellent, and I got help finding a job at the end of it.

One of the criticisms about OAT is sometimes the lack of help with getting a job...you can't just sit back and wait for a job offer to pop through the letter box like magic; OAT have a lot of graduates finishing throughout the year so you do need to keep in contact with them, go in for a chat once every couple of weeks to see what is around. They are more likely to recommend you to an airline if they can put a face to a name easily!

Busbo

21st Feb 2006, 15:18

Send Clowns, thats exactly the kind of response that people always give. I tried to avoid this by making clear that I was saying that if you take everything else away like the small matter of what kind of person is being interviewed then integrated MAY sneak it. I also did say that I was only talking about some airlines.

I'm sure you do know plenty of people who were modular and have jobs, good for them too.

The point I was making, and it was only a small point when this thread is not about this issue, was that no doubt unfairly some recruiters may look at whether you're integrated or modular and stick with the more tried and tested method.

Send Clowns

21st Feb 2006, 16:36

Busbo

I am quite aware of what you are saying. However I can't see where you get that assumption from. I have heard no evidence of this from the people I know, graduates of both types of courses, who have jobs. However I do know that hours count.

scroggs

21st Feb 2006, 16:52

I'm not sure I've heard Oxford say that Modular students on the whole do not get jobs.
I did not say that Oxford had said that. I said that they would like you to think that you are unlikely to get a job unless you go through their system. There is no evidence to support this that I have seen.
...but for a large number of irlines if you had two identical candidates in every way possible, one modular and one integrated then the integrated might sneak it.
One of the problems with this forum is that a great deal of BS is spouted by those who have little or no knowledge. As most of the readers have none either, there's a serious possibility that the BS might be believed. Busbo, can you tell me what experience you have that qualifies you to make this statement?
Its all a matter of loading the dice in your favour, sure OAT may be a little pricey but thats a choice you've got to make, is it worth it for you the individual. The answer to that question wont be the same for everyone.
That is perfectly true.

Scroggs

Muddy Boots

21st Feb 2006, 17:39

Dear All,

The one thing I do feel about Oxford's intergrated course is that you leave with a set of logs that can be authenticated by one phone call rather than a amalgam of hours from different FTO's and hour building which can't be verified. With my tender age being 36 I feel that the cleaner my logs appear to be the better chance of getting a job at the end I'll have. At the end of the day its not about which FTO is better but which FTO will inspire confidence in an airline to get that job. After all that's why we're making this huge investment in ourselves is to get a job rather than just training for the sake of it.

I do believe that there are a huge number of modular guys out there who are and will be better pilots than me when I graduate. They will have had more fun and flown in a greater variety of aircraft, in different airspace and weather conditions. They will have been able to keep their day jobs and home study at nights or when quiet at work and fly on the weekends. They will have had trips to the US, South Africa, New Zealand etc. as they tack the courses into their log books they need to complete their training. However they have had the time and maybe youth on their side. I want a career change but can't afford to hang arround on no income for a couple of years, I have a bar bill to pay.

I know that finding a job is down to you and you only but it does help if the school you're at has the phone numbers for the airline recruitment department and also knows who's looking this month. As for Oxford assisting the intergrated guys a little more with getting a job vs. the modular guys... I wouldn't think you could expect to do a part of your course there, maybe JOT at the end and expect to receive the same assistance as somebody who has dropped 60K plus on the place? It would be like having a drink in a hotel bar and then expecting to be able to use the spa.

Ready to be shouted at again,

Muddy Boots.

BOZZATO

21st Feb 2006, 17:55

Hi there Muddy Boots!

Firstly, let me congratulate you for your fantastic thread! I am enrolled to start on the March course at Oxford and am even more convinced that i have made the right decision.

I have visited a number of FTO's, specifically CTC and FTE, I must say that i never bothered visiting Cabair because i really didn't think it could compare with OAT. CTC was an experience, although because of my immaturity i didn't get onto their course. FTE are a fantastic school, i was offered a place with them and after visiting Oxford decided to turn them down. I was very impressed by the modern equiptment utilised by Oxford, specifically the simulators used for the mcc part of the course. I was also very impressed with their results and with their relationship with the airlines.

Although i'm a little anxious i really can't wait to start! I handed in my noticed yesterday and suddenly it's all become very real:eek:

Regards

Bozzato:ok:

stue

21st Feb 2006, 18:36

As I have said a few times on Pprune, it really is each to their own. Some people feel that Fords are better but some people like Vauxhall's. Both will get you to your destination, but in a different manner. Exactly the same with deciding on a FTO, or integrated vs. modular. There is no right or wrong answer and no one can tell you any different because what he/she thinks is right may not feel fight to you. From what I have learned so far in this industry, is you shouldn’t be doing something if it doesn’t feel right, because it probably wont be right.

However, that said, I went down to Oxford and it just felt like the place for me. I visited and researched all the other options, just like you would do if you were investing this amount of money into something, and decided that Oxford was the correct place to go. If someone else makes a different decision from mine then that doesn’t make them a worse pilot or wrong. It just means that they are going about it a different way than me, good luck to them.

It is nice though to hear someone saying something positive about Oxford for once.

Just my "on the fence" 2pence worth:ok:

soviet bloc

21st Feb 2006, 19:02

Did King Rooney really get banned - shame.
Brillient thread, agree with alot of it, but I must say both vauxhalls and fords are rubbish although one is Clearly Inferior oTher

definitely agree with the advice to hold your ankles and don't make any noise, quite litterally in some cases one hears. I was certainly pleased to get out of there :/

stue

21st Feb 2006, 19:21

To be honest mate, i agree, they are both Cr@p! just a figure of speech!;)

Andy Fez

21st Feb 2006, 19:38

...Its great to read positive comments about OAT, Im new to the forum and the first threads I read when I joined were all negative things about OAT. Which sucked as I have always wanted to go to OAT and when i visited I loved the place. Really felt right for me.
Im now at the stage of visiting and researching every other option before i commit to any decision of which FTO.

So the loan, APP costs plus fees plus accommodation, how practical is it really, and how long a repayment? anyone know?

Any advice on who else I can visit, ive done Cabair and OAT, its a bit far for me to visit CTC and FTE, ive got most peoples brochures but I really wanted to fit in more open days. Probably a stupid question really,

keep the comments coming, its great to hear the positives AND the negatives, as its one hell of a big decision to make!

Andy

Busbo

21st Feb 2006, 20:33

I said that they would like you to think that you are unlikely to get a job unless you go through their system. There is no evidence to support this that I have seenScroggs
Firstly, there is no evidence that I have seen that they would like you to think that. Clearly it would make sense that they may as they are obviously pushing their integrated course more than the modular route but what is there to support that? If you mean the fact that they advertise the APP more than modular then what should they do, put "dont forget there's always modular" at the bottom of each brochure?
One of the problems with this forum is that a great deal of BS is spouted by those who have little or no knowledge. As most of the readers have none either, there's a serious possibility that the BS might be believed. Busbo, can you tell me what experience you have that qualifies you to make this statement?Scroggs
...and secondly, thank you for insinuating that I have little or no knowledge we can only aspire to such greatness. What qualifies me to make such a statement is mainly the right to express an opinion although not just an opinion I've made up without looking at all facts available to me. I'm not in touch with BAs policy now, I beleive it may have changed, but it definitly was that they only took integrated students....end of story. Dont get me wrong, I didn't and still dont agree with the policy but thats what was it was and with such old fasioned thinking around is it that hard to imagine that there are still a good number of managers about who have unfounded reservations in their mind regarding the "new-fangled" modular route? Personally I have got quite a bad impression of the way BA operate so far and the sooner such attitudes dissapear the better but could you honestly say that at a BA interview tomorrow with two identical brothers with two identical cars (you know the insurance ad) with only their training type seperating them that the modular guy would be more likely to get it?
That said, I did also write that they MIGHT sneak it (the job) i.e. they also MIGHT not. If I didn't write "in my opinion" before each paragraph when I should have, I apologise.

Busbo

21st Feb 2006, 21:01

That may well be, to be honest I'm not too up to date with that info especially as I'm genuinly not someone who's interested in joining a company as arrogant as BA. The comment I was making was related to the boring old integrated vs modular debate which has come up again.

Busbo

21st Feb 2006, 21:19

Too true, thank you for getting this thread back on track. I for one visited a number of schools including a weekend visiting one in Michigan and no if you're wondering I'm really not rich enough to be popping over to the US for a weekend I just really thought it warranted such a trip. It all made me feel a lot more comfortable with my choice in the end, knowing that I had looked at all possible options.

LAX

21st Feb 2006, 21:33

Ive never been to Oxford, I know many that have and would have favoured doing such a course myself. I have to say that I support the integrated course, proper screening of candidates, the concept of being able to complete structured training from start to finish, in one place, to a fixed, high and recognised standard is great. I think the airlines like the idea of cadets being put under pressure to complete a course of study in a SET time frame, its says alot about a persons ability to work under pressure. Just like going to Uni and being in the real world when your employer wants you Typed and out on the line ASAP. Another added advantage for airlines is they can build a relationship with the training provider and fill jobs with people who have been through a system which is to a consistant standard. OAT got to give it to you:ok: I'm up for that;)

However, I decided Id go the structured Modular route, full time. Unfortunately as much as I wanted to go integrated I put my commercial hat on and thought what am I getting getting for my extra 20K or 30K? Mybe Im paying for a few doors to open, no harm in that:) and a decent careers service. However, many of my friends graduated from OAT in 2001\2002 and at that time if the airlines didnt have jobs for them, not even OAT can do anything about that. What did it for me was I know the US West Coast extreamly well. I have been to Phoenix, Goodyear, Scotsdale etc many times (On another note all those going to AZ, I can recommend the George and Dragon English Pub, Downtown PHX on Central, opposite the Holiday Inn. Great night out) and know that the cost of flying in the US is almost 1\3 of that in the UK on todays exchange rates. So why are OAT going to charge me UK rates to fly while they send me to the US to save money? Just a thought.

Well, now I have a job for a carrier in Europe. Its been said once, Ill say it again nobody cares where you got ya licence. Now we are part of JAR land most of the Captains I fly with think that Oxfords something to do with the boat race:eek: . There are many foreign guys\gals flying in the UK and the HR departments cant even pronounce the name of their flight schools.

As for Fords and Vauxalls I like the comparison, however when I go to the CAA I pick my licence up from the same counter, same colour etc. If I pay for a Dawoo I get the same as the guy who paid for a Bentley. Mybe the difference is we have the same car (lets say a Dodge) but I take mine to Jiffy lube (or Halfords) to get it serviced, the other guy goes to the Dealer.

