Has anyone done the Wings Alliance "Airline Ready Course"
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,804
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did you enquire through the website EC DKN? We did lose some enquiries with a software glitch. Contact me by pm or email and I will make sure your queries are answered.
All three similar schemes (Kura, CTC and Wings Alliance) have pass/fail selection. The reason for this is the variable quality of candidates. To be fair, in all three schemes the main fail point is the selection process before the sim phase (group exercises, interviews, review of training records etc.) not many candidates are expected to fail after that, but it is possible. The selection processes are all different and sometimes a candidate fails one and passes another. As an example, Wings Alliance had a candidate that we thought was very good but had already been failed at the selection stage with Kura. Happily that pilot now has a job with Stobart, so it worked out.
All three similar schemes (Kura, CTC and Wings Alliance) have pass/fail selection. The reason for this is the variable quality of candidates. To be fair, in all three schemes the main fail point is the selection process before the sim phase (group exercises, interviews, review of training records etc.) not many candidates are expected to fail after that, but it is possible. The selection processes are all different and sometimes a candidate fails one and passes another. As an example, Wings Alliance had a candidate that we thought was very good but had already been failed at the selection stage with Kura. Happily that pilot now has a job with Stobart, so it worked out.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Happily that pilot now has a job with Stobart, so it worked out
Seriously though, I have no interest for myself, (too old) but three of my younger friends are keen to pursue a career flying for airlines.
I'm wondering what the difference, in cost and quality, might be when you compare going to a "partner" school as a student and going through "Wings Alliance" to the same school.
If they don't charge more for the same thing, then where is the revenue stream for WA coming from?
Is there a fee payable by the student to WA and if so, what does he get for that? Or, is there a "kickback" to WA from the schools for referrals?
What's the benefit of a student using WA? Are we to believe that WA has better hooks into the airlines than the existing schools that have been feeding them for years? Could it be that the recommendation comes from the same guy at the school, but with a different hat on, so it is taken more seriously?
When I am asked for advice, I need to say that I've looked into it first. So I wanted to understand if this WA is simply a marketing body for member schools, or if there is actually some underlying value.
I'm wondering what the difference, in cost and quality, might be when you compare going to a "partner" school as a student and going through "Wings Alliance" to the same school.
If they don't charge more for the same thing, then where is the revenue stream for WA coming from?
If they don't charge more for the same thing, then where is the revenue stream for WA coming from?
Is there a fee payable by the student to WA and if so, what does he get for that? Or, is there a "kickback" to WA from the schools for referrals?
What's the benefit of a student using WA? Are we to believe that WA has better hooks into the airlines than the existing schools that have been feeding them for years? Could it be that the recommendation comes from the same guy at the school, but with a different hat on, so it is taken more seriously?
When I am asked for advice, I need to say that I've looked into it first. So I wanted to understand if this WA is simply a marketing body for member schools, or if there is actually some underlying value.
If you go to the WA website you can read the advantages listed for both the schools and the students. The headline statements make a lot of noise about “high standards and quality training”, but there does not appear to be any internal QA system whereby WA can control these factors. If the standards and quality in WA schools really are higher than in ordinary non-WA schools, we might reasonably expect that some schools will have applied to join WA and been rejected. Potential customers might like to ask if this has ever happened?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the standards and quality in WA schools really are higher than in ordinary non-WA schools, we might reasonably expect that some schools will have applied to join WA and been rejected. Potential customers might like to ask if this has ever happened?
Rejected by whom, and on what grounds?
Has there been a behind the scenes auction for inclusion on the list of WA "approved" schools, which by the very listing and internet suggestion like yours, are not as good / up to the same standard.
On the basis that the CAA conduct impartial reviews, I thought that if an ATO is authorised by the CAA, then it is good enough. Better is surely a subjective term.
Alliance is a friendly word; clique or cartel, conjure up an image of not such a warm cuddly description of what might be the same thing.
What is the closed shop of WA "Approved" schools doing for/to the students of other non affiliated schools. Surely, in fairness, if the industry is going to portray the membership of WA as being the hallmark of excellence and connected progress, then there has to be transparency and independent verification of how the suitability of member schools is being verified.
I think it's a stretch to say that just because they have (presumably) signed up to be in this alliance, they are better than schools not admitted or not applying to join the fold. Looking at the list, I'm curious as to how there can be a verified "standard" covering schools in England, Scotland, Greece, France, Poland & Jordan.
What was the criteria that led to such a list; Evaluation, Historical placement success or a Joining fee?
WA must be getting revenue from someone, and that must be either schools taking a smaller cut (not in my tea leaves) or students paying more.
Alex Whittingham of Bristol Groundschool, a Founder Member of Wings Alliance, explained, “This is a unique high quality training route, the first of its kind in the world. Through our members we can offer a real high value alternative for aspiring commercial pilots who are seeking a direct route to airline employment.”
He added, “Modular training through the Wings Alliance will cost substantially less than the equivalent integrated course. Our Members do not have big company overheads associated with big Flight Schools and the Alliance itself is run as a not-for-profit organisation. Training with the Wings Alliance will give pilots approximately 25% more training time at, typically, 70% of the cost.”
