Well that depends entirely upon your individual assessment of the financial costs and advantages in the long-run of going to either of course.
I think they are money making empires setup by unscrupulous individuals who want to make simply that. Money. I fail to see how integrated can be twice as expensive as modular when the training is more or less the same.
Oxford (Oxford Aviation Services Ltd) the trading company made £752k in 2003 and lost £10k in 2004. Hardly money hand over fist.
FTE was sold be BAe Systems as not being profitable enough and out of fit with their strategy.
Cabair (CCAT Ltd) appear to have made about £42k in the 17 months to 31/3/2005 with the group as a whole losing £73k.
I think that covers all the integrated schools. Care to dispute Companies House data?
Why is it more? One training record. Structured course. More aircraft. Simulators/fixed base FNPTII tools. Higher experience instructors. Continuity of training. You don't mess about having to build hours outside of a structure environment. No need to think about housing (for some schools). Services provided at more established airfields.
You may not value those, but that is not a matter for which anyone here pass judgement. They are the reason however that they cost more, and are more highly valued as a result by the employers. Equally the modular provider may provide a high standard of training, but on the factors such as contacts and facilities they may find it hard to compete.
If your objection however is to entrepreneurial companies making money, then words fail me - go to Cuba.