I guess in summary I would have loved to go do an integrated course. What OAT put on seems good, those that go priase the course and the airlines seem to like it. Mybe 5K is a premium worth paying but I still cant get around that 20K, and I would have been a cash customer to.

scroggs

22nd Feb 2006, 10:27

Firstly, there is no evidence that I have seen that they would like you to think that. Clearly it would make sense that they may as they are obviously pushing their integrated course more than the modular route but what is there to support that? If you mean the fact that they advertise the APP more than modular then what should they do, put "dont forget there's always modular" at the bottom of each brochure?
Oxford's marketing, for whichever of their courses (they still do modular via the Waypoint scheme) continually emphasises their 'connections' with the industry and implies that your chances of employment after their course are so high that you would be mad to go elsewhere. That's what marketing spin is about, and Oxford are very good at it. However, much of their spin is couched as authoritative advice, and I suspect that many people believe it as gospel truth. I have their latest brochure in front of me. It's a very fine (and expensive) document. As it needs to be if you're trying to convince people to spend around £25,000 more than they need to! I'm trying to persuade you that you should prime the cynic within you when you assess the marketing material of any school, and arm yourself with as many facts as you can get. Too many people believe the hype and don't ever question it.
...and secondly, thank you for insinuating that I have little or no knowledge we can only aspire to such greatness. What qualifies me to make such a statement is mainly the right to express an opinion although not just an opinion I've made up without looking at all facts available to me. I'm not in touch with BAs policy now, I beleive it may have changed, but it definitly was that they only took integrated students....end of story.
I'm not insinuating any such thing. I am telling you and others that much of the material on this forum is written by people who have no experience of the industry whatsoever, yet write as though their 'opinion' is fact. It is not fact, and those 'opinions' may well be the diametric opposite of the truth. As with the FTO's marketing stuff, wannabes have to keep a healthy cynicism about statements which are backed neither by serious experience nor proper research.

BA certainly do prefer Integrated students - for those that join under the SSP scheme. However, they have in the very recent past spread the net beyond the Integrated schools. Not only that, but the majority of their recruiting is not ab-initio students, it is via the Direct Entry Pilot scheme, which requires pilots to have as little as 400 hours commercial experience - about six months in most airlines. BA express (and evidence) no preference about the kind of CPL course its DEPs have undergone.
by LAX
However, I decided Id go the structured Modular route, full time. Unfortunately as much as I wanted to go integrated I put my commercial hat on and thought what am I getting getting for my extra 20K or 30K? Mybe Im paying for a few doors to open, no harm in that and a decent careers service. However, many of my friends graduated from OAT in 2001\2002 and at that time if the airlines didnt have jobs for them, not even OAT can do anything about that.

Now here's a man who has done some proper research and come up with a sensible answer! Don't get me wrong; I am not suggesting that you should not go for OAT/Cabair/FTE or whoever. I am suggesting that you fully research the options available to you, and don't believe anyone's marketing hype. Look beyond that.
by Andy Fez
Its great to read positive comments about OAT, Im new to the forum and the first threads I read when I joined were all negative things about OAT. Which sucked as I have always wanted to go to OAT and when i visited I loved the place. Really felt right for me.
Im now at the stage of visiting and researching every other option before i commit to any decision of which FTO
Read 2DMoon and Soviet Bloc's posts carefully. They've been there and experienced the place. Don't get blinded by the hype! Do that research assiduously.

Scroggs

hedges81

22nd Feb 2006, 10:44

One thing which slighlty irritates me about OAT is that they feel the need to call their course the "Airline Preparation Programme" as opposed to its real name, an "fATPL course" as everywhere else calls it. As far as I can make out the only thing different is that they give you their "First Officer Fundamentals" section, where real airline pilots come in and give you talks about the job. How useful is this really, I mean learning to fly the plane is what ur there for. So they might tell you a bit the job from non flying perspective, what the airlines want to see, good attitude, smart appearance. This kind of stuff is obvious to anyone who has done anykind of other professional work already! If the purpose of the first officer fundamentals is to tell u a bit about what the job is like then it really has no point, as anyone who has already handed over their 60k to OAT already isnt going to change their mind halfway through if they hear something about the job they don´t like, and they will ideally be finding out what it is like to be a FO in due course anyway.

Think about it, rich daddy/ perspective trainee is keen on their offspring/ themselves getting an airline job. What will they be more drawn to, a course called the "Airline Preparation Programme," or the same course somewhere else given a less fancy name.

Ps, I dont really know what the First officer fundamentals course is like, am just making reasonable assumptions above. Would be interesting to hear from anyone with an opinion on said element of the course, what does it tell you that you dont/ should know already, and is it any use?

Busbo

22nd Feb 2006, 12:46

I think you raise a fair point in that the difference between APP first officer (as its now called) and other fATPL courses can sometimes seem a bit vague. I would point out that the MCC and JOT is also included in the course, its supposed to be a true zero to hero type course where other than a type rating possibly it should be the only course you need do to get fully "airline job ready".

I actually found the FOF course very interesting and while you're right that some of it was just us being talked to by a variety of highly experienced people from all fields of aviation there were other aspects to it, also the stories we were told were fascinating! We went through a good deal of CRM material which is of course very relevant for your future career and to get a good introduction to it at that stage gives you a real heads up for when you do it in greater detail later on. We also went through things such as decision making, risk assesment etc, clearly all very relevant in every-day airline life. No doubt I'm forgetting a lot of what we did as I'm not looking it up, just trying to remember what I did a year ago. At the end of the course we had to split into groups and give a formal presentation on a particular accident case study which was practice I know I needed as public speaking is far from being a strong point of mine. Also if I remember rightly we had a full day on CV preperating and interview technique at the end which was another first look for me so it was nice to start getting my head into gear.

Throughout the whole course it definitly seemed like we were getting groomed into an airline way of thinking not just learning to fly a plane, as I'm sure anyone currently flying for an airline will tell you flying the plane is the easy part.

hedges81

22nd Feb 2006, 12:59

Hi all, attended the OAT open day a few weeks ago, so thought I´d put my thoughts about it here, for the information of anyone thinking about going along.

The day began, and after checking in at reception was sent over to the waiting room where a number of the other attendees were sitting. They were a mixture, a couple of kids there with their fathers, as well as some others. Im 24, and was probably the oldest there. They were all dressed very smartly, and were obviously looking to impress whoever they were about to meet. Everyone seemed very nervous and not really saying much, they were perhaps a bit overawed by the whole experience and imposing reputation of OAT.

A few minutes later we were all shepherded to a very nice, carpeted, airconditioned seminar room complete with projector and dimmable lights. My first thoughts were of what such conference facilities, which would not look out of place in a hotel, were doing here. Surely this is an FTO, not a corporate conference centre?

Anyway, a bloke, whose name I forget but I think was general manager, or something like that, proceeded to give a talk about the APP programme.
His opening line was to state emphatically that the emphasis of his speech was not to be on the actual training facility at Oxford, but on the state of the airline jobs market, which "was what we were all really here to hear about right?" He then proceeded to quote a number of facts about how the aviation jobs market was verymuch on the up with "hundreds of jobs for new pilots coming available in the next couple of years", how BA deffinitely didnt take modular students, and how, with its connections, OAT could get us all into those jobs. He then flashed up a picture on his power point screen showing the logos of around 50 airlines, where OAT students had got jobs.

We were also told to "beware of modular courses, as the hours building between PPL and CPL stages was un-supervised. At OAT all flying hours are supervised, and therfore better." I though about this for a while, comparing the number of hours of dual and solo instruction given at OAT with those that a modular trainee would recieve through the PPL, CPL and IR training elements of the course. The numbers were the same, give or take 2 or 3 hours. I mused on how a students flying technique and cockpit management whilst flying solo could be supervised from on the ground? The student could perhaps have radio contact with their instructor, but that would be all.

Throughout the talk, my fellow attendees would nod their heads in approval, daddies would look at their kids, with looks on their faces which said "I am happy for you to go here, I will pay."
Various questions were asked, whereby the bloke giving the speech would tell the answer the asker wanted to hear. Que more nodding of heads in agreement.

The next stage was a "hob nobbing" session over a finger buffet. OAT had pushed the boat out with this one, the food was delicious, and had obviously cost a fair bit to put on. We had the chance to chat informally with a number of instructors, however every topic of conversation would invariably revert back to discussing the positive merits of OAT, so and so finished 2 months ago and is now FO with BA, etc.

We were then taken through to a room full of computers, where we were allowed to try out some of the co-ordination tests they use for trainee selection. Not too much however, "in case we got too much practice and gained an unfair advantage in their highly competitive selection process." I and others seemed to be quite sucessfull at the relatively simple tasks involved, and it was certain that the confidence of some peoples ability to pass the test was improved by this taster session.

Next we went through to have a look at some of the planes. On the way however we passed through the cafeteria, where around 30 trainees were hanging around on a break from their ground school or flying. Each one was dressed identically in their OAT uniform, which prominently featured the OAT logo both shirt and jumper. Some of the trainees were wearing epaulets, some with more than others. I learnt that the difference in epaulets was due to their progrees through the course, with more epaulets awarded as one progresses through different stages of the course. I wondered what the need was for such a reward system, why it was felt necessary that a hierachy marked by visual denotation was in place? Was a student who had passed his CPL test seen as more senior, and therefore more demanding of respect than someone who had merely started the course a few months earlier? Indeed the uniforms gave the place the feel of a regimented military academy. Whilst it takes discipline to be/ become an airline pilot, as with any professional job, the training/ doing the job doesnt require the "millitary regimentation" that OAT try to portray.
The uniforms resembled considerably the one I wore at school ten years ago. It was dificult to tell the age of the students I saw, but they all looked nearer to school age than me, perhaps it was the uniforms.

We were then taken to see the planes. I had a sit down in one of their senecas. It was no different whatsoever to any other Id seen, apart from the prominant OAT logo on the tail.

We then went with the general manager to look at the simulators, where it was emphasised that the sims were "state of the art" and "the same ones used by the airlines." Que more nodding of heads in approval. One of the sims had some students in it. I noticed the students reaction to the general manager, the sound of hoovers sprung to mind, such was the "sucking up." It was then that it occured to me that this was due to their desire to be recommended to an airline and that they felt that if they stayed on the goodside of the staff then they would be recommended. Indeed the general manager was heard to say at one point "if there is a guy we like, then we will put him forward when an airline calls." It struck me how awful it would be to spend a year competing for the affetions of the powers that be at OAT with all the other students, walking a tightrope, where one argument, late arrival or word out of place might mean you loosing favour and "recommendation" prospects. Such sucking up appeared to have started with some of the attendees already, before they had even started the course!

Finally we were taken into a classroom, where were were "de-briefed" and given the opportunity to ask questions. This stage was again a cleverly done sales pitch, with every question asker receiving the answer they wanted to hear.

The final words of the day were: "here are the application forms, you can fill them in and hand them over now if you want. We advise you to get them in as soon as possible, as demand is high, and places are limited." At least half of the attendees did so, and signed up there and then.

My overall impression of the day was that it was a very very cleverly staged marketing exercise, designed to create an "air of mystique" about the place, and make people feel that they are lucky and privelidged to be given the opportuinity to hand over their 60grand to OAT. Looking at the faces of the people attending, it was almost as if they were hypnotised by the whole affair, such was the regularity of the nodding of heads in agreement. The gen manager could have told them that the moon was made of cheese and they would have agreed with him!

When one strips away the unnecessary frills, OAT appears to me to be no different to any other training organisation.

There is no need for fancy, air conditioned buildings. It is what goes on in the plane that counts. You might as well have an FTO that operates out of a portakabin if the planes are the same.
With such obviously expensive advertising campaigns and unnecessary conference facilities, one has to wonder how much the 60k price tag goes towards supporting these, rather than to optimise the standards of the aircraft/teaching/ instruction
The sims were the same as ive seen elsewhere.
The uniforms, with their hierachical epaulets are unnecessary, save to add to the mystique of the brand. They add an oppresive air of millitary regimentation to the place which is unnecesary. One does not need a uniform to be disciplined in their approach to training.
The planes were the same as Ive seen elsewhere.
I cannot comment on the instructors, but as all instructors are subject to the same JAA/CAA training, exams and continued career development, there is no reason why the ones at OAT should be any better than elsewhere.

The only difference, which I can accept, is that OAT might get you into a job, if you stay on the right side of the people there and give them the hoover treatment.

