OAA employment statistics

[jamestkirk]

This is just a genereal question about emplyment statistics on the OAA site. As far as I can see its the only organisation that posts them and wanted to get an idea of whats going on with job opportunities at the moment.

Please note that I have nothing to prove or want to criticize any FTO.

The statistics state that 53 have found work so far this year.I can see that 26 were Ryanair took 26 so i assume SSTR and that Netjets took 15, which I think is a training partner.

So I think that 12 have found employment the old fashioned non supported/SSTR way.

It would just be interesting to find out how many people went through the APP course and if the amount of people in training has reduced significantly?

And as a percentage how many have found work without being in a scheme or SSTR.

I suppoose I want to get an idea that with so many unemplyed pilots out there is the influx of F-ATPL'ers continuing or is there a trend of the market evening itself out IF there is a future shortage of flight crew.

[thetimesreader84]

A few years ago, when I was on the recieving end of a presentation from OAA, one of the questions that was asked (after their statement of "we placed XXX cadets with airlines last year, and XX per month") was "It's all very nice that your placing XXX cadets with airlines per year, but how many cadets are going through your door over the same period of time, roughly?"

To which OAA's reply was "We placed XXX cadets last year". Repeatedly. :ugh:

I always thought that was interesting.

(ps Although i haven't been through OAA myself, i know several people that have, and they all say that it has its good and bad points. No axe to grind here...)

[jamestkirk]

Yes, i agree, its hard to find out those figures as it would give a true representation.

[bananaman2]

... i think it is likely the case that the Thomas Cook intake was from the cadet scheme in place at Oxford... so you can discount them from the 12 people you mention.

[Cirrus_Clouds]

(timesreader) Sounds like you got them in a sticky situation there :p

Whilst having been to look around OAT and the likes of CTC, CTC a while back did like to mention that they have had 100% placement with their students, but as you say just giving employment stats means nothing without comparing figures of student pilots v those employed. Would be good to show this as percentage stats.

In times like now anyone is lucky to get a job, some are still getting them, but only a few. I read that even CTC wasn't able to place students for the first time when Aer Lingus couldn't take them on, I think this is all sorted out though now.

If I had the choice between OAT or CTC, I think I'd go with CTC.

[batman123]

me too I have my statistic:

The statistics state that 53043435363636363 have found work so far this year.I can see that 2635357575757 were Ryanair took 26353356647575 so i assume SSTR and that Netjets took 1568675754, which I think is a training partner.

and these statistic are 100% accurate

[thetimesreader84]

As Disraeli once (allegedly) said "There are lies, damned lies and statistics".

As has been said many times, by many different people on these boards, you will not get a true representation from ANY fto. To do this would just be ludicrous from a business point of view. They are not there to provide a service, to grant wishes or fulfill dreams. They are purely there to make money, and if they can do that by "stretching the truth" then they will. After all, it is their jobs on the line at the end of the day...

I'm sure CTC did have a 100% placement rate. But how long were people waiting before they got placed, and who were they placed with? I know someone who has, like many others, gone down the Ryanair route. He will be classed as a "placement" by his FTO, despite completing the course jusst over a year ago.

Look beyond the statistics. Think for yourselves. Have your eyes wide, wide open.

[mad_jock]

Also as well those figures include all the courses. I was listed as a OAA success statistic even though I only did the distance learning course.

If you have had a dump in the training centrer and they find out that you have managed to get a job in an airline you are fair game to be included in those statistics. I know one lad who managed to be included twice (he was also a mod trained pilot who had only done distance learning with them) as the first company went bust just after he completed line training. Luckily he got another job 2 weeks later on a different type and strangely enough appeared twice in one year.

You can't even get the numbers from the CAA on how many individuals

1. Get an intial class 1
2. pass one ATPL exam
3. Complete all 14 exams
4. Complete a CPL GFT
5. Complete an IR GFT.
6. Complete an initial type rating. Although this is a bit off these days because of muppets paying for their own without a job afterwards.

Apparently its highly commercially sensitive information. I wonder why? (that's rubbish I know why, its because the whole industry would collapse if wannabies knew what the real chances were of them sitting in the RHS)

Unfortunately I realise that for me to go through my training costing as it did 35k and get a job another 5-10 people will have spent 150-200k and will not ever get to sit in the flightdeck of an airliner.

[LH2]

you will not get a true representation from ANY fto. To do this would just be ludicrous from a business point of view.

Actually, and while not disagreeing with the sentiment of your post, I thought I should let you know I believe the above is not factually correct based on my experience.

