Interviews, jobs & sponsorshipDo ya feel lucky, Punk? Well do ya? If so, here's the place to swap the hot gen on who's sponsoring or employing, their selection criteria, and where those oh so elusive first jobs can be spotted in the wild. Watch out for the tumbleweeds...
Why does it always come back to this? It was originally about modular vs integrated not tagged schemes.
If the airlines want tagged schemes then let them set up their own training centres. All airlines should do this. But while this int route is being sold by people that are seen as credible we end up with loads of people embarking on it.
No, it was about when things might improve "job wise." Although it somewhat bucks the general trend, in my corner of the world I have seen a significant improvement recently. As it relates to the evolution of this thread, those jobs have gone to experienced pilots including ex-military and experienced airline pilots. The remainder have gone to cadets of which a small portion were" tagged" for a new MPL programme, the remainder were mainly integrated "selected" graduating cadets, and a few were integrated (non cadet) graduates offered the opportunity as a result of their performance on the same courses.
Many of these airlines do have their own training centres, however those centres specialize in advanced and type specific training. This is where the cadets will receive the advanced portion of their training including type rating. This is where the the non-type rated ex-military pilots will be type trained. This is where the experienced but non-type rated pilots will be type trained. This is where the type rated pilots will receive their induction training. Ab-initio training is a specialized market and undertaken by the main FTO's in this field. Selection is then made from the graduating classes.
If you were to print this thread off and show it to anyone they either be shocked or laugh their heads off.
But it's still being justified.
I've had 4 interviews and 3 Job offers for salaries in excess of a FO, the industry is driving away talent and replacing it with chequebooks. Then when a disaster happens its like on my god. Why did the system allow someone to fly that plane that made those decisions and kept pulling back on the stick.
We all make mistakes but I wonder how many will emerge by the way the industry is going.
I agree that there are bound to be many perfectly able people who are driven away from aviation because of the cost. That is unfortunate, but it is simply one of the natural attrition processes. There are rare opportunities for financial assistance, but for the most part, the supply of perfectly able people far and away outstrips the demand.
As for "disasters," the simple truth is that there are far fewer accidents, both overall and as a relative percentage, than has ever historically been the case. Like them or loathe them, modern training philosophies and far greater standardisation, together with more reliable technologies have radically changed the standards of safety. The changes and the evolution have thrown up new areas of concern and weakness that will be addressed, but it is going to be a long time before the elimination of human error is a reality, simply because humans are error prone.
To previous post, I have obviously to lay my hat down with regards to the Easy connection, not that I care about what company is involved in what and doing what!
However these figures making their way around on the forums, are uttermost confusing, on places here mentions £39 K +
In an older thread: The reply was: Quote: The ones who came and worked for us had their type ratings paid for. They accrued around 500 hours on type during their 6-8 month placement, during which time they received around £2000 a month and at the end of it they were offered full time employment contracts....Tragic!
Now I don't care of what companies there are out there and around, fact is that several companies are offering various TC;s over a short period of time!
There is a huge feeling of within the industry, degradation of TC's, which is frustrating for all involved and looking to be involved!
I do not believe the fact that they using cadets, as making at more risky, as this has been a proven concept for many years with all the majors!
I can more see the worrying trend of long commutes, low pay and fatigue, being a larger issue for the future of aviation!
I apologise to Bealzebub for mixing you with EZY, not sure where I got that idea from, not that this is important point!
Now obviously the TC's you mention belongs to the upper lucky lot of pilots, and will just be a minority, who will have such lucrative prospects (£39K)
I guess, just as important as the question of new jobs in the future, how will we be able to preserve best possible TC's for the future?
Last edited by truckflyer; 16th Oct 2012 at 02:36.
Those integrated school graduates who can jump streams into the cadet programmes have that opportunity. The modular students generally have no such access. For those jobs for which both candidates would qualify, it would be rare (although mad_jock will be along in a minute to tell you otherwise) that integrated school candidates would be at a disadvantage. Why? Because the full time nature and consistency of the training programmes that makes them a transition into the airline cadet programmes, is not lost on other operators as well.
I have said this many times before, but if I were to pay and offer you your choice of three training programmes. Those being: Full time integrated cadet scheme; Full time integrated (non-cadet) scheme; and modular, which would be your preference and second preference? For those that answer honestly and sensibly, the answer is the same for many recruiters.
Bealzebub,
Many thanks for the response.
Of couse the first choice for anyone would be full time integrated tied to a cadet scheme (if you want to pay for my training feel free to PM me and we can discuss terms ).
Where I struggle is in quantifying the difference between options 2 and 3: namely the advantage that non-tagged integrated schemes offer over modular training. At the open day I attended I tried to drill down into this exact point by asking tough questions, and no answers were forthcoming from the marketing stooge!