To conclude, I decided not to go there.
I could not see any justification for the hefty price tag over other FTOS which offer exactly the same service.

I felt that I would not be comfortable in such a regimented environment, wearing an unnecessary uniform that took me back to my school days, with everyone competing for the approval of those who might recommend them to an airline.

Regarding the enhanced job prospects through OAT, I decided that If I have got what it takes and I end up as a first class pilot through training elsewhere I will be able to get a job off my own back, and feel all the better for it.
To all those who have been impressed by OAT and are thinking of signing their 60k away, think very carefully about whether or not it is worth it, and whether the wool has been pulled over your eyes by OATs very clever open day programme.
Im a cynical bugger, so Ive see through it quite easily. Those of you who are a bit younger with less life experience may not be so lucky. Also, many parents with a bit of cash will do anything to see their kids suceed, and this desire may cloud their judgement somewhat. If you are young, ie late teens/early 20s, you have LOADS of time to get an airline job. If you think OAT might give u 6mth/ a year headstart in getting an airline job, put it into perspective. When you are that young, 6mth / a year will make sod all difference to your life, is it really worth 30k?

Busbo

22nd Feb 2006, 13:32

Dinifitley a more cynical response to OAT as you say yourself. Having been through the course myself I'm well aware of how when they want to OAT really turn up the corporate image and put on a show. Its all part of their image as a truly professional outfit and can we really blame them for trying to make themselves look as good as possible for prospective trainees? Would people not be more concerned if they gave the impression of not really caring about treating people well who might be sending sixty odd thousand pounds their way?!

Your comments about the military-like regimented atmosphere in the school with regard to the uniforms seem a little odd, I certainly never got that feeling during my stay there and never heard other people comment to the contrary. Getting different number's of bars on your uniform I personally found to be quite a good thing, you really have to dig deep to get through ground school and each other stage in the course so why shouldn't you get a little token at the end of it as a recognition of the acheivement. There's no real rank or advantage to whether you've got one silver or two gold stripes, you dont get special treatment and you dont look down or up to people with more of less than you.

The coment about the instructors passing the same exams so in theory being the same as any other FTO is understandable although in my experience the instructors (especially in England) that OAT use are almost all highly experienced pilots rather than hour building guys who may well be competing with you for jobs when you finish! For example my instructor for my instrument rating was ex-RAF ex-BA 747 captain with god knows how many years in each, he'd been flying for a lot longer than you or I'd been alive!

I would agree with you that sometimes, especially at times such as seminars, OAT can put on an image with just seems too glossy and sugar coated which may lead to cynicism. I for one didn't fall for it just like that, I did my research and visited a number of schools both here and abroad, finally deciding that at least the majority of things I had been told by Oxford added up.

hedges81

22nd Feb 2006, 13:35

The figures don´t though, do they?
60k, where exactly the same thing costs 30k somewhere else.

scroggs

22nd Feb 2006, 13:42

Well done - and thanks for the report.

Why 'well done'? Because you didn't leave your critical facilities at home when you went to OAT. As you suggest, OAT's Open Day is a marketing exercise structured to make the prospective student feel privileged to be there. It's no accident that it's very similar to the induction days within the military and other large employers - but the difference is that you are paying them, not the other way round!

OAT's marketing is slick. It has to be; they want a lot more money out of you than most FTOs, and they need a lot of you. But they are a business, there to make money - and some of that money may well come to them from the airlines they send graduates to. In other words, their sales product is not only their training system, it is their graduates - though not to the extent it is with CTC.

Nevertheless, you are the paying customer and if what you see doesn't float your boat (or is outside your realistic budget) remember there are plenty of credible options. Oxford is a very good school, but it's not the only one. As some airlines boast, 'we always remember you have a choice'!

Scroggs

Busbo

22nd Feb 2006, 13:43

When you say exactly the same thing what do you mean by that? Are you talking FOF, MCC, JOT and the careers service afterwards which although it has been a bit dodgy in the past I beleive its improving all the time. Aswell as the instructors all being more experienced so quite rightly commanding a higher wage packet. Also the facilites are very good and no doubt cost more to build than some other schools and more to maintain. No doubt OAT do make a pretty penny out of each an every one of us but its not quite as clear cut as they make 30k more than other other schools do.

scroggs

22nd Feb 2006, 13:51

No doubt OAT do make a pretty penny out of each an every one of us but its not quite as clear cut as they make 30k more than other other schools do.

Can you expand on that, Busbo? What do you actually mean?

Oxford's overheads are certainly greater than most schools, which does go some way to explaining their prices. Some of the excess is also down to Oxford's perception of its own reputation - and the fact that they will charge what the market will bear, as will any on-the-ball organisation. In fact, it's probably fair to say that Oxford's prices determine the market rate. I doubt that the price is arrived at on a 'cost plus' basis, except to check that all conceivable costs are covered. In fact, I'd love to know what Oxford's margin is. I'll bet it's more than any airline's!

Scroggs

Busbo

22nd Feb 2006, 14:01

Sure, no problem. What I mean is that some people seem to think that OAT are absoloutly no different to any other school and therefor the extra 30k or however much depending on who you're comparing them too is all profit, I just cant see how this could be true and am sure it isn't. I suspect you're right in that their profit margin is no doubt amongst the highest, in fact I'd be suprised if there were a higher. The fact is that they offer a premium product at a premiuim price, possibly a little more than a premium price. You do get the feeling that some of the course fees go towards things you'd rather they didn't because they dont affect you much like the seemingly constant rebuilding of offices, classrooms, canteen etc. Just how much difference does moving these rooms around actually make?!

I think Oxford offer more than any other school and charge more than any other....plus a little extra. Overall though I'd say that people of the younger generation do tend to waste money on some useless junk and I'd say there were better places to spend a bit of excess money than investing in your future. Dont get the wrong impression of me though, I dont have thousands of pounds burning a hole in my pocket all the time, I'm in debt for the whole course fee plus my type rating so its not a decision I took lightly.

scroggs

22nd Feb 2006, 14:15

OK, I understand what you're getting at. I was a little worried that you thought OAT's FIs were getting 30k more than anyone else's!

I don't doubt that some of OAT's expenditure is little more than window-dressing. Every organisation with something to sell does it to some extent. On the other hand, I am sure that much of it is spent in order to provide the best learning environment they can. Naturally, there will be more than one opinion on what constitutes the best learning environment, but that's why there's more than one school to look at.

Do they offer more than any other school? Well, that's what you have to decide for yourself. It may well be that they offer more than you need or want. It may be in some areas they don't offer enough for your needs. I hope your choice works out well for you - and I hope the debt doesn't cripple you for too long!

Scroggs

Nimbus5

22nd Feb 2006, 15:29

Scroggs,

Yes Hedges81 took his critical faculty to OAT. From what he has written, that seems to be all he took. To me his post reads like that of one who had their mind made up already and just listened enough to jot down a few points to dress up the already planned bad report. It seems pretty clear he went in with an agenda and I hardly think the report is objective.

By the way, last time I saw instructor adverts on OAT's website, the salary was around £34K. That is a hell of a lot more than self improvers get for instructing PPLs while they build hours and is probably what OAT have to pay to attract the quality of instructors they seem to have. I suspect it is some part of why they cost more, though certainly not all of it.

hedges81

22nd Feb 2006, 15:56

If I had made my mind up I didnt want to go there before I went why did I get up a 630 in the morning, drive a 300mile round trip in a day to see the place? Before I went I had, through their brochures put OAT at the top of my prefered schools. When I arrived however I, being well versed in the world of business my self, immediately began to smell rats, and was put off the place.
If I was the owner of a flying school I would do exactly what OAT are doing, and that is why as a customer I dont want to go there!

Busbo, when I say exactly the same thing I mean fatpl with mcc, which can be found at many very good modular schools, such as stapleford for 30k. Ok, if you want a JOC as well, which is not necessary to gain employment with an airline then it might cost you a couple of grand more.
So it essentially works out that you pay say 28k more for first officer fundamentals and a career service. It d be cheaper to bribe an airline recruiter/ hire the maffia to force them to give you a job!

Im interested to hear what the First officer fundamentals course tought you when you did it?

soviet bloc

22nd Feb 2006, 16:00

well OAT's first oroficer fundamentals is like this......
you get talked at for 2 weeks during which some of the second most boring people in the world come in and repeat themselves to you for 8 hours a day and give lots of power point presentzzzzzzzzzzzz....
oh and in the second week the most boring people in the world come in and say all the same stuff again in a slightly more mind-numbingly tedious tone...
then at the end you get to give a presentation to the latest new course on some accident that happened god knows when and god knows why and at the end of it if you're still awake you get given new wings to make you feel like a little ba pilot and bla bla bla... unless it has changed substantially over the last year that is....
sb

Muddy Boots

22nd Feb 2006, 17:00

Hedges 81,

I agree, that calling it the "APP" is probably the biggest part of their marketing spin but what's in a name, a name doesn't make you but you make a name, you can't judge a book by its cover... I could go on but don't want to be tedious! Once you turn the BS filter up to max, I still feel that OAT is offering one of the best packages around.

Also, First Officer Fundimntals is more about how airlines work and manage their fuel and schedules plus how to keep the marriage going and personal effects of flying etc. I sat in on a class and found it quite interesting, I hope that Soviet Bloc doesn't think I'm dull too, I only had one class not two weeks...

Other things that I find that Oxford give you are the CRM and Jet Orientation Course which would be quite a big cost if you paid for them later on a modular course.

One last thing, my Dad died last year and therefore isn't a "rich daddy" waiting in the wings to pay for me, I'm paying for everything out of my own pocket. (My Mother rightly inherited everything which probably means it'll go to the cats home when she pops her clogs, where's the love?)

I posted this thread because there is so much Oxford bashing going on mainly from people who haven't been there or are older and learnt to fly through the military and have had there career successes and are watching over us. I wanted to hear what current Oxford attendies and grads had to say, which by and large is positive.

Muddy Boots

soviet bloc

22nd Feb 2006, 17:11

Muddy Boots,

no I don't think you're dull, actually I've been enjoying your posts....
and yes one day of the FOF, even 2 would be ok, but by the end of the 2 weeks I maintained that what was covered could've been done in 2 days not 2 weeks. Also the FOF does vary slightly with every course depending on which talkers can come in.... guess I was particularly unlucky - but anyway it was still poor value for money.

for those who want or need guidance on cv's or interview technique, get a book and speak to people don't line OAT's pockets at £90 a day or whatever.
sb out

moo

22nd Feb 2006, 17:36

hedges81, assuming that you went through the brochures and therefore knew the price of the course before you attended the seminar, may I ask then exactly what you expected to find?? I am the first to say that you should visit all your possible training providers, but reading the material that OAT sent you, surely you would have known about all the facilities/aircraft/groundschool/materials etc. etc. What exactly did you expect?? :confused:

G-DANM

22nd Feb 2006, 17:59

I think I might forget flying and instead become the Michael O'Leary of the FTO Industry. Oxford, Jerez and Cabair are in a comfort zone where they are in mutual agreement to not enage in a price competition (which is what shouldn't happen in a true competitive market). How awesome would it be for someone to come and take over say Jerez so they would have the brand "Flight Training Europe" for everyones CV's but offer it at a no frills price where there are no uniforms, no fancy brochures, no posh nosh at their open days etc. People may say "oh but they'd lose favour with the airlines". I'd say I bet it doesn't matter as airlines supposedly want integrated, pre-selected graduates which is what they'd get. The difference would be the graduates (having saved 10-20K) could afford it when the airlines say "now pay for your type rating".

