Integrated vs Modular & where!

[cumbrianboy]

Hello everyone and happy 2012!

I wonder if some people who have either been through the process or are involved could remove some of the mystery for me? I am looking at ATPL options at the UK based schools (accepting a trip to the states is also probably necessary).

Does anyone have any evidence over the benefit of integrated vs modular? I have been told that some airlines will only accept students from integrated courses whereas other people seem to have followed modular and done OK. Add in the huge cost difference and it's a conundrum!

Also, of the major flight school, OAA, CTC, Multiflight etc, does anyone have a preference and why?

Thanks.

[RichardH]

Cumbrianboy - Happy 2012 to you.

This subject has been flogged to death on this forum so please can you search the forums.

That said you must do what is right for YOU. Pay particular attention to YOUR finanical situation, time YOU want to achieve, YOUR ability & motivation.

Do not believe ANYBODY who guarantees a job at the end. That depends on supply & demand. It is true to a degree that some major flag carriers prefer Integrated but I certainly know GOOD modular students who have also got in such airlines with low hours.

It is vital that you visit IN PERSON any potential FTO and dig deeper than the glossy sales brochure.

[cumbrianboy]

Hi
Yes the subject does seem to appear a lot, but is also seems to be quite old data and little discussion comparing organisations!

I have been around the block a few times to cut through marketing blurb, indeed I have spent many years writing it so I see the tricks, but trying to cut through to the key issue. For me it's not about saving £30k (although I don't have £30k to waste) but what puts you in pole position for a job at the end of the course and who turns out the better pilot.

Of course, the discussion that modular gives you the same licence is 100% valid, but then a degree from an ex poly gives you the same degree as one from cambridge, yet we all know they mean totally different things ... So, in terms of investing £50k or £80k in your training, it is all academic if in the end your only real option for employment is to spend the £80k - does this make sense?

I know the airline business well having worked in it, but the issue of training of pilots is not something I am that familiar with, and also the market trends and economic situation change almost daily at the moment, so a discussion from 2007 I feel, is slightly invalid as we enter 2012 ... ?

Or maybe not, either way I thought it might be good to spark a fresh debate.

[pudoc]

I'm a modular student, so here's my opinion. Obviously bare in mind I have no experience with recruitment or working in the industry but before I embarked on training I wanted opinions from pilots, recruiters and current students so I assume you're the same.

I chose modular purely for the cost, if I had worked for another 4-5 years I would have been able to pay for integrated but I didn't see the need to pay double the dosh for the same license, the examiners all work by the same checklist.

The route will go well for me because I'm taking my time with it. I'm allowing myself to fully prepare for all my exams, I recently delayed my ATPL theory by a month as I felt I needed more time on it. Same will apply with my CPL, I can make sure I get those first time passes by going at my pace.

Something that really appealed to me also was in the case of another recession or the industry struggles further, I can stop my training at any point, go work and come back later and carry on. I'm considering delaying my training by a year after my ATPL exams because 2012 doesn't look good, from what I see. I'm going to re-iterate that before somebody quotes me and then publishing their figures and telling me I'm too optimistic or pessimistic, from what I've seen. I know after 2012 that doesn't mean happy days again, I'm very aware of the industry.

I'm lucky in the sense that I'm very young and eager to explore all types of flying. I'm not interesting in RHS of a jet out of training, I'm thinking of instructing but would really like to fly single pistons or turbines for a while. It's a dream to get my hands on a Cessna Caravan, love that aircraft. Modular would allow me to do this at a much cheaper cost. I have no rush to earn a decent living, I have no family. I can enjoy what I've loved for years at my own pace, flying.

If you're older and/or want to get a RHS job on a turboprop or jet then that's still possible with modular, but you've probably got more of a chance if you go on one of these airline cadet schemes through one of the big integrated schools. I wouldn't embark on an integrated course without being part of a cadet scheme purely because I think there's more to get out of an integrated school for the same money with a cadetship.

If a school guarantees you a job, just don't fool for it. Don't fool for it one somebody says integrated students are better than modular pilots - I've seen very good modular and integrated pilots and also some that make me cringe from both routes. Integrated doesn't make you look more dedicated, the uniform with your personalised name badge doesn't make you more attractive to airlines. Demonstrating passion, the correct positive attitude, willing to be the best pilot you can be because you genuinely want to be a good pilot and not because of your ego is what will get you a job. It might not get you a job for years, but you'll get it regardless of your route. I disagree with anyone that says otherwise. You'll have to work for it, sacrifice for it, possibly move around the world. Eventually, you're job will come.

It really depends on your situation, the money, your age (ie if time is on your side or not) and most importantly what you want from flying. If you want to make a career out of instructing, decide what route is better for you. There are many ways to skin a cat, everyone will have their opinion on different methods and I chose my route of training based on the above.

