I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to post on this thread but some of these comments are just bizarre and ridiculous...
Originally Posted by flyride
But guys, I don't want to fight with you, if in your opinion that guy seem trustworthy enough to embrace MPL as it is, then go for it. Give him your money, and he'll make you the best pilot you can be.
But one isn't paying this guy personally, one would be paying CTC or OAA whichever flight school it happened to be. Whatever one thinks of them as businesses they have a reputation for turning out good pilots that the airlines like...don't really see how that is different from the integrated fATPL process as far as dealing with the FTO is concerned...
Originally Posted by GgW
Simple, you are
.
Why? Yes you would trained to Qatar sops but then that would be the case with a fATPL as well. Once line training is signed off with the partner airline you can transfer to another one if you lose your job. That precedent was set back in 2008 when the first MPL holders at Sterling lost their jobs. The only real difference is that you couldn't do single pilot commercial flying.
Originally Posted by GoProPilot
Thus conventional sponsorship with an ATPL is prefered .. hang on , sponsorship? does Qatar sponsor at all?
I wonder why they are doing this, seriously? is there a shortage of current/rated pilots?
baffles .
stinks.
Qatar sponsor their own nationals, which is far more than our own sorry flag carrier does.
Why does this 'baffle' or 'stink'? They are a fast growing airline that has a lot of aircraft on order and probably want to start building a base of pilots who have been indoctrinated with the company from the beginning. Their reasoning for the MPL is probably the same as easyJet, Flybe and all the other airlines that have gone down this route...
No one offers full sponsorship in the UK (Atlantic excepted...) any more. Aer Lingus are the closest to have come to that recently and I certainly hope to get onto that opportunity. I'm not holding my breath though just because of the numbers involved. Therefore given a choice between an untagged fATPL course and the MPL the MPL is far preferable because you are tied to an airline that will take you at the end of it.
Originally Posted by TeaTowel
I'm sure if you broke down MPL training it wouldn't cost £105000.
Care to back that comment up with something? I'm sure if you 'broke down' the cost of a fATPL course it wouldn't 'cost' the advertised price either. That is how flight schools make money, by charging more for the course than it costs to produce...
Most analysis I have read suggests that the cost of producing an MPL course, for a flight school, is certainly not any cheaper than an integrated fATPL.