Nimbus5

22nd Feb 2006, 18:12

If I was the owner of a flying school I would do exactly what OAT are doing, and that is why as a customer I dont want to go there!

Hedges81,

It sounds like what you are saying is that you are an unethical business man. This seems like a logical conclusion to me as your charge against OAT seems to be they are unethical for charging what they do. Apparently the market bears it though so many others conclude differently.

The reason I wrote that you seem to have made your mind up is because you did not seem to say one good thing about them. You did mention the food they served was good, but even that must be a negative since the food cost comes out of their students' pockets. Personally, I didn't think the food was so great, chicken wings, egg rolls, samosas and finger sandwiches are not my idea of an expensive feast. So they expressed what they think are the positive merits of OAT. What did you expect them to talk about? Why you should train at Cabair?

What were you expecting of their airplanes, glass cockpits and leather seats? You can get those on CTC's very expensive modular course if you wish. You mention the logo on the tail. I wasn't aware other schools didn't have logos on their planes! Pardon my incredulity, but is this the stuff you evaluate an FTO for, their livery?

I think the most ridiculous part of your post is the way you think you know what other people were thinking. For example you claim people were told the answer they wanted to hear. How do you know what they wanted to hear? Even if you did read their minds correctly, are you then saying OAT staff lied to them?

You assume OAT has uniforms to create a military environment. Did you ask them if this is the case? Did you ask any students if they felt this was the case having been there for a while? You accuse students of sucking up. How do you know what is in their mind? You even go so far as to make the same accusation against other seminar attendees.

After all of this, you can't see why someone might read your post and come to the conclusion you had your mind made up before you went in? Do you honestly expect us to believe OAT was top of your list until five minutes into the Director's presentation? Did you really make up your mind on a gut instinct after five minutes rather than a side by side comparison of the merits of several FTOs? I think not. Rather I think you had read enough on PPrune to know that you most likely were not going to choose OAT and you went there to hear what you wanted to hear, that what you read on PPrune was all true.

Just for the record, I have not made up my mind where to train yet, but I will most likely choose Modular, maybe at OAT or maybe elsewhere. I do give them a bit more credit than you though.

MrHorgy

22nd Feb 2006, 18:39

Oxford must be doing something right, else the airlines wouldn't be trying to pick their gradutes. What i do notice though is Oxford seem to spend a TREMENDOUS amount of money on marketing, I don't see why - surely if a school is good it will circulate via other medium's (word of mouth, internet etc..) I'm off to bristol gs soon, and I heard of them through a friend, not the fancy advertising I see for OAT everywhere (including the recent Airliner World article)

I agree and applaud hedges81 though, his report is well written, and does convey facts. It's all to easy to sit on pprune and object to what people say but he's taken the trouble to go and see it.

Nimbus, how can you say he made his mind up? It clearly states that "Before I went I had, through their brochures put OAT at the top of my prefered schools."

I spent a while mulling over integrated via modular, different FTO's etc, and I chose modular. I fail to see how I could pay 60k for a license i could get for 30k, AND keep my (very enjoyable) job in the process. Hell i could buy a nice MCC and A320 TR and still have enough for a new Mini Cooper. As an employer, i'd be much more impressed with someone who took time out to study in the evening, around a job, and came up with the results to prove they were worth it - Maybe that's why i won't be the next MOL..

Horgy

Busbo

22nd Feb 2006, 18:41

Hedges81, maybe you didn't read properly my previous response to you and instead just read what you wanted to read just as you heard what you were expecting to hear at the OAT semina rather than what was said. I'm not going to write everything out again but the big difference for OAT is the quality of instructors, facilities, the lot.

I know the comparison to cars has already been made but I think its a good one so I'll use it again. I used to drive an old Ford, it never broke down and it got me everywhere I wanted to go when I wanted to go there. That said, I recently got a new car which cost over 15 times the amount I sold the Ford for and yet it does exactly the same job! I get where I want to go, when I want to go there. It doesn't have any more seats, it doesn't really have many more features and it even costs a lot more to run. So have I wasted all that money?! Are the two cars actually exactly the same and I'm just blinded by the shiny paint and delightful alloy wheels??

I'm sure I'll get plenty of stupid responses to this post but the point I'm trying to make is serious.

I think your first post which on the surface appeared to be someone giving an honest opinion of a FTO open day is actually just you enjoying spouting off and rubbishing a large proffesional organisation just because you can. Let me ask you, did you raise any of these endless criticisms at the open day or did you just save them for the safety of an anonamous forum?

Muddy Boots

22nd Feb 2006, 19:42

Hedges81, I take it you didn't like OAT then? Sorry about that.

Umm, where does everybody get that Oxford are 30K more expensive than everyone else? Who are you making the comparison with? I visited Jerez and they have quite an involved campus on a former military base with hangers where you could eat your dinner off the floor and a lot of white wash. They and Cabair as far as I am concerned are the only competition at this level of FTO. They are only about 5k different in price, if that. Especially when you take into account the things they don't include on the course such as FOF, JOC, interview prep and career advice.

I don't want to go to school in a WW II era nissan hut on an old airfield, where people wear grubby T-shirts, which is what a lot of UK GA is. Those are the schools that charge 30k less and have a/c that go u/s suddenly, can you come back tomorrow... (Which is what my PPL experience was). There's no comparison to the top 3 FTO's which is really the debate.

The airlines visit the top 3 FTOs and its about keeping them impressed as well as potential students.

As far as the uniforms go, you're going to have to wear one in the job, you may as well get used to it. FTE give you 6 white shirts and 3 pairs of trousers when you start, unfortunately you have to dress yourself!

Scroggs, I picked this up from one of your other postings:

Started as a glider pilot in 1970, at 15. Started training on jets in the RAF in 1977, age 21. Became a captain on Hercules in 1983, age 27. Became an RAF QFI (instructor) in 1987 on Bulldogs and, later, back on Hercules. Joned Virgin on the B747-200 in 1998. Moved to the A340 in 2002. Currently doing command conversion.

Have somewhere around 14000 hours (must do my logbook!), but only about 10 types: Jet Provost T3/5, Hawk, Hunter FGA9/T7, Jetstream T1, Hercules C1/K/3, Bulldog, Chipmunk, B742, A343, A346. Flown (but not operational on) several others: Lightning, VC10, Tristar, Tucano, Robin, Seneca, Chinook, Sea King, HH53, and probably a few others!

In other words: been there, done that, got the T-shirt!

Scroggs

You have had a fantastic career and I must admit that I am jealous, as ugly as that seems. I would just love to lick some of the aircraft you have flown let alone fly them! But as our "Slightly Bemussed Moderator" isn't your role to stop us from squabling amongst our selves rather than offer advice, especially as you have never had to have the angst of which school to choose and drop 60k at? You banned King Rooney for bashing OAT and you're not a fan either.

Muddy Boots

I hope that doesn't get me banned for a week like King Rooney! :uhoh:

stue

22nd Feb 2006, 19:48

Careful Muddy Boots:E

Muddy Boots

22nd Feb 2006, 19:53

Thank you Soviet Bloc.

I do agree with you, I'm sure I'd quickly lose the will to live if the same thing was repeated to me for two weeks. Isn't that Revd. Moon use to do?

A good place I'm told in Penny Austin's to help with interview technique too! http://pilotinterviews.co.uk/

Muddy Boots

Muddy Boots

22nd Feb 2006, 19:57

I know... I'm going for a walk and maybe sometime...

I hope the rest of you will make it back with out me!

scroggs

22nd Feb 2006, 20:11

Boots, I've just penned a long reply and lost it. I don't have time to re-write it.

Suffice to say I have nothing against Oxford; I just wish to help people see past their preconceptions and dispel some of the marketing hype. As for my role here, it is very much as an advisor. I have run the busiest UAS as the Chief Flying Instructor, which included interviewing and selecting candidates, teaching and examining them, writing reports on them and helping promising students get into the airlines when the RAF closed its gates. Some of my RAF contemporaries are now senior people in the civilian flying training world; others are in positions of power in the airlines. I have also been through the business of taking the ATPL exams and obtaining a job in the airlines myself in the not too distant past, and I have an information-giving role in my airline's recruiting drive now (which you can read for yourself in T&E). I was asked, many years ago, to join the Pprune team in Wannabes precisely because of that experience and those contacts. My role here is most certainly not as referee! (Though it is in the rest of the site).

Scroggs

Alex Whittingham

22nd Feb 2006, 20:50

I'd like to put my two penny worth in here because I am one of Oxford's competitors and I am obviously biased so you know where I'm coming from, but then I also compete with FTE, CABAIR, Naples, BCFT, etc and have no issues with them.

Oxford's marketing is unparalleled in the industry. Its very well funded and they genuinely believe what they say. They actually believe their training is better than anyone else's, they believe it so much they don't look at the statistics which say Oxford's pass rates are at best, average and, at worst, poor. They genuinely believe Oxford candidates stand a better chance of getting a job in the face of any evidence to the contrary. Actually CTC wipe the floor with them. CTC only take 2% of their applicants, every one that passes gets a job. The OAT apologists' response is to say "Well, if you want to apply to an organisation with a 98% failure rate, go ahead". CTC use us for modular groundschool. The CTC cadets' pass rates are better than any similar group of cadets in the past, including Oxford's BA sponsored cadets, from back in the days when sponsorship existed. The response? "CTC groundschool is self-study, you are just left to get on with it". OAT believe the JOC is important and use this to justify the price differential from other courses, they ignore its irrelevance to the licensing process and then cheerfully say its the most profitable part of the APP. We're dealing with religious conviction here, which is why folk get sucked in. The whole thing is so wierd its scary. If you go to FTE or CABAIR you will get exactly the same quality of training and exactly the same chances of employment, or not, what you won't get is the Stepford cadet syndrome.

Muddy Boots

22nd Feb 2006, 21:09

But isn't the CTC scheme part sponsored by airlines so by the very fact that they are accepted means they have a job at the end of it? So isn't that why so many people throw themselves into the applicaton process and they have such a high failure rate? I know a couple of people who failed and then went on to do their fATPL at one of the other big three FTO's and had to pay for it.

Muddy Boots

BillieBob

22nd Feb 2006, 21:38

Muddy Boots - No, the CTC scheme is not 'part sponsored' by the airlines. The distinction of the CTC scheme is that it depends upon an objective selection process (i.e. nobody who fails to achieve the objective standard is accepted into the scheme). The OAT selection process, on the other hand, is a purely commercial process whereby applicants are accepted, in order of merit, until the course is full, irrespective of their objective standard. This, along with the design of the course, accounts for the significant difference in pass rates.

Muddy Boots

22nd Feb 2006, 21:44

Thank you, I am a little wiser in terms of CTC but as I said, on my assesment there were guys there with good money wanting to attend who didn't meet the desired standard and were turned away. I was e-mailed yesterday to inquire when I would like to start and I know there are places available for the March course. If it was purely commercial as you suggest they would be taken just as cannon fodder to fill the gaps.

In addition of previous grads that I have chatted to, there are nearly at a 100% pass rates among their courses.

Elixir

23rd Feb 2006, 08:41

It's fine to have a sensible discussion about FTO's such as OAT but there are two many people here dishing out advice about a school they have no experience of! Where did all this "military style", "regimented", "stepford cadets", etc talk come from? Not OAT students/graduates that's for sure! In my entire time at OAT I didn't hear one student complain about military style regimentation - there are a lot of outspoken students each with their own grumbles as you would get at any school but this was never one of them!!!

