Hi drumaster,
It is a lot of money and I applaud your research. As you already know there is no easy answer, and as with so many other things it still boils done to an assesment of risk.
Firstly and before you do anything else have him complete the class 1 medical that you have already booked. Rather like a home survey or a boat survey, you need to write off this relatively minor sum before you start to commit to the big bucks.
As cabair are a seller of these products, you are right to be a little sceptical concerning the impartiality of the information they use to promote a particular product even though that doesn't necessarily mean it is erroneous or intended to mislead. I would certainly disagree with the suggestion that integrated courses are the only route for the serious pilot. There are a huge number of very serious and commited pilots who have and will achieve their goals via the modular route, so that is nonsense. However where I do agree, is that where airlines look for Cadet pilots (and by that I am referring to very low hour / ab-initio recruits,) they nearly always do so in conjunction with an integrated programme of training through a recognised and affilated training establishment.
In the UK the three main players in this arena are: CTC; Oxford and FTE. Most airline /cadet programmes are affilated to one of these establishments. Despite that, there has been very little uptake in the last few years even from these programmes, so it is most certainly not a "guarantee" of anything.
I am not sure if your discussions surrounding a loan of £60,000 are part of a larger package involving savings, earnings or some other monetary tool, but I should point out at onset, that these programmes will all likely involve a basic investment of around 50% more than that figure.
Modular training is likely to be significantly cheaper, but it should be understood that it depends on how you view the end goal and the methodology of achieving it. This type of training allows you to buy the various modules at whichever training establishments you please. It allows for more flexibility in not just cost, but also in time. For that reason it can be used by people to hold down other employment as a means of contributory financing. Many people will advocate this method as being the only common sense option. In part I would agree that if there is little prospect of gainful employment at the point of licence aquisition, then they are probably correct. However many people also erroneously believe that a commercial licence and 200 odd hours is simply all you need for airlines to be clamouring to employ them. They are wrong. It isn't, and never has been.
Airlines have traditionally recruited experienced co-pilots who have acquired that experience from a variety if time served backgrounds. They include ex-military pilots and what were termed "self improvers" that is pilots who had acquired their licences and then worked there way up through general aviation and entry level commercial aviation jobs, to eventually have the hours and experience that the glossy end of the market was looking for. Together with this, a few airlines would also select a limited number of recommended pilots from a few "approved" training establishments as cadet entry pilots.
Over the last decade and a half, many factors have combined to bring about changes in the way this type of employment has evolved. The rapid expansion of what is termed "lo-cost" carriers has seen a desire to eliminate all extraneous and undesirable cost elements from the operation. Without doubt (and at least one CEO makes no secret of it,) if they could completely eliminate the co-pilots seat they would do it in a heartbeat. They can't, so they look for the next best thing, which is how to reduce that cost. The answer has been to stop taking on the previous experience they demanded, and replace it with more of the much cheaper and extraordinarily plentiful supply of pilots who are prepared to finance themselves into that seat. So successful has this been, that in some companies it has spawned a secondary business in itself.
Changes, and significant increases in the retirement age has also taken the pressure off the left seat for many airlines. Captains who once might have retired at 55, can now work on to 65 with even less restriction likely in the future. Reductions in terms and conditions, as well as the deteriorating prospects for pension income and indeed the whole pension industry, has also combined to ensure that many captains have and will continue to work well beyond their planned retirement. This consequential lack of movement has served to remove the imperitive need to have a good experience base in the right hand seat from which to promote, and has allowed an expansion of the whole "pay to fly" environment, in all its variations, to thrive.
Despite that, many airlines are still wary of the need to carefully monitor the training background, personality and aptitude of those cadets they do employ. This is undoubtably much more difficult when it involves modular applicants, and for those reasons most schemes will be tied to integrated programmes from the recognised training providers.
To some extent this is no different than it ever used to be. Integrated students at the approved schools (of which there were few) came out with a licence and around 250 hours. "Self improvers" would require at least 700 hours for a commercial licence, however they could work as instructors on their Private pilots licenses (with the necessary ratings) as part of their career path if they so chose. Harmonisation changes resulted in this option being eliminated some years back, to bring the UK into line with other national authorities. As part of these changes the modular system was formalized and the hour requirement dropped in order to make the aerial work opportunites (such as flight instruction) more in line to that that had existed previously. The confusion often comes in the supposition that this large reduction in flight time experience was something that the airlines would simply ignore, they didn't.
I have gone on at length to give something of a background to where we are today. So now to give you my opinion based on the questions you asked:
I dont think his age (18) is an issue of any importance provided it is a career he is absolutely committed to.
Making it too easy for him? Well I know where you are coming from but only you and him can decide that. It will be very difficult and very frustrating based on most peoples experience. You should also appreciate that the attrition rate is also very high. However easy you might make it, the system won't. I would say that there is no great imperative, and perhaps the smaller investment of PPL training would help to either Crystalize a commitment or not. It would represent about 10% of the investment you are proposing, but in so much as the intregrated (not necessarily the modular) courses are concerned, would represent additional cost.
The pitfalls of the job prospects, are a very valid concern. Without repeating much of what I already said, airline jobs are very few and far between. Those that are available tend to be filled at this saturated end of the market from cadet affiliation schemes, or other "pay to train" schemes that do not usually promise much security of tenure. The entry level commercial jobs are also in very short supply and are keenly fought over. Things are likely to improve as they cyclically do, but the idea that there will ever be a shortage of airline pilots at the 200 hour level is simply a delusion. If fast track airline flying is the goal, then my money would be on a cadet scheme through one of the main players in this market, even though that comes with no guarantees and considerable financial risk.
I would get information from the main players in this market, CTC, Oxford and FTE. Also I would get information from other schools and providers. Read these forums, ask questions and then comes the difficult bit. It would be idiotic of me to suggest that with all this information and advice you can arrrive at a correct decision. All those emotional human traits and factors will still be a part of the mix. Just like you, I know that no matter how much information, advice and attitude to risk I arm myself with, I will still keep my fingers crossed that it all works out for the children we "invest" in. Luck still plays a huge part.
Finally I am not sure about these "degree/atpl" courses. On the one hand I would advocate any advance in educational achievment as being only a positive thing, and I would never discourage somebody from putting a degree forward as a priority. However I am not sure these types of degree are sufficiently meaningful in selecting a course provider? Personally I wouldn't let it sway the decision, but in truth I do not know enough about them to advise one way or the other, or to offer any meaningful input.
I throw this into the pot with the rider that you should keep investigating and if you have more questions (and you will) ask away.
Good luck!