Are you saying that that cannot be achieved via a modular route?
No, but it rarely is at the 250 hour level. I have seen some excellent apprenticeships that have brought people into the industry utilizing this route. Unfortunetaly they are few and far between as well. Historically a lot of people have progressed their careers utilizing what was once called the "self improver" route. In essence this meant you worked your way up through the system as and when you could afford to. It was little different to what people now call "modular" although the latter sounds much better. The "self improver" route didn't allow for 250 hour pilots to sit in the right seat of a jet airliner, or indeed any airliner for that matter. The licence required a minimum of 700 hours. Usually people utilizing this system had significant experience in aerial work type roles as part of their career development. Airlines generally set a benchmark level of experience in these roles for consideration when interviewing.
Historically there always were "approved" training programmes that led to CPL issue with 200 odd hours through a few selected training schools. These were integrated programmes intended to lead to fast track airline entry.
The introduction of JAR brought changes to the licensing system that brought the system more into line with that existing in the rest of the world. the hours requirement for a CPL plunged from around 700 hours (non approved,) to around 200 hours. A lot of flight training establishments expanded their programmes to offer these low hour courses on an integrated basis.
The problem was in the perception that this somehow equated to what the old integrated course system was. In other words many people believed that 250 hours and a CPL or fATPL, was the new utopia for airline employment.
It isn't, and it never was!
It is the new benchmark for "aerial work," such as employment as a flight instructor, and in other countries (such as the USA) it aways has been. The "fast track" or "approved" schemes still exist albeit in a much expanded role, and the requirements really haven't changed a great deal in tems of the qualifying hours required.
There is a lot of confusion surrounding the terms "modular" and "integrated" and much of it is auto induced. The schemes that lead to the airline "cadet programmes" are all integrated schemes. Indeed they always were, even in the days of "Oxford, Hamble, Perth etc." Now they are evolved schemes through the likes of Oxford, FTE, CTC etc.
In addition these same training providers and many others offer full time courses of integrated training that are not part of "cadet schemes" but they would argue are still structured towards the customer airlines requirements and operating philosophies. That, and the seamless programme is what you are paying the premium for. Whether that is something you feel is valuable, worthless, or not a realsitic financial option or choice, is clearly a matter for the individual.
Desert Strip Basher
I am telling you what is really happening in the world. It doesn't bother me whether you believe it or not. The observations are free and you can ignore or deny them as you see fit. It is not a judgement, it is what is happening. If you don't think so, then look around you.
I have no doubt that the schools that you mention offer perfectly good products to their customers. However, how many of those establishments tie their product in to a possible airline placement or cadet programme at the end of the course? People need to understand what it is they are buying into and what realistic expectations they should have as a result of that investment.