Why don't airline schemes recruit self-sponsored students?

[TheAeronaut]

Just a thought.

Why do airlines that run their own cadet schemes not accept newly qualified self-sponsored students, or even students currently in training?

I understand their recruitment process is thorough and aims to select the best (which "hold pool" cadets may be), and encourages use of their own SOPs early on. However, are there any other reasons as to allowing a "hold pool" to grow in size whilst these capable low-hour pilots are denied access to airline schemes?

[Stuart Sutcliffe]

Because it is their train set? Because they just can?

[Artie Fufkin]

Firstly, you get first pick of the best candidates.

You can bond pilots more effectively by "part sponsoring" the training.

More ability to recruit people for difficult bases to crew like Guernsey.

BA's FPP allows the company to guarantee the training loan, allowing them to pick from a larger pool of talent.

You can get the FTO to tailor training to your own airline's particular training requirements.

[BusinessMan]

I don't know of a single company (ready to be corrected mind...) that runs a 'tagged' scheme that hasn't also cherry-picked from self-sponsored too, when they've needed to. The times they aren't taking self-sponsored too is usually just when they don't need the extra numbers, I believe

The main reason I've been given for companies running 'tagged' or even sponsored (sigh, back in the day...) schemes is simple - they get to pick the ones they want the most, end of story.

Sure, you get some extremely good self-sponsored students and they will generally get picked up sooner or later but the truth is that there are a lot of people who will not (or cannot) commit to the training costs without knowing there is likely to be a job at the end of it. There are also numbers of 'ideal' candidates who may not have seriously considered the job before the scheme was advertised (think the numbers applying to BA FPP). Which all means that the airline gets a much wider pool of people to choose from and can be as picky as they want, going for 'faces that'll fit' as well as potential flying skills.

Just my 2-penneth (albeit straight from the mouths of more than 1 'horse'!).

[V_2]

BusinessMan is spot on. Flight training is a personal Risk-Reward calculation. In it's purest sense, it is gambling. If an airline can lower the risk to the trainee (by offering a scheme), more people are willing to make that massive finicial commitment. More people willing=larger (and maybe better) talent pool for the airline to chose from.

Furthermore, tagged cadets are usually bonded for a specified period of time. This makes the airlines pilot "turn-over" figures lower and easier to calculate=max efficiency.

[Contact Approach]

If airlines are concerned about the size of the talent pool in which to choose from, then why on earth does it cost >£250 to sit the initial assessment?
Ludicrous.

[Poose]

This is an interesting one...

I have mulled over this point myself.

BA FPP and history aside, why doesn't BA for example, entertain people with a CPL/IR from schools other than Oxford or CTC?
They are free to run the same rigorous selection process, regardless of where the applicant has completed their training, to ensure the "right calibre" of person is joining their organisation.

If anything, I find it quite bizarre in this day and age that if you haven't been to OAA or CTC then BA won't touch you - at inexperienced level, that is.

We have all passed the same flight tests, so what makes an OAA student so vastly superior to a Modular candidate, for example?
Makes a mockery of the CAA flight tests in my view, along with 'compass' style aptitude testing for experienced or licenced pilots, which goes on at some operators... :ugh:

This is rather like Airbus or Rolls-Royce only recruiting their engineers from Cambridge University... This would more than likely be considered as a form of discrimination, in my view and would be addressed quick smart.

So why are BA, the national carrier allowed to discriminate in this way?
Surely, a national carrier should be staffed by a cross section of our society and not just those fortunate enough to go to a large integrated school? :confused:

I'm not having a pop at anyone here, I just used those schools and carrier as an example... there are many carriers with very school specific recruitment policies which could be considered just as, if not more 'guilty'... :mad:

I'm just playing devil's advocate and putting a few of my thoughts out there with no wish to offend anyone... :cool:

[taxistaxing]

BA FPP and history aside, why doesn't BA for example, entertain people with a CPL/IR from schools other than Oxford or CTC?



Frustrating as it is (I'm modular myself) I imagine the following are a few of the reasons:

- Integrated schools deliver a standardised "product" so that BA trainers know what is coming through the door for type rating, line training etc. This would (presumably) minimise training costs, particularly as ab-initio training is presumably much more time intensive and expensive than training experienced pilots. As far as I know when recruiting experienced pilots BA wouldn't have a preference either way for modular or integrated. They would look at the flying experience of the candidate as a whole.