While I was doing my CPL training at a certain British FTO, I did hear their people advise a potential customer on one occasion (or rather, his parents) on the phone that the chances of finding a job as a commercial pilot were minimal, while on another occasion they recommended another candidate to attend another (non-associated) school based on geographical proximity and quality of training. I believe it was actually school policy to give this sort of, shall we say, candid advise.

I will not name the school concerned either in public or privately, so nobody thinks I have an axe to grind. This is just to question the one specific assertion I have quoted in my reply, based on my experience, while still agreeing in general terms with the rest of the post.

deranged_scotsman:
You can't even get the numbers from the CAA on how many individuals [....]


That's interesting. Is that based on you or someone you know of trying to get that info from the CAA?

[jamestkirk]

I agree with your sentiment and hopefully, when the market is this bad, people will try to find out the truth.

[mad_jock]

I tried to get it about 5 years ago.

They produce this http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=175&pagetype=90&pageid=10420

But there is no key and although CPL is listed you can't work out how many folk are getting produced per year who are CPL/IR qualified. If it does mean 1331 low houred pilots came on the market in 2007-2008 I can only see 50-60% of them getting jobs and that was in the "boom" years with everyone expanding. Same number today I could see only 20% of them getting jobs and only 10% if you choose to ignore the pay to fly schemes

I don't know if anyone has tried under the freedom of information act to try and get the numbers. But it would be interesting.

[captain_rossco]

in my household 100% or Oxford Graduates achieved first time I.R passes and have now been offered jobs


Regards
CR

[captain_rossco]

P.S

Is response to the above, flight training and Graduate statistics are published in FTN for all aviation licenses. Naturally this gives little indication as to the job market due to the number of Airline liquidations etc!

With regards to job offers, of the Oxford crowd i trained with from July 07 onwards, I'd say the recruitment numbers are leaning more towards 50% + (Not Including Sponsored Students and the 'Rent-an-airbus' for £40,000 crowd)

Regards

CR

[mad_jock]

Can you give a link to the FTN statistics on CPL/IR issue please.

And if your allowed to say how many folk do you reckon were going through OAA at the time?

[potkettleblack]

Whatever statistics you come up with don't forget that they will be for UK CAA issued licences and ratings. You then need to add on all the other EU bods (and US/Canadian/Commonwealth etc with right to live and work) that are competing for the same jobs in the UK and Ireland.

[Sciolistes]

Mad Jock,

Perhaps it is possible to infer the number from the amount of ATPL(A)s being issued. If one is comfortable with the assumption that the ATPL(A) issues are mostly for previous low houred guys as opposed to the other possible stream of foreign converts then I suppose it is possible to see some correlation year on year with the CPL issues, suggesting that most eventually get jobs.

[batman123]

personally, I eared from some recruiters, that the don't accept OAA pilots.

The reason is they think they can find a job just because they have the money. These recruiters don't like this kind of attitude.

A recruiter told me one day he put in the bin the CV of guys who write they come from Oxford.These recruiters have a hard time to get a job, and they apply the same system to his candidates. They like to see dedication, people having flown in Africa or flying small planes, flight instructors,etc....

I don't think you have more chance to get a job coming from OAA or any modular schools. I have never eared anyone asking me if I was modular or integrated.This is oh so British!
If they ask me, I would sy "integrated"even when I was modular. why? because I am "integrated" in my profession, it means you like what you do!

and by the way, integrated means "easy bankrupt" too....so think twice before enrolling in these integrated schools cuz they will suck you dry!.

[mini-jumbo]

Batman,

I'm not sure how you qualify dedication as having flown in Africa or been a flight instructor. I can assure you that the majority of people who go through integrated flying training as opposed to modular as just as dedicated. And most of them know that when they come out of the other side and start job hunting, it won't be a walk in the park.

Sorry for the thread drift, comments like the one above just wind me up.

[mad_jock]

Its just as valid interpretation as any of my theory's.

The whole thing doesn't add up without a key to tell you what each item actually means.

[FlatBroke]

This is something I have been wondering about myself. Not having attended any of the big FTO's myself I don't have first hand experience of the numbers they put through.
From OAA'S own forum, it says they start a course every month. Looking at APP course websites I guess there is about 20 per course, giving 200+ integrated folks per year. Perhaps a bit of a crude way of working a figure out but wouldn't think it could be too far off.
No idea if numbers are down at the integrated schools, but FTE Jerez are now offering Modular Flight Training again. This was suspended a couple of years ago to make way for integrated folk I believe.

[mini-jumbo]

Statistics can prove anything you want them to.