It became very obvious that the school in question uses the '"halo" effect of its tagged schemes as a marketing tool, strongly implying that going onto a non-tagged integrated scheme will put a candidate at a significant advantage over modular, whereas I have yet to see any real evidence that this is the case.
This advantage (assuming there is one at all) becomes even more tenuous for someone in my position. For a start signing up to a non-tagged integrated scheme would mean loss of earnings for the course duration. Plus I would be burning my bridges in my current career (a career I have sweated blood to succeed at over several years), and for what? Most probably to apply to RYR along with all the modular guys, and no-longer with any kind of career backup plan.
On the other hand if I go modular I will be able to finish training debt free, and have a crack at RYR when I finish (and with any other airlines who may be offering cadetships to modular candidates by then, as the market improves). Failling that I can always do an instructor rating, instruct part time, keep current, network and have spare cash left over to pay for a type rating if necessary (as well as a decent lifestyle, holidays etc.).
Average Punter your position is very different to mine, and it sounds like you are taking exactly the right approach, weighing up your options carefully. When people talk about the 'zombie army' they mean people who rush headlong into training without taking steps to do due dilligence and research the market. All credit to you for showing maturity beyond your years!
Last edited by taxistaxing; 16th Oct 2012 at 08:59.
Where I struggle is in quantifying the difference between options 2 and 3: namely the advantage that non-tagged integrated schemes offer over modular training. At the open day I attended I tried to drill down into this exact point by asking tough questions, and no answers were forthcoming from the marketing stooge!
Thats my main beef and the reason why I say its not worth the additional money.
The tagged schemes I have no problem with at all or the method of training. Untagged your in the same boat as everyone else and in someways at a disadvantage due to some of the jobs out there not actually paying enough to support the loans and be able to eat. Also as well because your not on the tagged scheme you can't take advantage of the tax breaks that they can so you will be paying 20% more to boot.
In the old days when there was untagged schemes you had a chance that your additonal investment would pay off. These days thats not the case.
In fact I would suggest that the tagged schemes are a spectacular own goal for the schools. Unless you are tagged there is no point doing the course and there isn't enough tagged trade to support the current training capacity.
Yep there are parallels with training for the legal profession. To qualify as a solicitor you have to do the Legal Practise Course after your degree. The cost of the course is about £10-15k.
The high-end commercial law firms in the city will sponsor you through the legal practise course and give you a traineeship thereafter. Those of us lucky enough to get jobs at commercial firms were (usually) pre-selected in the penultimate year at university. By and large, unless you have AAA at A level and a 2:1 from a good uni you won't get a sniff of a job with one of these firms irrespective of where you do your LPC (God knows why as you just end up being a photocopier gimp for 18 hours a day ).
Of course that doesn't stop cynical LPC providers from opening their doors to all and sundry, including those who would have no chance of a job at the end of it. They use their connections with the high-end firms as a ploy. Their marketing material strongly implies, without actually stating as fact, that by doing your LPC at provider X where Clifford Chance/Freshfields/Slaughters trainees go, you are likely to end up at one of these firms. That is not the case as many of my compatriots found to their cost.
Last edited by taxistaxing; 16th Oct 2012 at 10:36.
I've done 20 years now in avaition and it's pretty much the apcalypse here in Europe now...
All new FOs will be 20 and pay for their training and TR to earn a pittance.They will work for the locos for some years , without promotion due to the lack of future expansion. 50 % will then bugger off to the Middle East.
Experienced FOs will not get a look in as they are expensive and will either go abroad, or sustain their 5 month a year summer contracts by fitting sky dishes in the off season...
I'm convinced if you can't make it into BA , forget it.
I can fully understand people still wanting to become an airline pilot and this is clearly evidenced; despite the worst recession for 70+ years, people are still queuing up and paying a huge amount of money upfront on untagged schemes to hopefully join the club.
This recession is vastly different in that new cadets are still becoming FOs on A320s/B737s. If you’d said that would happen in the 1990s recession, no one would ever have believed you. The quid pro quo has been that T&Cs have massively fallen with overpriced TRs, zero hour contracts, low wages etc.
Therefore I say that by all means go ahead and join CTC or a tagged scheme, but do not come back and say you’re struggling to service loans or are very lowly paid. That is the very reason why you’ve been selected over experienced pilots and reflects airlines’ preferences for cheap pilots.
Equally, do not go on comparing pilot T&Cs with doctors/lawyers etc. At one point they might have been comparable but that is not the case now. If you have the 3 A’s, you can choose whether you fancy pilot/doctor/lawyer, but for the vast majority of cadets that choice won’t be open to them.
CTC were holding an information session at Glasgow University today and they informed us that BA were planning to run the FPP again towards the end of the year.
). 