Most people who go to OAT go for the expertise and reputation. I was prepared to pay a premium for that (no rich Daddy!!!) - it has been suggested that some of the fees go towards marketing, but it's the marketing that builds up the reputation and the reputation that helps you get a job! I went in with my eyes open and was fully aware of what I was paying for. Actually I was different to Hedges81 as I was going to go for Cabair but after visiting both schools and also CTC and Jerez I went with OAT. There isn't a big price difference when you break down what each school includes in the course. I spent hours at the bank going through all of this for my loan as my bank wasn't familiar with airline training courses.

I've said in an earlier post that I don't regret my decision to go to OAT - I got some great training and a job very soon after graduating, so I feel it was right for me. Being totally honest the part of the course I didn't consider necessary was FOF. I didn't come straight from school and had been given CV advice, economics talks etc before. It didn't need to last 2 weeks - the four days at the start with the CRM stuff is great but I didn't get anything out of the remaining time. However the APP course comes as a package and as I was really happy with the rest of the course I just had to accept the FOF.

Hedges 81 - it really sounds as though you disliked OAT from the start! I can't imagine that a presentation about the school can demote OAT from top of your list to you absolutely loathing it! Did you actually talk to students while you were there and ask their opinions? They are not all school age - my class of 18 or so ranged from age 20 to 35 and that seems to be the case in most classes.
I cannot comment on the instructors, but as all instructors are subject to the same JAA/CAA training, exams and continued career development, there is no reason why the ones at OAT should be any better than elsewhere.

I can't say if OAT instructors are any better than anywhere else as I've only ever trained there! But this comment really is ridiculous - they may all be subjct to the same JAA/CAA training but what about years of experience in an airline or instructing?? Surely that makes a difference? OAT instructors have mainly been airline pilots for bmi, Monarch, Britannia, BA and more - they have an incredible wealth of expertise. Anyone looking at which FTO to go to should consider experience of instructors.

AlexL

23rd Feb 2006, 09:05

I'd like to add my two pence worth into the mix, with regard to the "30 grand" difference - it does exist.
I'll start out by saying that I am doing all my training part time, modular alongside my day job, so Integrated was never an option for me. Howver I have read oxfords brochures in my research for modular schools, and mighty impressive they appear to be. However contrary to the opinions of many Oxford converts, they are not the only school with professional instructors, and good quality fleets etc.
I'm doing my training at a well known modular provider near Stansted. None of the instructors are "hour builders" most are professional with thousands of hours, many are airline pilots past and current. The aircraft are top notch, the IR aircraft are brand new, as are the 2 simulators for IR and CPL instrument training. Many people give these as the reasons to go to Oxford, but this quality of instruction and equipment is available elsewhere. Yes not all modular providers are like this, and some are in a muddy portacabin with one tired old seneca, but not all are like this. Oh yes and the important bit?
I already had a PPL and I did my hour building for about 5 grand in a local group. ATPLs cost £2500 distance learning (including the exam fees) and the bill for CPL, ME, IR and an MCC on a full motion 737 is going to be about £20,000 including test fees. Add the PPL, hour building and ATPLs and I've still got change for 30k.
So yes you can get a comparable quality training for less than half the cost.
As for the career help thing, well only time will tell but I'm not convinced - and its certainly not worth 30K. for 25k I could get a speculative 737 type rating and 100 hours line training - which will get me a job much easier than a recommendation from a careers advisor.
I've got nothing against oxford and think they have a good product, but they are not the only ones out there.

High Wing Drifter

23rd Feb 2006, 09:17

and some are in a muddy portacabin with one tired old seneca, but not all are like this.
I've often wondered if flying in less than pristine aircraft actually provides a better quality of training.

Busbo

23rd Feb 2006, 10:18

I've often wondered if flying in less than pristine aircraft actually provides a better quality of training.

Thats probably accurate when the aircraft is actually in the air but if the fleet is tired and old then it'll most likely spend half its later life being patched up in the hangar, sending dissapointed students home because they're yet another day behind schedule.

Send Clowns

23rd Feb 2006, 10:47

Not necessarily. Serviceability depends more on maintenance than age or equipment. In fact some issues arise with new technology, although this is not the place to start a row with the advocates of the relevant aircraft. If the number of students is fitted to the size of the fleet then there is no need for students to be delayed. That will become a problem, as the world requirement for pilots is forecast to excede the capacity of he training system!

bennyboi75

23rd Feb 2006, 11:26

JUST A QUICK QUESTION HOW MUCH DOES THIS COST I AM A BIT OF A LEPPER ON THE WEB AND CANT FIND OUT HOW MUCH IT IS!!!!!!! ANY SUGGESTIONS???/:confused:

(ive only bin 16 for a month and i still say im 15 sorry)

WingDown

23rd Feb 2006, 12:26

Presuming you are referring to Oxford Air Training, www.oxfordaviation.net should give you the information you require

WD

Nimbus5

23rd Feb 2006, 13:55

This thread has become a joke.

It started out as someone who has chosen Oxford saying something positive. Then Scroggs, the moderator merged another thread that was a complete Oxford Bash Fest with it, thereby hijacking the original. How can he honestly claim to be a neutral moderator?

Then Alex Whittington, who runs Bristol Ground School, jumps in and bashes OAT in a rather obvious self promotional attempt. What he fails to tell you is that the promotional CD he sends out for his own ground school includes Oxford's marketing photos. I guess that is one way for him to reduce his marketing budget, but if OAT's such a crappy school, why does he want to be associated with it by including photos of guys wearing Oxford logos in his own promotional materials? Could it be his relationship with them soured when they cut the price of their own self study Ground below his so now he feels the need to bash them.

He also doesn't tell you the reason CTC's application pass rate is so low is because they are running a sponsorship scheme. He also doesn't tell you that CTC Wings is a Modular training programme. He also doesn't tell you that it costs the same as Oxford's Integrated programme. Quite a few have made a big deal that Modular training costs as low as £30K less than OAT's Integrated course, so why, may I ask, does CTC's Modular cost the same as an Integrated course? Could it be people are willing to pay more for the job security? Isn't that exactly why people choose Oxford and FTE? Why then is nobody bashing CTC like they do Oxford.

Nobody bashes an expensive quasi sponsorship (Yes quasi, because CTC cadets pay for their training) scheme, but they bash the one people have to pay for at OAT. Those same people would have given their left testicle to have gotten a seat on APPs predecessor when it was mainly filled with BA, BMI and Aer Lingus cadets, but now they complain about the price. It really seems to come down to those who can't afford spiting those who can.

Like Scroggs says, don't leave your critical faculties at home!

scroggs

23rd Feb 2006, 14:47

I am neither for nor against Oxford. I merged the threads in an attempt to prevent thei forum becoming all about OAT. It is a common procedure; similar things have been done when other schools are the topic of the day. There is absolutely no value in having one thread 'pro Oxford' and another 'anti Oxford'; this is supposed to be a discussion in which different points of view can be aired. I will ensure that it stays that way.

As for CTC, it is rather a different animal. As you say, it is a structured modular course. The course has been structured to reflect CTC's priorities, which is to prepare students for contracted and confirmed airline places. Nearly all CTC's students enter having already secured a provisional place with an airline, that is why their failure rate at or before interview is so high. There are very few speculative students at CTC, and even those are accepted against places that CTC are reasonably sure will be there. As far as I am aware, no-one passes CTC to then join the job-searchers. That makes tham rather different from the integrated schools who are, at present, only training speculative students who have no job to go to at the time they start the course.

All that said, CTC is far from proof against criticism! There have been several threads here (though not necessarily in Wannabes) about the quality of CTC's output. This has been, as far as I can make out, a consequence of some concerns that easyJet had. Whether this is still (or ever really was) a problem, I can't say, but one thing you'll not see here is a thread called 'CTC cadets - still looking for a job?'! As for the price of the course, I believe it's more expensive than Oxford's - but it does include the type rating and line training. And it includes the allowance paid during the advanced phase of the course. And the cost is repaid by the contracting airline.

You are free to express your opinion of any FTO here. However, don't expect me to blow bubbles up the back passage of any particular school just because you like it. I will continue to call it as I see it, from the perspective of nearly 30 years' experience in professional aviation.

Scroggs

Nimbus5

23rd Feb 2006, 14:49

I think it could possibly be fantastic if demand exceeds capacity for the training system. It just might mean airlines start having to pay for the training again. Especially when the FTOs have to buy more airplanes and find they have to update to more modern fleets, for which they will have to charge even higher prices. This would likely send supply even lower temporarily, but once the airlines realize they are short on pilots, they will have to loosen up the purse strings!

Alex Whittingham

23rd Feb 2006, 16:19

Goodness Nimbus, that's a bit harsh. At least I post under my name so you can see who I am. All my statements are true, you can check them yourself if you do a bit of research. Check out OAT's forum for starters. Your points in turn:

1. It was not intended to be self-promtional, I'm sorry you see it that way.
2. I use OAT's pictures on our brochure CD, with their permission, to illustrate the options available to students, one of those is the full integrated course.
3. OAT did cut the price of their DL groundschool by 25%. It didn't affect us at all. I suspect we appeal to a different sector.
4. You have sort out whether you think CTC's scheme is sponsorship or not, because you say both things in your post. It certainly is selected, but I refer you to BilleBob's earlier post about the effectiveness of the two selection processes.
5. CTC is modular and their success is greater than that of any current integrated course measured by any parameter you choose.
6. CTC's students are required to provide a bond for, which I agree is just the same as 'pay', about £60K. The training takes them up to type rating, though, which Oxford's does not.
7. I'll leave it to someone else to explain again the difference between the marketing approaches of CTC/FTE/CABAIR and Oxford. I suspect that's why OAT take a bit of a bashing and the others do not.

Edited to ask: Why does your profile say you hold a CPL IR when you say on the previous page that you haven't decided where to train yet?