In my opinion, OAA's statistics mearly indicate which airlines recruited their graduates and in what numbers. To try to prove anything else with them is impossible and quite frankly of no use, as they are historical statistics the minute they are released. Nobody knows how many low hour (i.e straight out of training) and experienced pilots are currently unemployed.

If an OAA graduate took 3 years to find employment, then informed OAA that they had found a job, they would appear on the statistics for the year in which they found a job, thus further invalidating the data for statistical purposes.

[thetimesreader84]

LH2, I won't dispute your experience, If true, then I think (in my opinion) you should name the FTO as en example of an "ethical" FTO, however it does not match my own. I have been involved with 2, UK, FTO's, not however employed by them (thank god), as a sort of "poster boy" for them, and have been sent to seminars (Such as the FLYER show recently) and talked to prospective customers. Standing instructions from the management at both were to "talk up" chances of getting a job, and even to utter the hated line "you will find it easier to get a job at the end of it, there is a big retirement push coming up, and the credit crunch will be over by then."

I was only following orders... Didn't wash in Nuremburg, and it doesn't wash (in my conscience) now.

I know the company that I work for now will not look at people with, for want of a better way of putting it, the "Integrated Mentality". People who, when asked in a group to introduce themselves will stand up and say "Joe Bloggs, CP1234" "Jon Bull APP0987". I agree with this decision, as i find these people full of their own worth.

In my (albeit limited) experience, you seem to find that the people that struggle for that first job, that work as an FI, Tug Pilot, Ag Pilot, Para Dropper etc. just seem to be a bit friendlier, a bit more appreciative than those who come through an Integrated RHS Direct route.

Althought as i stated I haven't been involved with OAA in any capacity, I am led to believe that there are around 25-30 people finishing each month.

[jamestkirk]

Your 25-30 per month has just reminded me.

Actually i think the OAA website in its emplyment stats has written somewhere that since 2007 etc. that 750 graduates have been placed eqauting to 2 a day.

That backs up your 25-30 per month graduating.

In a very approximate way does that mean that circa 90 have grauated to date with 53 getting jobs (from whatever time period). Bearing in mind that of those 53, some may have been on previous courses.

[dartagnan]

European's Best-Paying Jobs (Top 5)
1. Surgeons ($206,770)
2. Anesthesiologists ($197,570)
3. Orthodontists ($194,930)
4. Obstetrician and gynecologists ($192,780)
5. Oral and maxillofacial surgeons ($190,420)

European's Worst-Paying Jobs (Bottom 5)
1. Combined food-preparation and service workers, ($17,400)
2. Cooks, fast food ($17,620)
3. Dishwashers ($17,750)
4. Dining room/cafeteria attendants, bartender helpers ($18,140)
5. Pilots graduated from Oxford Aviation Academy (OAA) ($18,300)

[INNflight]

As Disraeli once (allegedly) said "There are lies, damned lies and statistics".

100% true.

Lets see, I run a FTO, have 100 people graduate from my first integrated course:

40 get invited at EasyJet - 17 make it through to the flightdeck
50 get invited at Ryanair - 12 make it through to the flightdeck
10 get invited at Thomson - 2 make it through to the flightdeck

( obviously I didn't train them well it seems :} )

Still, out of 100, 31 got a job in the end, BUT - my FTO has a 100 % PLACEMENT RATE

Bend them how you want, statistics are most of the times not worth it.

[captain_rossco]

Very good dartagnan, very good, that must have taken a while.

Apologies for the late reply. The FTN statistics I mentioned are printed within the publication, graphs and pie charts galore with ATPL, CPL issues etc.

I finished my MCC in december had 2 job offers by January. Most of the Oxford students I finished with have gone to Ryanair. Very few didn't get in, some already had sponsored jobs to fill and others did not want the TR cost ball and chain.

All the while Ryanair are piping about the low the assessment success rate is at the moment.

Regards
CR

[WallyWumpus]

Rossco,

Your stats are interesting, and it seems to prove that things change month on month. If I can guess your end date, my course at OAA is 2 months ahead of yours. Of 9 interviewed by RYR, only 3 got in.

Wally.

[Propellerhead]

This argument is never ending but I had to rise to the bait again.....
For every story about some tin pot airline that won't take Oxford cadets there are many major ones (who you probably would prefer to work for anyway) who do, and who often prefer integrated cadets. BA take almost all cadets from FTE and Oxford, Jet2 have signed an exclusive deal with Oxford, FlyBe are sponsoring at the moment, NetJets is ongoing.....