- Recruiting candidates from modular backgrounds is 'trial and error'. Some will be excellent, some rubbish, all will have different levels of experience and training background. This would therefore lead to higher recruitment costs due to the increased requirement for due dilligence on the candidates.


This is rather like Airbus or Rolls-Royce only recruiting their engineers from Cambridge University... This would more than likely be considered as a form of discrimination, in my view and would be addressed quick smart.



Prestigious employers will always favour graduates from top universities. This is because there is an excess of applicants for these posts and targetting specific institutions is a cost-effective way of whittling down to a manageable number of applications from good quality candidates.

Yes this is a form of discrimination - but it is perfectly legal to discriminate on the basis of academic ability (and for jobs like engineering high academic ability is a prerequisite!).

This isn't a great comparator, though, as going to Oxford or Cambridge does imply a high level of academic ability. Going to an integrated school does not necessarily mean you are a better pilot than someone from a modular background (but see point 1 above re. standard products).


So why are BA, the national carrier allowed to discriminate in this way?
Surely, a national carrier should be a staffed by a cross section of our society and not just those fortunate enough to go to a large integrated school?


In BA's defence they have made efforts to be more 'inclusive' in their recent recruitment drives by making guarantees available to those successful applicants unable to secure funding through the usual means. The fact that candidates are required to pay for their own training at all is unfortunately a reality of the ab-initio airline recruitment market. You can't really blame BA, as a commercial organisation, for taking the market as it finds it.

[Artie Fufkin]

We have all passed the same flight tests, so what makes an OAA student so vastly superior to a Modular candidate, for example?

As I understand it, OAA/CTC graduates are NOT seen as a better product, just simply a known product, which reduces risk to the airline.

[Groundloop]

So why are BA, the national carrier allowed to discriminate in this way?
Surely, a national carrier should be a staffed by a cross section of our society and not just those fortunate enough to go to a large integrated school?

Because BA are not "the national carrier". It has not been the "national carrier" since it was privatised in 1987! It is a private company that can operate whatever recruitment policy it likes as long as it does not break any discrimination legislation.

[mad_jock]

There is accountancy benifits to the training schemes.

And it is a known product which is also watched for an extended period.

Even putting a pilot thats current on type on the line is a huge allocation of resources and quite a logistical nightmare to get all the boxes ticked.

Getting a group who are all basically exactly the same will have advantages for training planning.

Recruitment to be honest is a huge pain in the bum if you do it properly. It pulls in loads of expensive resources which have more productive uses ie could be flying.


If you go for a more personal method some people seem to be able to spot gooduns. But when you get a bad one its a huge strain on the training deptment and creates 10's of hours of work for senior people to sort out.

Big companys I can completely understand why only the final stages of selection is in house the sheer numbers to process is hurrendous.

The schools are willing to do the foot work and get rid of the masses for free (or charge the applicants for the previlage) leaving a more reasonable amount to process.

But personally I think this system is going to be an own goal for the big schools because by working to get these deals through to manage the recruitment from zero to hero they have basically cut off all the rest and destroyed the "chance" aspect of students paying for there own training and then getting a job with one of big boys. But I can also understand that maybe the base level of quality of the training students was deteriorating so they had to have a carrot to get better quality in the door.

Bit of a catch 22.

When I did my training 11 years ago everyone was talking about intergrated and how at the end of it you had a chance of an Interview with BA with a payed for type rating pension etc etc. Now its ryanair pay for your own type rating, self employed etc etc. And they will accept any method of training.

[Luke SkyToddler]

Real question is why does BA have any truck with 200 hour guys at all when they could snap their fingers and get all the 5000 hour turboprop and RJ skippers they want?

[no sponsor]

Most DEPs want to go on a LH fleet, and Cadets are a lot cheaper. BA has taken 200+ DEPs in the last 2 years, plus 330 BMI pilots. When LH vacancies are required, then BA will no doubt open up the DEP / military route again.

[Poose]

Thanks for the thoughts, gentlemen! :D

Oh well!! I tried... :}