He added, “Modular training through the Wings Alliance will cost substantially less than the equivalent integrated course. Our Members do not have big company overheads associated with big Flight Schools and the Alliance itself is run as a not-for-profit organisation. Training with the Wings Alliance will give pilots approximately 25% more training time at, typically, 70% of the cost.”
Can the big integrated schools really be so inefficient in terms of costs? Are we to accept that somebody at BG suddenly found a way to get a gallon out of a litre pot, and decided to sell it for the price of a pint?
I know some people who were very happy with Tayside's training, and ability to place the guys in front of the right people at Loganair in order to get them jobs leading to Captaincy in a reasonable time frame. Without the need to be part of a wider alliance. I also know people who have secured jobs without needing to go to Tayside.
Please tell me this is not a case of "Join our club and pay your fees, or we will say that since you are not in our club, then you must be ****."
There is such a small list of schools, covering a huge geographic area, things don't add up.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,804
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In partial response, at least...
Yes, the decision of which modular schools to initially invite to join the Alliance was difficult because of a complete lack of any objective criteria available, all there is is reputation and so the decision was made on that basis. There was an initial group of three or four FTOs, they recommended others and, in general the recommendations were accepted as correct. To be fair, the industry know who the good guys are. Now the Alliance is up and running new members are proposed, or they propose themselves, and the members vote. Moving into the future the members have proposed reciprocal standards visits from senior FIs to provide proper quality feedback from an instructor's point of view and we are working on a tripadvisor style open review platform for students to directly review FTOs. No, I don't think that a CAA approval means an FTO is 'good enough', the approval has little or nothing to do with quality, its all about manuals and processes.
Yes, prospective members have been turned down, some at the voting stage, others have been advised that were they to formally apply it is unlikely they would be accepted. This is sometimes because they have no track record, ie are new schools, sometimes because a straw poll indicates a formal vote would go against them. This is more friendly, I think, than an outright refusal but we have had some angry emails from schools accusing us of operating a clique or a cartel and I'm sure we will get more.
You are right that the only income WA is likely to receive comes from the MCC/JOC. We expect the income from that to support the website and mentoring functions. The company is limited by guarantee, it is non-profit making, there are no shareholders. As far as I understand it it can not be sold.
There is a geographical bias because the founder members were UK based. we are actively looking for members in other areas of Europe.
Yes there is an excessive price difference between integrated and modular, yes it goes to profit and marketing. The integrated course is shorter than the modular route, it could be cheaper, but it isn't. You can buy integrated courses once you get away from the 'big three' for as little as €40,000 in Europe, in the UK Flying Time do one for, I think, £60,000. These courses make a profit. I would be surprised if the 'big three' hadn't worked their cost base down to under £40K with the economies of scale and US training options.
So, yes, I'm expecting a certain number of attacks, clearly not all the industry is going to be pleased with the Wings Alliance. All I would say is look at what we do, look at the price comparisons on the website, check the figures for yourself if you want. Even if you don't do the MCC/JOC at the end and you get your Ryanair/Norwegian job on your own merits you lose nothing, it costs nothing, at at least you get some guidance through the modular minefield.
Yes, the decision of which modular schools to initially invite to join the Alliance was difficult because of a complete lack of any objective criteria available, all there is is reputation and so the decision was made on that basis. There was an initial group of three or four FTOs, they recommended others and, in general the recommendations were accepted as correct. To be fair, the industry know who the good guys are. Now the Alliance is up and running new members are proposed, or they propose themselves, and the members vote. Moving into the future the members have proposed reciprocal standards visits from senior FIs to provide proper quality feedback from an instructor's point of view and we are working on a tripadvisor style open review platform for students to directly review FTOs. No, I don't think that a CAA approval means an FTO is 'good enough', the approval has little or nothing to do with quality, its all about manuals and processes.
Yes, prospective members have been turned down, some at the voting stage, others have been advised that were they to formally apply it is unlikely they would be accepted. This is sometimes because they have no track record, ie are new schools, sometimes because a straw poll indicates a formal vote would go against them. This is more friendly, I think, than an outright refusal but we have had some angry emails from schools accusing us of operating a clique or a cartel and I'm sure we will get more.
You are right that the only income WA is likely to receive comes from the MCC/JOC. We expect the income from that to support the website and mentoring functions. The company is limited by guarantee, it is non-profit making, there are no shareholders. As far as I understand it it can not be sold.
There is a geographical bias because the founder members were UK based. we are actively looking for members in other areas of Europe.
Yes there is an excessive price difference between integrated and modular, yes it goes to profit and marketing. The integrated course is shorter than the modular route, it could be cheaper, but it isn't. You can buy integrated courses once you get away from the 'big three' for as little as €40,000 in Europe, in the UK Flying Time do one for, I think, £60,000. These courses make a profit. I would be surprised if the 'big three' hadn't worked their cost base down to under £40K with the economies of scale and US training options.
So, yes, I'm expecting a certain number of attacks, clearly not all the industry is going to be pleased with the Wings Alliance. All I would say is look at what we do, look at the price comparisons on the website, check the figures for yourself if you want. Even if you don't do the MCC/JOC at the end and you get your Ryanair/Norwegian job on your own merits you lose nothing, it costs nothing, at at least you get some guidance through the modular minefield.