There's nothing wrong with modular students but to say that going to Oxford puts you at a disadvantage is simply not true.

Also, don't get too obsessed with employment statistics. You are not a statistic, you are an individual. Make sure you work really hard and are towards the top of your course, and if you are an impressive, motivated, well rounded individual who's good at assessments and interviews, then it doesn't matter if only 10% are getting jobs so long as YOU are in that 10%!

[ford cortina]

And there is the rub, top 10% or so... :cool:

[mad_jock]

Well the tin pot airlines are the ones that are going to be hiring and the legacy ones are asking for voluntary reducancy.

The last two airlines I have worked for have recruited at least 7 low houred FO's in the last year with a fleet of less than 10 aircraft. None of them would take an integrated pilot while my arse is still hairy. H'mm thats 14 jobs for a fleet of 14 aircraft and with BA fleet of .... they can manage 36 in the last year? And you don't get to fly visual approaches in BA. Burrp burrp auto out at 200 ft that ain't being a pilot.


BA is fecked they are asking for voluntary redundancy.

BMI is taking paying cadets for line training.

Integrated trained FI's are seen as the blind leading the blind in flight instruction.

RYR will take you money for 500 hours, bit of a **** when you though you had payed your 70K for a BA job but hey ho whats another 30k to pay to fly.

Good luck chaps

[thetimesreader84]

While i agree the debate is never ending, I would challenge what propellerhead implies about how Oxford / Integrated schools give you an advantage.

BA only take low houred cadets from Oxford (:ugh:) and to get that you have to be in the top 5, grade wise, consistently of your class at OAA, AND pass an application / interview process with BA AND then they have to decide that they want you.

FlyBE are sponsoring at both Integrated and Modular Schools.
NetJets sponsor their own cadets, who train at Oxford. Not necessarily the same as an Oxford Integrated cadet.

I am not saying that Oxford puts you at a disadvantage. Merely that, in my opinion, there is no particular advantage.

And the "Tin Pot" airline I fly for has never been busier. Our Chief Pilot wouldnt take an integrated pilot "as long as (his) arse has a hole in it". FlyBE will take integrated Cadets. Ryanair will take anyone with an fATPL, £28k and enough nouce to get through a sim course.
Could it be that the reason for the never ending "which is best: integrated or modular?" debate is that there is really very little difference, except for a lot of money and a percieved superiority?

[leeds 65]

Mad jock i like your droll humour !

'burp,burp !'

[mad_jock]

The tinpot ones are in dribs and drabs

[clanger32]

I find it absolutely incredible, that anyone who is otherwise blessed with a normal intellect can actually, really, claim that either method of training produces superior or inferior pilots. Further I find it incredibly disturbing that these same, otherwise intelligent people would perpetuate that level of BS career wise.

Bottom line: There are plenty of integrated grads who aren't great flyers, because they spent all their time on the juice in Arizona, because they just got 'daddy' to pay for it, cos they just don't have the aptitude, cos, cos, cos.... Then there are plenty who are excellent pilots and have been trained in a structured manner, that ensures EVERY flight has a learning objective. Plenty who used the massive resources of an integrated school to learn as much as they can, plenty who became the best they could be (considering the hours they have)

Likewise, there are plenty of modular students who pissed around in the deserts, flying from one place to another, without actually having a learning objective, or practicing skills - just burning holes. There are plenty of Modular who paid using daddys money, there are plenty of modulars who just aren't that good. Then there are plenty who are bloody brilliant, who did everything they could, who used resources available to them and so on and so on.

The fact is the quality of the pilot is not dictated by the method of training. Anyone who is so insecure in themselves as a person or as a pilot as to need to try and discredit any other pilot based only on their training method should be ashamed. Very ashamed. It says lots about the lack of professionalism of the person.

And before someone says "and that applies to BA only taking integrated as well, does it?" Well yes, if their only reason is because "integrated are better trained". I suspect their reasons are more to do with "known quality of training and it's a handy way of cutting down otherwise endless applicants". It IS as valid to only accept mod students, but I highly doubt you can have a good idea of the standards of ALL mod students (rather than from a particular school) in the same way.

People wonder why this industry is going down the pan - this crap attitude is a good place to start.

[Propellerhead]

Come on Clanger 32, you can't let a reasoned, sensible argument get in the way of a good old fashioned scrap about modular vs integrated on Pprune! :}

[thetimesreader84]

Rex Banner - I was told by a friend (who completed OAA integrated last year) that that is OAA's criteria for putting forward prospective BA cadets, i.e. top 5 in class regularly. I will, however stand corrected.