[Luddite aviator]

I have to congratulate Billy whu for one of the most balanced posts on the subject that I have seen on these forums for a long time.

The big problem is that the integrated suppliers are not just working for you when they place you with an airline, the airline is giving then a kickback for supplying you to them.

Airlines have been selling the young and aspiring right hand seats in just the same way as they sell the seats down the back, the advantage of integrated pilots is that the airlines get pilots of a set standard to work with, it is not that they are better than modular pilots ( in a lot of cases they are very narrow in understanding of airline operations). This makes the integrated student the Human resorces departments flavor of the month but as the HR business is only as good as its latest fad this could change overnight.

Having worked for eight airlines the best of them recruited using an interview with a management pilot and a sim check, the worst of them had HR doing the recruting and at the interview asking all sorts of stupid questions and of course the mandatory tests that equire about your liking for otters and other abstract consepts, the result always seemed to be a very unhappy place to work.

The last thing I would warn about is integrated suppliers who go out of business and then start up with almost the same name out of the same building using the same aircraft having left a trail of unpaid debts behind them, they will take your money and run in a heartbeat if they think they can get away with it.

[fwjc]

My experience is that a good integrated course, at a good school, will turn you into a package tailored for the airlines. As has already been hinted, the school's real customers are the airlines, not you. So a good school will research what the airlines want and make their product (you) fit that specification. This is the case even more for the airline specific schemes, which means the customer gets a known product to a known standard. I think that this is why it is said that you have a better chance of that elusive first job if you go through a good integrated course.

Fact is, this extra input etc means that the course costs a hefty load more than a modular route. For this reason alone, I am so far following a modular route myself. I know it makes the route a lot harder, but I still believe it's worth it. Where there's a will there's a way. I'll be the best I can be and work bloody hard and hope to in the right place at the right time.

[Gav28]

but then a degree from an ex poly gives you the same degree as one from cambridge, yet we all know they mean totally different things ...

That's not a valid comparison. Whether you go Integrated or Modular you take exactly the same tests. For a given degree, the course content, difficulty and assessment differs immensely between Universities.

[Tsym]

Adding my own 2 cents to this thread, I have to fully agree with RichardH.

There used to be a time whereby integrated was always the preferred training route - I honestly believe those times have now changed; or rather, the playing field has been levelled.

For the most part, modular vs integrated just comes down to cost, timing and the level of guidance you want throughout your training.

Integrated schools are often seen as the 'one-stop shop' for training - Enter the door with a fat cheque and zero experience whatsoever, and following 2 yrs of mollycoddling you will leave with wet ink in both your logbook and licence.

I did my training through a major UK integrated school and really enjoyed my time there, but it was very much so a 'teacher/pupil' culture. You are just there to learn, will follow the schools timetable, and those who had a few difficulties were those who adopted more of the 'im a customer' mentality.

The modular route allows you to embrace the 'im a customer' mentality fully - you can train in your own time, and migrate between providors and instructors at a rate which suits you.

As far as training is concerned, I do not believe there is -any- difference in training provided by either integrated or modular schools. The difference comes down to statistics and money.

Throw enough money at the industry, and you can train anyone to fly, even a dog. Whether they are a good pilot or not is something completely different. Integrated providors base alot of their reputation on the statistics of first time passes at CPL/IR level, and number of students placed in airlines - this is one of many reasons behind having aptitude tests at the school administration days - it does filter out or atleast highlight a training risk factor and allows schools to be a little more selective when the times are good. Ask yourself this... if a school has an excess of potential students with money to spend, would they pick those were likely to have issues, or those who statistically make the school look better?

As a direct analysis to the above, the school I trained with had both modular and integrated students; the aptitude pass mark for modular was lower than that of the integrated course as the time. This was not a reflection against those who chose the modular route; but rather those who joined the integrated route were deemed more likely to pass through the system easier. Of my course of ~20 guys, roughly 70% are in full airline employment - of the course of ~30 modular students who started at the same time, roughly 60% of the course completed, and of those I believe only 3 were in employment.

Realitically though, the above is all false statistics. If you are a good pilot then it shouldnt make any difference where you train, how long it takes, nor the route you take once you have qualified. Whether modular or integrated, you really are on your own once you finish anyway...

Some providors do have agreements with certain airlines (easyjet is a prime example) - if you dont train through the approved providor, you won't be elligible for interview with low hours, simple as. But this doesnt imply it will be this way when you complete your training.

If you look through this forum, theres alot of opinions thrown around, and rightly so - there are so many ways you can qualify and still end up with the same piece of paper at the end of it. Good grades and a positive attitude will put you in good stead for airline placement. Just be proactive about it... as richard mentioned before, just get out there and visit the schools. He really isn't fibbing when he mentions glossy sales brochures.

[Groundloop]

As has already been hinted, the school's real customers are the airlines, not you.

