No, you distort the jigsaw puzzle pieces in order to fit your picture, as usual!
No first tier airline ever historically had a general requirement for 200 hour wanabees. The only exceptions were specific approved cadet programmes through a handful of airline sponsorship schemes. These programmes utilized an apprenticeship based approach to training, whereby the selected candidate followed an approved full time course of training leading to advanced mentored training with the airline concerned. A couple of these programmes were in-house the rest were through third party integrated training providers. The most well known was perhaps the BEA/BOAC/British airways cadet programme through Hamble, later AST Perth, and CSE Oxford. Other airlines also operated a handful of similar apprentice schemes through a limited range of approved integrated training schools.
The majority of recruitment was sourced from the experienced pilot market (read 2500-3000 hrs, 500 turbine minimum.) This included a large contingent of military leavers. Many of these experienced civilian pilots had cut their teeth by obtaining a 700 hour CPL and IR, and then working their way up through the stepping stone jobs. Those jobs were aerial work, air taxi, small turboprop operators, third and second tier airline operators. Obtaining the experience for that basic 700 hour CPL, was often achieved by obtaining an AFI (Assistant Flying Instructors) rating on a PPL and then a working up through QFI etc. The derogation that permitted a PPL flying instructor to work for remuneration was parochial and not consistent with the requirements of most other ICAO member states.
The advent of JAR and the "harmonisation" of European licensing requirements saw the UK adopt a two thirds reduction in the hours requirement for a basic CPL licence (non-approved.) This brought the UK into line with most of the rest of the world and reflected the "aerial work" nature of the basic licence, which henceforth (and in common with most other ICAO states) would also be a requirement for remunerated flight instructor employment.
The popular misconception (and it was fuelled by at least one Lo-co CEO) was that this 250 hour basic licence was the new standard for first tier airline employment. It wasn't! At broadly the same time as these changes were occurring, there was a rapid expansion in the latest evolution of the integrated (airline apprenticeship) training market. This was the old 200 hour approved route. Traditional providers and new entrant schools formed partnerships with a number of first tier operators to provide what (broadly speaking) they had always provided, albeit in smaller volume. That is a selected, monitored full time course of tailored training, leading to that customer airlines ab-initio apprentice cadet. These programmes proved successful for the airline partners. They were successful in respect of the quality of the cadet, the ability to monitor and influence the training that cadet would receive, and the ability to achieve cost savings and increased flexibility by transferring much of the input risk from their balance sheet to that of the supplier and the candidate themselves.
The attrition rate of cadets proved to be very low and certainly far lower than the historic attrition rate of even the previous "experienced" self improver with 2500-3000 hours minimum. The global recession and banking crisis that started at the tail end of the last decade, squeezed the rapid expansion of these integrated cadet programmes in much the same way as it squeezed the expansion of the entire industry. This (as in almost every other walk of life) choked off finance and placed an even greater burden of risk on the candidates themselves. The expansion of these programmes also served to reduce many of the opportunities for "self improvers" at the entry level for first tier airlines. Even further up the food chain at the intermediate level "self improver market" those looking to jump from their "stepping stone" jobs at the second and third tier airline jobs, found two very noticeable and real obstacles. Notwithstanding the economic malaise, the cadet programmes had blocked entry level progression into many of these airlines. Secondly, the 10 year regulatory extension of a pilots working life, choked off most of the retirement induced vacancies at the top end of the market. This allowed most airlines to consolidate their captain base and thereby flatten the internal experience curve. In other words having enough mid range experienced first officers suitable for promotion. Cadets (even in a lo-co environment) need at least 4-5 years experience before they can be considered for promotion. This regulatory age change simply served to take that requirement away, and give every airline an effective 10 year breathing space, to introduce these fundamental changes to their recruitment strategies.
This is the reality, and the history is there for anybody who wants to read it and learn from it. 250 hour modular pilots can be compared to the 700 hour pilots of 20 years ago (albeit they have only a third of that flying experience), they are the "self improvers," Of course the experience changes mean there are now exponentially more of them, chasing even fewer available jobs. The
stepping stone jobs are still out there, but as the example above shows, it is often much harder to move from those stepping stones to the first tier jobs. Hence so much of the vitriol and frustration that is a hallmark of some contributors who find themselves stuck on those stones.
MPL isn't a marketing invention, it is an evolution of the "approved" cadet programmes. It is designed to refine the specific segment of this industry training to dovetail with the same training philosophies that are now embedded in the airlines own advanced and recurrent training programmes.
In summary, first tier airlines have no animosity to "modular training"
per se. Many of their experienced captains and F/O's came through historical incarnations of the same thing. However at the 250 hour cadet level, it doesn't excite many of them any more than it used to when it was set at the 700 hour level. The integrated cadet programmes are the fast track route into this type of flying, but it is selective, expensive and intensive. For the modern day "self improver" the opportunities are becoming fewer and fewer even at the intermediate level, as the cadets continue to fill vacancies from below. The stepping stone turboprop jobs are scarcer and even more valuable to the aspiring wanabee. However those opportunities are themselves largely unattainable for the hugely expanded market of 250 hour wanabee's who are constantly led to believe that an
aerial work 250 hour licence is a first class ticket to a first tier (or indeed any other) airline.
By all means choose not to believe me, but then read these forums. Read the T&E forum and see the realities that even experienced career change pilots are facing. Even look to this thread where "stepping stones" are occupied by 5000 hour pilots who in many cases may have nowhere to step to, thereby freeing up that valuable vacancy for the next aspiring wanabee.
This is simply a cyclical discussion and very few people see a viewpoint that is not blinkered by their own circumstance.
That said, and in order to pay the toll:
So my current situation is I am in my final year for my GCSEs, and A levels options is coming up. My plan to becoming a commercial pilot at this moment is once I complete my A levels I would go to an Integrated ATPL school (Oxford Aviation Academy, CTC Wings, FTE Jerez etc) and completing that course then head towards the airlines as a cadet. However it has just come to my attention whether university degrees help in becoming an airline pilot. I have read from many other posts that it is a waste of time and money, or it is very useful for being hired by the airlines or simply as a backup if jobs do not arise.
A surprising number (it surprises me) of cadets who are employed via the programme we (and others) utilize do have university degrees. Sometimes the trade off for those cadets without degree level education is the ability to join a seniority list at a younger age. I am sceptical (although happy to be proved wrong) that a degree helps in becoming an airline pilot via this route, although it can be argued that the improved level of education and perhaps "life experience" might well contribute to a better level of self discipline as a constituent part of the specific learning regime. It also may help with the interview process, both as regards the CV competitiveness and the perception of maturity in the individual.
Where I think it does come into its own, is in career progression within the industry. By that I am not referring to promotions from one seat to the other, but rather management and administrative opportunities that sometimes form part of a career pilots progression within a company.