EGNP

24th Feb 2006, 00:38

as a recent graduate of oxford, i have heard alot of the (bad) rumours going around about oxford from current students from other FTO's and and some from within oxford its self. i personally feel that i got what i paid for, well worth every penny. and they do really work at getting you that job!

i think some ppl expect a little to much and think that for £60oddK that they will be spoon fed every single thing and then oxford will go and job hunt for you, which is not the case, from an airline point of view if oxford call up the airline saying "here is John Smith's CV he would really like a job" then the airline just thinks, why cant he call and do it him self......however what oxford do is get themselvs known to the airlines and i found that loads .. i mean loads of airlines call oxford for new pilots on a weekly/monthy basis and when that happend i got an interview yippee....i learnt i kind of need to pass them as well as attend, anyway i called oxford and a week or so later i was being put forward or 2 more.... i have no complaits about my time at oxford.

as for speaking up and getting your self know in a bad way. me and the guys on my corridor in halls complaind about not having any internet connection, they said there was an internet room in the main halls which is a 5 min walk away we were lazy so pushed a little harder and within a week there was a wirless broadband router in our corridor, i didn't sence any resentmaent and they certainly have not shunned me away.

anyway that my bit.

too all of you going to phoenix, try and get up to sottsdale and go to Devils Martini and Dirty Dogg Saloon (wednesday night with a fistfull of doller bills lol)

hedges81

25th Feb 2006, 13:29

Nimbus 5,

First of all I say to you again, why would I waste my time making such an effort to attend, driving from chester to oxford and back in a day if I had already decided I did not like OAT?
From their borochure I was of the opinion that OAT could be the place for me. What the brochures do not convey however is the environment and atmosphere at OAT which is Corporate with a capital C. I do not like that anywhere in life, esp at a place where I might spend a year of my time.
You say that I claim to be a mind reader when I say that I could see what people were thinking. One does not have to be psychic to judge peoples thoughs. When I say that the OAT people gave answers to questions that the askers wanted to hear, that was easy to work out with a bit of common sense. For example, one of the questions asked was "How many of last years graduates have got airline jobs"? the answer that someone would want to hear from this would be something like "Most of them". The answer given was "oooh, dont know excatly, but I know a good few of them have". Such a "politician style" answer essentially tells u nothing, as if say 10 graduates had got jobs, that could be described as a good few, even if there were say 90 who hadnt. Such an answer could be interpreted by the asker, who is looking for evidence to back up their choice, as meaning that there is a good chance of them getting a job, which is what they want to hear.
Likewise you accuse me of "mind reading" when I say that the students and some of the attendees were sucking up to the gen manager. I have been sucked up to, and sucked up to people many times, it does not take a mind reader to notice such behaviour.
Regarding the millitary environment. In my opinion, a place where people are striped of their individuality and made to wear uniforms, with visual signs on the shoulders denoting their "rank" has a millitary atmosphere. Coupled with the fact that most of the instructors I spoke to were from RAF backgrounds, with their ingrained millitary attitude likely to be carried across to the school, I believe it was fair that I gained that impression.
I did ask questions to some of the students, but only in earshot of the tour guides, so they were un-likely to express any negative opinions if they had any. I have since been instructed for my PPL by an ex OAT student, who expressed a very negative opinion of the place, not the training which he said was very good, but of the way the students are treated in such a regimented manner.
Regarding the planes, yes, through reading their brochures and taking into account the price tag, which is considerably more than anywhere else, I figured that OAT must have superior state of the art planes, or else where would the money go? They were no better than Id seen anywhere else, indeed the twin senecas are actually inferior to the twin diamonds I saw at Stapleford, a modular school.
You say that my post is rediculous, why? All I am doing is expressing my honest opinion of the open day in a well though out manner.

You say that this thread has become a joke, because it started out as "a positive post for OAT" but has turned into an OAT bashing session. If you read this thread properly you will notice that no-one here has actually said that OAT is "crappy", all they are saying is that it is not vastly superior to many other schools, which is what a lot of people are led to believe. If all you wish to read is positive things about OAT, then I suggest you stick to their marketing brochures and keep out of the real world. Indeed they way you leap to the defence of OAT so vehemently is rather strange considering you do not have any personal connection with the place. I suggest this is because you have pretty much made up your mind to go there, and feel uncomfotable when you read things that make your decision not seem so good as you would like to think. Dont bury your head in the sand, if you do read negative things about OAT, take them seriously, and if you still want to go there then fair play.
Finally, for you own good I advise you NOT to choose OATs modular course. A number of people who have actually done/ are doing it have said some quite worrying things in this forum. Have a look at this excellent thread, started by King Rooney, the man OAT would like to silence, to see for your self. http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=204650

Frank Furillo

25th Feb 2006, 15:04

As a Ex Modular student, who has got a job offer with in six months and flying a Boeing, I have read this thread and others like it with amusment.
I have no beef with Oxford or any other school for that matter, my problem is that there seems to be a great number of arrogant fools that have gone intergrated, or more importantly have not even started their courses yet and are gladly informing us all that they are the next Scott Crossfield:confused: :confused: :confused:
Well they might be, then again I am sure most of them would never have heard of him. It also seems rather strange that Nimbus 5 has been absent for a few days, anything to do with the minor point Alex Whittingham brought up????
FF

hedges81

25th Feb 2006, 17:41

nimbus 5, ur not doing very well here are you?
First you post a series of very imature posts which don´t hold water, and then you are sprung for pretending to be a qualified pilot!
Furthermore, if uve read any of the posts (including the link I gave you) regarding OATs modular scheme, and their treatment of the mod guys, id imagine ur having a serious rethink about your training options. Back to the drawing board, in more ways than one, eh!

Send Clowns

25th Feb 2006, 18:19

Nimbus can now learn valuable lesson, appropriate to others. In this business, don't bull****. It is too tight, there are too many people who know people who know the truth, and also know people who will be vital to your career later on!

There are a lot of people who post on PPRuNe who work in the training system or recruit those coming out of the other side. There are also a lot who post on issues relating to that without knowing much about what they are talking about.

porridge

25th Feb 2006, 19:23

The title of this thread says it all: “A positive post for OAT”; the definitive part is the “A” part of the sentence i.e. not “another”, not “more” etc,
I have read the posts by particularly Scroggs and Alex Whittingham and these distil the essentials of what the wary Wannabee should know about the various major league players in the FTO market in the Anglo-centric world.
It comes down to a couple of points related to fools:
1. “ they are soon parted from their money”
2. “in life one is born every minute and in aviation training, one every second”
I would venture to say that the fools make the most noise about their mistakes and encourage those of a similar persuasion to join them in their folly, the wise keep their own counsel, look at the pertinent advice that is given and keeping it to themselves steal a march on the more gullible wannabee.
However, one can lead a horse to water, but one cannot make it drink. I don’t know how much time and energy I have spent giving people cautionary advice, to only see them go off and get badly burned when they ignore it. I often wonder what incredible pearls of wisdom is imparted by those operators that I have warned people about, even implored them not to risk their money with and what to they do – they go and do it anyway, so why to I waste my time I wonder?
If I could only have a small 10% commission of the money that they have wasted contrary to my advice I would be well off.
The best part on PPRuNe is that one can get a lot of good, non-biased information that is relevant and it will save people money, heartache and disillusion if you look at it properly without the blinkers. However it doesn’t seem to be able to match the hypnotic allure and persuasion from the spin-doctors. But we all listened too, and voted for, Tony didn’t we (and on that I not saying which one; or maybe I mean both!)?

Busbo

25th Feb 2006, 21:02

So what exactly does that last post tell us? That people who speak in a quite unnecessarily complicated way, slipping in proberbs metaphors and all those other things we tried to leave at school here there and everywhere are the kind of people that annoy us no-end?

No doubt this post of mine will be swiftly followed by a reply of a smiliar nature but never mind, I'm sure it'll have as much substance as the first. Why is it that people who've been to a particular FTO and then recommend based on their own first-hand experience are branded fools? Everyone has an opinion and in my experience so far the person who has the lesser hours in their logbook is just another deluded newbie who needs his or her hand holding.

I appologise in part for this post, I am a little tired and maybe a little cranky too but the amount of advice forced rather than given when asked for on here can be a little tedious.

Nimbus5

25th Feb 2006, 23:26

Hedges,

The thread started by Muddy Boots seemed to be a fairly decent and objective discussion with many former and wannabe OAT students contributing both positive and negative comments about their experience. It was then merged with your very one sided tirade. Scroggs rightly states that merging threads is a common practice on PPrune, but I don't accept that it should have been done to keep it from becoming all about OAT. Based on the title, I would expect it to be all about OAT. This is why I say it has become a joke. Perhaps Scroggs' intention was to keep it from being overly positive about OAT though I don't think it was nor would it have lasted long had it been. If anything, merging the two threads brought balance to the one you started.

I don't understand why some think it strange I have been absent for a few days. I think most posters here, including yourself, have a life outside PPrune that needs tending from time to time. To answer Alex's question, the training I am considering is uprading a CPL/IR to fATPL by doing ATPL theory and MCC. Sorry, but there is no sinister plot.

Send Clowns

26th Feb 2006, 00:34

Muddy Boots

I have been rereading a few things, and have to correct a serious mispprehension that you seem to have.Those are the schools that charge 30k less and have a/c that go u/s suddenly, can you come back tomorrow... (Which is what my PPL experience was)This is not your PPL any more! These are not registered training facilities, they are approved FTOs, closely monitored by the CAA. Some of the small schools do extremely well in the CAA inspections.

I have known a few FTOs, as there have been 6 in Bournemouth (including one still run in a nissen hut, by men in smart shirts, with a good reputation) in the time I lived there, unsurprisingly with the qualities of the airport for training. Apart from one specific aircraft, bought by a now-defunct company under difficult circumstances (when JAA first came in all companies suddenly needed complex singles for CPL completion, and Arrows were like rocking-horse manure) I have not known any to have problems keeping their fleets running. The small companies keep their student numbers to manageable levels (and turn away students rather than overburden their system) and therefore avoid any more delay than the large ones.

In fact, looking back to when I did my training (with the defunct FTO), at the then largest, best-known FTO of 3 or 4 in Bournemouth, we had the least impressive fleet - PA-44s instead of Be-76s and an Arrow as old as I was as compared to a brand new Arrow III or a Beech Sierra.

The small company always has something to prove, the large guys can sit and wait for the money to roll in by inertia!

Nimbus

Sorry, but that makes no sense at all!Hedges,

The thread started by Muddy Boots seemed to be a fairly decent and objective discussion with many former and wannabe OAT students contributing both positive and negative comments about their experience. It was then merged with your very one sided tirade.Where did you get the idea that only former and wannabe OAT students should post? As you said Muddy started it, but he did not specifically request that, nor would that be normal for a PPRuNe thread.

You suggest that you were expecting negative comments as well as positive. Why do you not accept a post that is entirely negative, and complain it is one-sided? Muddy's post is completely one-sided itself, entirely positive! Why is that post more relevant than Hedges's (which at least had the virtue of being almost entirely a description of his experience, rather than repetition of what he had been told but could not really know at his stage)?I will most likely choose ModularIf you have a CPL/IR then surely there is no decision to make. Integrated training seems a poor enough choice for a self-sponsored ab initio pilot, but it is ridiculous if you have significant experience, let alone a CPL/IR! You only require the ground exams. Why consider an integrated course?

By the way, quoting Oxford's pay level of £34k for instructors as a reason they are so expensive does not take account of the fact that this is normal for well-qualified instructors. The people teaching you will not be the same as those PPL instructors on any CPL or IR course.

Frank Furillo

26th Feb 2006, 08:52

Nimbus, you said this:
To answer Alex's question, the training I am considering is uprading a CPL/IR to fATPL by doing ATPL theory and MCC. Sorry, but there is no sinister plot.
So you are now going to spend a lot of money to get ATPL theory exam passes. Why the :mad: did you not take the ATPL wriitens in the first place? It would have saved you lots of money and time??????
With this in mind why choose to go intergrated then????
As previously said don't bull****

scroggs

26th Feb 2006, 12:45

by Nimbus5
The thread started by Muddy Boots seemed to be a fairly decent and objective discussion with many former and wannabe OAT students contributing both positive and negative comments about their experience. It was then merged with your very one sided tirade. Scroggs rightly states that merging threads is a common practice on PPrune, but I don't accept that it should have been done to keep it from becoming all about OAT. Based on the title, I would expect it to be all about OAT. This is why I say it has become a joke. Perhaps Scroggs' intention was to keep it from being overly positive about OAT though I don't think it was nor would it have lasted long had it been. If anything, merging the two threads brought balance to the one you started.

I think you missed my point, Nimbus. I merged the threads for two reasons: firstly, having several threads about the same school is a waste of space and makes it difficult for readers. Secondly, there is no point having one thread pro-Oxford and another anti-Oxford. That way, those who subscribe to one point of view or the other simply choose the thread they wish to agree with and neither thread goes anywhere, and no-one's view is challenged. I want interesting, active, informative, controversial and challenging discussion (without name-calling and insults!) - that's what makes people come back for more. Now both threads are combined, we have a discussion where both points of view are represented. However, I would ask you all to note what the voices of experience have said, and to think carefully how much credence you give each correspondent here.