Absolute rubbish. The integrated schools turn out far more graduates than the airlines will ever need. Of course the schools' customers are the students. They like to use the airline names in their marketing blurb, though.

[BAe 146-100]

I think it simply points down to money and how much you have of it - if you (or parents) have plenty of it then there is no point going modular, but the majority of people aren't in that bracket so if you don't fancy paying off the best part of 100,000+ for the next 25 years with no guaranteed job at the end there really is only one option.

In terms of airlines preferences, there is a preference of integrated students to some airlines but they are mainly the ones who have done cadet schemes (BA, TCX, flybe), the majority of OAA graduates actually end up going to Ryanair where you can go as a modular student anyway.

For modular route it is seen to be best to stick to fewer schools as possible so if you are looking at schools for modular, you either have BCFT, Multiflight or OAA waypoint who do the full package after you have the PPL+hours, all have a good rep.

[Dan the weegie]

On the basis of what I've seen of the graduates and their handling abilities (and obviously this on a majority and not everyone) The standard of basic flying skills of CTC students is significantly better with CTC students than OAA ones. This is not a slight on the students themselves but the methodologies of the schools themselves. If I was to go modular, and I would if I was starting over I'd go to CTC and ignore OAA for the modular route, the quality of flying I've seen would suggest that was a wise move.

Integrated will get you a job faster, by a fair margin but nothing interesting, Easyjet/Ryan/Flybe as far as I can ascertain, Easy and Flybe only recruit from Integrated schools (for now). Modular will get you there at your own pace and cheaper, but do not under any circumstances go to the cheapest place. It's the same ticket but when you come to a sim assessment you will find the skills you learned and how you learned them come fully into their own.
Basic handling skills are going to be used for your whole career, make sure you get them.
If you want to do something more interesting it wont make a difference which route you take, it will be a while before you get a job so take your time that said the price of flying is only going up and fast so earlier might be better!

So in short, if you want only to fly airlines and those are Flybe/Easy/BA then go integrated (budget for an extra 30-40k on top of the course fees for your type rating.)

For anything else, go modular but it will take you longer to get into a job of any kind, particularly the ones mentioned above.

If you do go modular
PPL - Do it near to you somewhere good with an instructor that has perhaps moved on from an operational job and is going it for fun, otherwise just pick someone who appears to be interested in how you progress.
Hour building, have fun, go places - do not just burn holes in the sky actually travel.
Exams, Bristol - they will be ahead of the curve with the new exams
CPL + MEP IR = do these at the same school, Airways Flight Training is where I went and they were absolutely the best flying instructors I have flown with.
MCC, I'd do it on a jet sim, you need experience on a high performance sim when you come to do your sim check, it'll be appreciated. I did mine at OAA, the course was very good but overpriced, I don't feel it was great value but nonetheless very good.
JOC, up to you but I don't think it's money wasted.

Small tip, big schools are just as likely to go bust as little ones, use sense when paying, if you pay up front a credit card is worth it even if you get charged 2% so long as the charge doesn't offset the discount too much it's safe.

[captain.weird]

@Dan the weegie: when did you do your flight training and did you get a job?

[Mickey Kaye]

“On the basis of what I've seen of the graduates and their handling abilities (and obviously this on a majority and not everyone) The standard of basic flying skills of CTC students is significantly better with CTC students than OAA ones”

Really? I've not met one of them that was any good at handling say a chipmunk

“Integrated will get you a job faster, by a fair margin”

Are you sure?


“use sense when paying, if you pay up front a credit card is worth it even if you get charged 2% so long as the charge doesn't offset the discount too much it's safe”

Sort of agree here but I would say simply don’t pay up front for any sort of flight training. Full Stop.

[pudoc]

“Integrated will get you a job faster, by a fair margin”

Based on what? That's a load of tosh if you ask me.

[Dan the weegie]

Training between 2007 to 2011. I have a job, it's fun but far from ideal.
My opinion on CTC vs. OAA handling skills is on the basis of pilots I've seen and confirmed by a few other instructors. I've discussed the quality of basic training and was truly shocked how terrible the Arizona training was at OAA I have no axe to grind with them, there are some excellent aspects of OAA but it's too big for its own good.

Not paying up front at all is wholly unrealistic, you end up cutting your own nose off to spite your face. You end up limiting your choice of schools and missing out on discounts, you just need to be sensible about how much and the method you pay.

As for the speedy of getting a job, I know quite a lot of aspiring pilots and of those that went integrated and are employable people with good results and first time IR passes have all secured jobs with easy, jet2 and Loganair faster than those that went modular I would say that currently the average improvement in time is about a year. I suspect that will change and I've paid almost half what they did including type rating but they are in much better paid jobs than I am.

as with everything in flying, there is no right answer just a compromise on what you want.