BA only take low houred guys from integrated courses only as they have had significant numbers of training failures from modular candidates. As Clanger 32 said, it also allows them to cut down on numbers. I fear how many letters BA must get saying "i wanna be a piiiilotttt"

[Aerospace101]

i was told by OAT cadets (during my ba selection) that EVERYONE from oxford was put forward, including those with grades below what ba set as min standard.

[Adios]

If BA took the top five from every class, they'd have hired over 60 per year from OAA instead of more like 35. The question is not who do they take, but who do they interview. The answer is a heck of a lot more than 60 per year, when they were interviewing, so I think Rex is closer to the truth. Why let truth end a good debate on the rumour mill though?

[EK4457]

They could put forward biggles for all it's worth. It doesn't matter.

BA are not recruiting and this is not likely to change any time soon.

[Callsign Kilo]

Oxford stastics have more spin than what comes out of the press office at No.10! They are and should be treated as a true representation of very little!

[African Drunk]

"BA only take low houred guys from integrated courses only as they have had significant numbers of training failures from modular candidates."

I have been in aviation over 10 years and BA in that time have never taken low hour modular pilots. I believe that the case talked about showed that modular students did worse in initial type ratings than pre-selected and monitored intergated students who had completed JOC. At that time JOC courses comprised of 50 hours in a jet sim using BA SOP's. So no surprise at the result.

Remember Oxford is a buisness they are here to make money and they will tell you what you want to hear to pay the cash. And if you go to Ryan Air, who take large amounts of modular pilots, it is not about where you trained it is about who can pay the cash.

[Adios]

Everyone's employer is a business, so can we presume they all tell people what they want to hear in order to get custom? Oxford publish their stats in bad times as well as good and not many FTOs have the balls to face that double edged sword. As far as I can tell, they are just raw numbers and not enough else to get an in depth understanding of what they mean. I see neither spin nor interpretation in the report. The spinning occurs on Pprune with OAA fans spinning one way and detractors the other. The truth probably lays somewhere in the middle.

[dartagnan]

ahah, clanger is right.
this market is a joke anyway!
everybody bitch , "modular, not modular?", and bla bla bla.
then we have kids paying hours with dad's money
get yourself a real job, be a doctor or a dentist or antyhing else, and dont mess with aviation.
let aviation for the real pilots!
statistic are joke in aviation as well.they just want you to invest money in their school which will be bust soon.

[P-T]

Clanger, you forgot one type of student. Those who did absolutely no revision, burned holes in the sky, took every opportunity to go out drinking in Arizona with both hands. But.........

Still passed, still got through and still got a job.

Got to be good to be gash!

OAA Rules!

[Another Old Fogey]

Years ago, when I was in what was laughingly called "the Mob", headed by HRH, we instructed using the DEER system - Demonstration, Explanation, Emulation and Repetition. The point was you repeated it ad nauseum until you "got it".

Seems to me that's relevant in the Modular/Integrated debate - if you do something often, and frequently, enough, you'll normally "get it" sooner or later. That has always seemed a problem with Modular - you have long spells of not training while you save up the shekels for the next part of the course. Now it may be that in the "down time", you can recall it all, but I suspect that some sizeable percentage of the first part of the next course you take is made up by remembering what you've forgotten in the last part of the last course.

Not to say that you finish off a worse driver with modular - just that its easier to be be a better pilot if you do integrated as you do the whole course in a consistent manner and to a reasonable time-scale.

Finally somebody made a comment about "pay to fly" types and Airbussi. Never understood this one. You all pay for your flight training, unless you sign on the line with HRH, and most of you nowadays also pay for type rating, particularly if you go to Ryanair who seem to be the only game in town nowadays.

So you are all well in the hole anyway, so what's the problem with paying a bit more for Line Training? Putting the philosophy aside (you as very junior cadet pilots can't sort out the pay woes of a whole industry), its actually the best and most effective money you spend.

Seems to me that all the training costs and type rating costs are sunk already, so your choice is

1. spend more to get really cheap hours, and jet and airline time in your logbook and MAYBE get a job offer, but at least get some superb experience in the meantime. So give Eagle jet 10K Euros for 500 hours in a 737 in an airline environment - its way more useful than spending 300 stg/hour in a Seneca with your friendly FTO, or

2. alternatively, you say screw it, flip burgers and wait to see if Ryanair will really give you a job when you pass the TR.

Seems to me its a no brainer - give Eagle Jet a call - but maybe its more subtle than that...http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/confused.gif

Fogey