Scroggs

Aerospace101

26th Feb 2006, 20:13

I cant help thinking that this indusrty seems to be so similar to that of music?! :eek: - in terms of getting that shiny jet job

I mean all the critics love to criticise and condem all those 'manufactured' pop artists and so on these forums there is always criticism for the 'elitism' that is OAT and the other institutions pumping out pilots onto jets!

Take my comparison;

The 'traditional' almost oldskool approach;

Music Bands form, practice for years, do all the gigs around pubs & clubs for years, then they get their lucky break or their experience & fan base grows to get them featured nationally; then they live their dream!

For pilots you spend years working and saving up; dish out 30k whilst working to do a modular course. Then go join a turbo-prop small regional operator. Once enough experience is made; then off to the RHS of a shiny jet.

The zero to hero approach;

You sign up to Pop Idol, go through a tough selection procedure, get trained to sing*, make it through the manufactured pop school, public loving you, record label loving you, then live the dream!

For pilots you go through a tough selection procedure, dosh out 60K (either a huge loan or daddys wallet), manufactured pilot in a year, through the school contacts youre put into the RHS of a shiny jet.

*debatable!

The 2 approaches seem so identical?!?

MrHorgy

26th Feb 2006, 22:22

Near enough, but which pilot will be the next Michelle McManus? :{

Horgy

scroggs

28th Feb 2006, 10:56

Nimbus5 is indeed posting from OAT. Make of that what you will.

Scroggs

Aerospace101

28th Feb 2006, 11:14

Busted! lol

hedges81

28th Feb 2006, 15:56

is it not about time that Nimbus5 was banned then?

Scroggs, I would also suggest checking out Muddy Boots ip address as well, would not surprise me if he/ she was at OAT as well. Apologies Mr boots if you are not.

Indeed it would I think be an interesting execise to check up on all the ppruners who put positive posts in for OAT. Reading such posts, it is strange the way that a lot of people leap to OATs defence, as if any criticism of the place is some kind of mortal insult. Perhaps there is something alltogether more sinister going on?

So we have possibly another thing to add to the list of questionable marketing tactics used by OAT.
Posing as innocent wannabes in this forum to further mislead people into lining their pockets. Imoral in my opinion.
King Rooney would have a field day!

hedges81

28th Feb 2006, 16:54

Indeed when I was at Oxford certain students indeed mentioned they had been approached by management and asked to put positive posts on prune etc :

And I bet many of them do, as part of the "sucking up" process mentioned in my review of the open day.

What Alex from Bristol does is very admirable and honest, posting under his real name, in the name of his employer. I may be wrong, but as far as I know there is no-one from OAT who does the same.
Come on then OAT, have the guts to officially defend ur organisation in this forum, rather than attempting to deceive people. Or maybe it is necessary for them to defend themselves covertly, as their arguments to promote/ defend themselves do not hold sufficient water to be posted in their own name?

Aerospace101

28th Feb 2006, 17:10

Reading such posts, it is strange the way that a lot of people leap to OATs defence, as if any criticism of the place is some kind of mortal insult.

I reckon the fact that students tend to get very defensive is the fact that theyve got the largest financial risk on thier shoulders. Forget about employment prospects & ba ssp's etc at the end of the day students are risking £75k with no guarantee- now that's one hell of a risk! Then people come on here saying the place is ****; what do you expect them to say! They most probably feel insecure.

Its like forking out loads of dosh for something like a car; and random people going thats ****, youre ****! You'd get very insecure & start defending your choice!

If you banned the oat ISP- you'd probably end up shutting off all the studes in halls! :{

Minimalist

28th Feb 2006, 17:28

Thought I'd start by saying I do not work for OAT, I am a former student of theirs and for all the time I was there the management line was that pprune was a waste of time. (I guess it was all that OAT bashing that did it.)

I am a former APP student and thought the course was excellent - I thought overall all the tuition was top quality and, on the rare occasion when I had a problem, this was always sorted out in an adult and professional way.

The modular students get the same ground school and flight instructors so there should be no difference - and as far as I could tell the reasons for choosing modular or integrated were almost always personal, rather than being a case of one route better than the other.

I think the key really is to choose a school and a method (modular or integrated) that maximises your own chances of getting first time passes. There's no point in being integrated if you have 10 resits when you might have done better being a modular student. But clearly I can't make full comments on other schools or on the modular route since I have no experience of either. I can say that the route I chose worked well for me and that I enjoyed it.

If you are thinking of training why not ring up or email the pilot recruitment people at airlines and ask what sort of low hours pilots they are looking for. That's what I did and I discovered that the airline I wanted most to work for has a policy not to take on low hours modular students (which is still in place), although they will take on modular pilots with full ATPLs. Now I am working there, I think it's a stupid policy but it's unlikely to change in the near future. Other airlines don't care one way or the other, which, I think, just goes to show that, whatever way you train, you won't please everyone.

Blinkz

28th Feb 2006, 20:20

This thread is hilarious. Some of the stuff you are accusing OAT of is just classic. But I'm starting to think that maybe this is abit of reverse physcology going on here......

There are a number of people here who are continually slated OAT, perhaps this is Cabair in disguise!!!! come to rescue the poor students from OATs evil grasp!!! :} or maybe Jerez?? No can't be Jerez, they would have used more spanish sounding alias....

Keep up the good work guys, entertainment at its best! :ok:

Check Mags On

28th Feb 2006, 22:29

Firstly I do not know King Rooney in any way.

Secondly IMHO King Rooney is not the mouth piece of some other FTO.
If he is, he should remain Persona Non Grata.

On that basis can the mods reinstate King Rooney as while he may have gone about his business in a fashion not approved.

This thread proves what he was saying all along, it is not the instruction (be it ground or flight training) that is in question. I have numerous friends who have graduated from OAT and they are all very accomplished pilots.

It is the marketing spin that is used to encourage people to enrol.

At least as other people have pointed out Alex from Bristol GS (yes I went there two and a half years ago) uses his own name.

If it really is an employee or someone posting at their behest using the anonymity that this site gives you. They have done themselves a great disservice. How can we believe any post that is in support of OAT again, especially if they have a zero post count.

There will no doubt be some very good OAT graduates who may have some positve and sound advice to give in the future, and unfortuanately due to Nimbalist 5 (whoops slip of the tongue) their opinion will count for nothing.

Oxford you do not deserve the hard working intelligent students that grace your halls.

CMO

Minimalist

28th Feb 2006, 23:25

Crickey, not sure why I bothered now.

So are you guys saying the original poster (who asked for positive OAT experiences) is someone working for OAT? And that anyone who writes a positive post about OAT must be working for them? Especially if they are new to the site?? (I signed up yesterday).

You are all indeed thicker than you seem.

Check Mags On

28th Feb 2006, 23:51

Minimalist

On the 22nd Feb this was the last line of Nimbus 5's post

"Just for the record, I have not made up my mind where to train yet, but I will most likely choose Modular, maybe at OAT or maybe elsewhere. I do give them a bit more credit than you though."

Nimbus5 is indeed posting from OAT. Make of that what you will.
Scroggs

Why would someone who has not yet made up there mind where to train, be posting from inside OAT.
Muddy Boots and you may well have posted in all innocence.

It is not my accusation that any positive post must have been penned by an OAT employee. It is my belief that because of the actions of a minority the voice of a great majority of honest people will now be tarred with the same brush.

If you are new to this site and your post is genuine then let me be the first to welcome you to this forum.

In the past quite a few people have spouted their opinions on this website and when the majority have disagreed with them they have simply re-registered under a different name and their first post is the same story with a slightly different spin. You may only be guilty of bad timing but to others who have been here longer than I, that is the first thing that they will think.

If you are genuine then I apologise for the insinuation.

CMO

hedges81

1st Mar 2006, 19:55

Scroggs, where is Minimalist posting from? surely he/she would not be stupid enough to post again from OAT, would they?

I think it is very unlikely that someone who has been through OAT and is now working as an airline pilot would be new to this site.

hedges81

1st Mar 2006, 20:32

If you are thinking of training why not ring up or email the pilot recruitment people at airlines and ask what sort of low hours pilots they are looking for. That's what I did and I discovered that the airline I wanted most to work for has a policy not to take on low hours modular students (which is still in place), although they will take on modular pilots with full ATPLs. Now I am working there, I think it's a stupid policy but it's unlikely to change in the near future.

"Now I am working there". Not content with pretending to be a wannabe who is thinking about going to OAT, this clown now pretends, he thinks subtlely, to be a "sucessful" OAT graduate who has got that all elusive airline job.

The reputation of OAT is getting more and more damaged by the minute.
It is certainly a fact that posts on this website can and do influence peoples choices re training, I know it has with me, and I hope very much that this thread is doing the same.

Send Clowns

1st Mar 2006, 21:43

I don't know anyone who had decided before starting the course which airline they wanted to work for. I certainly don't know anyone who focussed on one, and think it most unlikely that he or she would be successful. The airlines that profess a policy of only taking integrated graduates take very few newly-qualified pilots anyway; it seems most unwise to direct your whole training towards one airline, let alone one that isn't likely to take you on! As a ground instructor and flight instructor, and propping up a flying-club bar I know a lot of pilots, especially low-hour commercial pilots, so why have I never met anyone who directs his career in anything like this way, I wonder?

Hedges might have a point.

purple head

2nd Mar 2006, 02:03

I went to oxford as a modular student and I'll just make a list of positives and negatives.I DID MY CPL/MECR/IR & MCC at Oxford.
Positives
- The quality of flying instruction was excellent. Having been lucky enough to have spent 3 years on a university air squadron (I consider the RAF to be the best flying school in the world) I found my instructors were more mature in age and experience than many other schools, and of a similar dedication and standard to the training I received on the UAS. OAT instructors do get paid more money than some other training schools so you would expect them to have better instructors- market forces say the best instructors will go to where they can get paid more.
- Free use of IFR computer training devices complete with all the switches, yoke and rudder pedals etc. They have a room that you can use for free that is a very good way of learning and practicing IR procedures and learning what the needles do and when. Many people will say Microsoft flight sim can do this, but in truth the two do not compare. I also got free time on a Seneca frasca II simulator, but was not allowed to add the hours- again I would be surprised if other flight training organizations offer that, although you do have to have a good relationship with your instructor to get on the Frasca II sim.
- On the whole the modern buildings are a pleasant place to learn to fly, I'm sure you would rather plan your flight in a nice modern building with computer access to flight planning software and weather, than in some dirty cramped place.
- Customer service staffs are very friendly
- Careers help, although being modular I did not qualify for this, I was helped with my CV - which now looks very nice and professional and was given time on a one to one basis on career advice. The lectures from visiting airlines are also very useful and allow you to hand your CV into the people who will recruit in person, or at the very least a contact name of who to address the letter to- I got a reply from every person who visited oxford that I sent my CV.
- The area where you train is nice, remember you will spend a long time there, the village of Kidlington is small but pleasant and Oxford is only a short bus journey or car ride away.
_ The over all quality of students seemed quite high, I did some hour building at the Riverside in Tulsa USA (I was very pleased with the riverside - not as good as Oxford - but very cheap and good value) and the other students there just did not seem to be as gifted (sorry I can not think of a better way to put it) as the OAT students, although many were better friends, if that makes sense?
- When I was there almost everyone on the integrated course had job interviews with BA, even before they had finished training- although out of interest most did not get selected, but still they had the chance to impress and unless they had gone integrated they would not have been offered that chance.

