Not the usual question - but the usual replies.
As usual the same old arguments come up time and time again anytime anyone mentions 'integrated' and modular' in the same sentence.
And why not? it's just about the biggest decision to be made by anyone considering taking the plunge into the murky world of flight training. I think it's good to have a fresh discussion about the relative merits of each in the current climate instead of sending newbies to the 'search' function to look at threads from years ago.
However, one thing really does pi$$ me off.
Where do people get off thinking the can make comments like 'mommy and daddy paid for their integrated training so they're not really dedicated and only want to fly big shiney jets'.
The arrogance it must take to come out witha statement like that is bloody astounding!! Who the hell do these people think they are.
The most hard working, dedicated person, who has dreamed of flying all their lives may well have millionaire parents. Are they somehow less dedicated, less mature, less willing to fly a light twin to keep their hand in if recruitment drys up??
I went integrated - paid for with a loan in my name but secured by my parents. I spent about three years looking at the merits of both integrated and modular, trawling through this forum and other sources of information. I didn't sleep a wink the night before loading up the car and heading off to oxford to hand them £60k. When i got there i worked my balls off for 15 months. And in the end through hard work, stress like i've never known, dedication and a sh1t load of luck - i got a job flying a not so shiney jet.
Had I not had parents wealthy enough/willing to secure my loan would I have gone integrated? I'm not sure. Perhaps I would have worked for longer to build my savings or maybe i would have gone modular and worked during my training. I was in the privledged position that they were options I didn't have to take. Either way, I'm not going to have some arrogant ittle pi$$ ant tell me I (or any of my many friends from oxford) aren't as dedicated or hardworking as modular students.
For 99% of the punters in oxford flight training is a MAJOR risk. no one takes it lightly. we were all willing to flight instruct in Timbuktu if that's what it took to stay current.
Quote Prophead:
'If i am ever involved in pilot recruitment ill be looking for the modular student who has worked his a*@e off in some other job to pay his way through training.
Some people really want to fly for a living and will be more than happy flying a battered old twin around, others just want to pose in a pilots uniform and nothing but a jet is good enough.
It takes hard work, determination, good time/financial management skills and a very strong desire to fly to go the modular route.
The integrated route takes rich/mortgaged up parents or a an individual gullable enough to massively over pay for their training and borrow huge amounts of money to do it, thus paying a load of interest as well.'
This is exactly the kind of crap i'm talking about. What is your issue Prophead? where does your incessant need to insult 'gullable' integrated students come from??
I was about to type out a list of arguments pro-integrated - but that's really not rellevant. the point is don't make stupid inslulting comments about integrated students just because one way or another they can raise the funds to take that route. You don't have a clue how much risk/dedication is involved for any given individual.
Quote Alex Whittingham:
'There is a flip side to the coin, modular students are likely to be older, more mature, probably more motivated and are likely to stay with the employer for longer.'
Alex, by and large i respect your reasoned arguments but this is complete crap. It's possible (maybe probable) that statistics would prove that the average mod student is older (i don't know). As for maturity and motivation - what evidence do you have that modular students are more motivated than integrated? People talk about how they 'held down 2 jobs and supported a family' while doing their modular training. All credit to these people - a bloody hard slog i'm sure - but don't dare assume that 'joe integrated student' wouldn't have done the same if different circumstances had forced them to take that route.
In terms of maturity, there were a bunch of 18 year olds on my course. Having gone through uni the stark difference between these guys and your average uni student is unbeleivable. They took there enormous debt very seriously worked just as hard as the thirty-somethings on the course.
Regarding staying with your employer for longer - you really would have to be quite old starting your first flying job to not consider leaving for ba/virgin/easy at the first available opportunity (presuming that is what you wanted).
In summary, debate about integrated v modular is important and should be encouraged, but all to often that debate descends into a people slating integrated students as a bunch of spoilt little brats. Trust me, nothing could be further from the truth.
Some people consider training and decide on integrated. they believe that although more expensive, the opportunities are likely to be better at the end and time to the rhs of a jet (what many people are looking for) will be less.
Some airlines -e.g. BA, only take integrates low hour pilots, FACT. If you think thats unfair and that many modular students are more than capable of passing a BA selection and fulfilling that role thats fair enough. I'd probably agree with you. However, there's nothin you or i can do about it. The FACT remains that if you want a shot a BA mainline straight out of flight school you have to do integrated. If, for what ever reason, integrated isn't an option for you and this type of thinking from airlines pisses you off, again fair enough.
But don't come on to pprune and bitch about integrated students who may be trying to take advantage of the situation laid out in fron of them.
To quote Will Smith; 'Don't hate the player, hate the game'