Negatives
-If you have a problem be prepared to make a noise and push your case. When I was there I was told my MECR/IR could not start until 3 weeks after I had finished my CPL and, this was while I was staying in the accommodation on site. Obviously I did not want a three-week gap in training so I tried to sort it out. Customer Services said it was impossible for me to start, the flying side of the business said no problem they have enough instructors and aircraft for me to start my MECR/IR. This went on for about two weeks while I was doing my CPL, not the hardest flying test you will do but the added Oxford induced stress was not welcome. Anyway I had to complain direct to the MD, I then got an e-mail from customer services asking me to come and see them and my problem was sorted out. This was not the only difficulty with my training program oxford caused me.Sometimes at Oxford you get the idea that the head is not talking to the body.
- The is a band of flying instructor that are sick of the system at oxford and will moan and you hear them moan about the company politics, there is certainly some discontented flying instructors at oxford.
- The onsite accommodation is way too expensive, even though it is very convenient. The Internet access they provide in your room is very very slow or often did not work at all. The food included in accommodation is not of good quality, although you can now opt out of food inclusive accommodation. The canteen was getting renovated when I was there - so the quality might have changed- ANY comments current students?
The cleaners for the accommodation are useless and do not clean properly.
-The slot and booking system for aircraft at oxford is very good............until
Some bugger in ops changes your booking. Example your booked in for a flight at 4pm tomorrow, so you go home today at midday. Next day you get a phone call at 9am asking where you are, ops changed your booking to 9am, but of course you were not at the school so had no idea and what is worse they will say it is your fault for not checking for any changes last thing at night. So you find yourself regularly check the ops booking board for changes.
- I keep in touch with a few modular and integrated students from Oxford, some have jobs and some do not. I would be surprised if the success of integrated is as high as they quote- especially if you look at figures of only the last six months- just my personal experience from talking to integrated graduates about there course success rates.

I was lucky and I got a job with an airline in less than a month after graduating form oxford, although in my case, its a foreign airline and they had not even head of OAT- so having there name on my CV did not help. In the month before getting employed I did send CV's to UK airlines and subsequently had two offers of interviews from two of them, so maybe Oxford on the CV is a good thing, it certainly is not a bad thing in my opinion.
As a side note I did my ground school at Bristol and I think they were fist class, when I looked at oxford notes, Bristol’s were superior and I actually helped some oxford students, teaching them some of the Bristol "tricks" for learning and remembering the stuff for ATPL exams.
If I could go there again, I probably would. My advise to modular and integrated students would be if you go there go there expecting to pay for the fATPL only, do not expect them to get you a job. If your happy to pay for the facilities they offer (which on the whole are very good) then pay your money it is a good school, think of any career help you receive (Including the Airline Prep course students) as an added bonus and you will be happy. If you go there just because you think you can buy a jet job, then you might be disappointed.

scroggs

2nd Mar 2006, 07:47

OK, let's calm down on the conspiracy theories! Nimbus5 isn't the first student or staff member of a school to pose as a wannabe still deliberating, and I'm sure he won't be the last. He may well have other identities, but (just for the record) Minimalist isn't one of them - and Minimalist is not posting from OAT.

Now, I'm not going to go too far with all this detective work. I do try and have a life outside Pprune, and right now Table Mountain is visible from my hotel room and I'd rather like to climb it today - weather and Pprune permitting!

Just remember the big red writing at the bottom of the page. There may be other OAT stooges posting on this thread, or there may not. OAT's opinion of Pprune is, and will remain, immaterial; it's your opinion of them that is important! This is why we urge you to make up your own minds having visited the schools you're interested in.

Scroggs

flystudent

2nd Mar 2006, 10:06

I was emailed the link to this thread about a week ago and have been glancing back now and then out of interest to see what the latest is. I am an ex Oxford APP graduate and thought I would add my views on it all I think this reply will remain neutral and hopefully helpful.

I started on the APP course when it was in its infancy, when I was 29 years old.
Having had a rewarding career thus far I decided it was time to take the step of trying to become a pilot (one of those childhood dream things).

I did very little research into which school I would go to, I had friends that flew for BA and Oxford was the school they had been put through under the BA cadet scheme so that was good enough for me. Oxford it was to be - I chose an integrated route purely down to the fact that unless I am on a timetable I am a bit useless and thought the compacted timetabled schedule would be what I needed personally to achieve my goals. I had dependants and partner in the UK so the thought of going overseas to train wasn't an ideal solution for me.

Aerospace struck a chord with me in an earlier post when he/she mentioned that students would get very defence if they read people bad mouthing the school they have just paid 60,000GBP to attend - because I know it would pi$$ me off when I was a student and I had a few spats on here for that very reason (you know toys out cot, mud slinging, name calling etc etc - all very non productive ;) )

Bear in mind what follows is based on my time there from May 03 - December 04, so some things may have changed.

My goals whilst on he course were: to pass everything first time, get an exam average of at least 85% and get a first series in my IR, then I would be in for a shot at the BA selection if it ever materialised for low hour students(when I started course BA didn't have the SSP scheme and were not taking on low hours students)

Phase I

A class of 14, lived in a shared house in Kidlington with 2 others in my class. Ground school was hard work and had it not been for the Jolly boatman and the landlord there (Goldfinger) we would have become very numb in this part of the course - however life is all about balance - ground school all day, study for about 3-4 hours when we got home and then down the pub for last orders (or perhaps a little earlier). It's all very exciting at first but you soon start to feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog day so you have to try and keep yourself sane (in our case it was through socialising - aka networking :cool: )

We chose against the halls as to be honest at the time the halls were pretty small, the food left a bit to be desired and they cost a lot of money, you could go uncatered in the halls but there wasn't really any cooking facilities and we had heard from others in halls that it could be a bit frustrating trying to get piece and quiet what will the Algerian air force cadets charging about the place and bellowing at 1-2 in the morning (they weren't all like that, a lot of them also frequented some of Kidlington finest pubs) so for us it was a house in Kidlington, cost about £800 a month between the 3 of us, if I recall halls was at the time £160 -1 90 each a week.

With Ground school out of the way it was off to America for the CPL flying, we didn't go to phoenix, we were in Tyler Texas so I cant comment on phoenix but the flying was a hoot and it was so nice not to have to come home and study after flying each day - we flew out there with AA (downside had to pay for your refreshments instead of if we had gone with BA ).
I think the only problems out there with he fair weather flying was that transport logistics were a bit troublesome, there was 2 vans for use by 14 students so it was a little troublesome, in the end we gave up and hired our own vehicle for the duration - this gave a lot more freedom and the ability to explore the area a bit more.........

Back to Oxford after the fair weather flying and at the time it was phase II of ground school (I think phase I and II are bolted together now, you do all the ground school first). This time having been living in the local area in phase I we had established that Woodstock was indeed a better night out than Kidlington (in our eyes) though the buses didn't run as frequently into Oxford, for those nights out. Woodstock has about 9-10 pubs if I recall and didn't seem to have as much attitude as Kidlington, rent was about the same for a 3 bed house.

Phase II much like phase I, more groundhog days but need to get those exams out the way.

Then it was time for the IR training, talk about a shock to the system, all that fun we had had in the states was replaced with hard work. Based on my experiences I would offer the following advice.

1. Instructor - try to ensure you are allocated an instructor who does not have a high instructor to student ratio as you could find yourself not flying as often as you like and as everyone says at this early stage continuity is the key. I became frustrated in my training as some people in my class seemed to be leaps and bounds ahead of me on sorties and this was down to the instructor ratio - this meant my training was taking longer and we had a house lease that was going to run out, and cost more money if I had to stay.

2. The Frasca sim that Purple head mentioned, this was fantastic and I hope they still have it, if they had a few more of these it would be great - you could book time on it and a friend would come in with you and you could basically fly the common routes in a sim exactly the same a the real aircraft, in my opinion it was far more useful than the FNPTII sims.

3. I would disagree with purple head regarding those IFR training machines, when I was there you were lucky if you could find one that didn't wander all over the place, eventually I found one that worked I but preferred to use the frasca.

4. Our Instructor would tell us to pitch up early doors even if the sim/ac wasn't booked till later, this was in case of the situation purple head described of slots moving, so if someone didn't show you could jump in and take the aircraft.

5. At the time I was training people would be trying to get hold of aircraft left right and centre and it became a strain. A priority list was devised so if a slot did become available they would allocate accordingly, it worked on the basis of if you have just started you are lower down the list and if you are getting close to taking your IR you are higher up the list, seemed to work though getting bumped off a slot in the early days for example if an a/c went tech was frustrating. (but overall it seemed fair).

The First Officer fundamentals course was good, great instructors and it was light hearted relief.

The 40 hours in the 737 sim was good too (20 hours PNF and 20 PF) it gave a good insight into things and all of a sudden the course seemed a bit more real. The instructors seemed to think the thing was being worked too hard and not getting enough maintenance and if it did go pear shaped would create a real bottle neck in terms of output. It was a bottle neck when the Algerian guys were completing too, all of a sudden they would be given priority on the 737 sim as they had to be completed by such n such a date, understandable I suppose as it was a repeat contract - got to keep that contract sweet. :p

Money, well most people borrowed the money from the Kidlington HSBC bank, though had to secure this against mum and dads houses etc etc at the time I think it was half a percent above the BOE base rate and it works out that you repay about £800 a month for 11 years, this started 6 months after you finish at Oxford.

Along the way I had a few issues that I made vocal and perhaps wish I hadn't, I don't believe they did me any favours, so as has already been said, pay up, put up and shut up and get spat out the machine at the end. The airline recruitment circle is overall very small and I think it's still very much an old boys thing and people do talk !

In the 18 months that all this took place BA started their SSP scheme so I hoped to be in the running for that. At the end of it all I came out with what I set out to get I was an integrated student with >85% average first time pass every exam and first series IR pass, however I and some others on APP courses were not invited for the BA selection. But I did get a job elsewhere.
The only problem was I had to pay for my type rating 19,000GBP up front, several others did do, those that went to Jet2 and Excel did too. The Bmibaby people have their type rating costs taken out of their salary in fact I think the only people who didn't have to pay for their training was the BA SSP guys. But you have to weigh it all up really - the BA SSP cadets are on a reduced salary for a number of years but get their training free. The others have to pay for type rating up front (which means no bond) and after a year you could perhaps apply to BA on the DEP scheme (500 hours) and if you get in you come in at I think it's about the equivalent of year 4 or year 5 of the SSP salary scheme. Or you can hold out till you have more hours and apply to other airlines, or indeed if you are happy stay where you are.

From completing my course to getting a job took me about 7 months, In that time every month I would book time in a jet sim and do some sids or stars just to keep my hand in, and that costs money too. I started my course with 1 pre APP integrated student, and 2 modulars ( I think). A lot of the modular guys we got to know have got jobs too with other carriers but again had to pay for type ratings - nowadays I think it is worth planning for this cost because as long as the airlines know people will pay for them why would they.

One other thing, just because you go APP doesn't mean you WILL get a job, I know people who were APP when I was there who are still without a job. Oh and once you start the course.... dont read this website - it's very very depressing to be half way through your ground school and read about someone who has come out the sausage factory and is unable to find work and the repayments are due. You will find those sort of posts all over here because people who have got their job generally have no reason to be posting on here.

Bye 4 now
FS :ok: