A couple of observations; I don’t want to join in the Oxford bashing, however, I feel I cannot let the propaganda (unwitting or intended) go unchallenged.
When I researched commercial flight schools many months back, I concluded that Oxford’s groundschool must be good as it achieves excellent results. In contrast, there must be plenty wrong in the flying department as the results achieved are well below average. Their courses are quite over-priced when comparing apples with apples, and their customer service levels are poor compared with others.
Having made those statements, I’d better justify them before I get flamed.
Groundschool
OAT make a lot of noise about their first time pass rates. They quote only the integrated rates as the modular rates are statistically incomplete; the same reason given by other modular schools for not publishing the rates. The subjective assessment I made was by talking to ex-students. 2 schools stand out as having first rate groundschools; Oxford and Bristol Groundschool. There are many others that are good. I chose Bristol in the end as they are clear winners in the customer service front.
Flying
Comparing first time pass rates for CPL Skills Tests and IRTs is tricky, as few schools will disclose their rates and it took a lot for me to get CAA averages. When schools do disclose, some quote first series pass rates which are different from first time passes. Then there is the problem of different schools having different students; start with good raw material and you may well get good results. Despite these health warnings, it was clear that Oxford achieved very poor first time pass rates at the CAA tests; at times when a lot of their students were ‘selected’ airline cadets who should pass first time more often.
Again, my subjective assessment was to talk to graduates. This was interesting; very few people criticise the standard of the instruction they receive wherever they train. Obviously, most people do their CPL or IR at only one school so they are unable to make comparisons. Maybe that is the reason. A typical Oxford graduate will complain about the management and customer service but praise the flying instructors. The only difference with the majority of other schools is that some do not criticise the organisation, while still praising their instructors. The best overall (by narrow margins) seem to be Bristol Flight Centre and PAT at Bournemouth. In my book the latter wins because a few people felt like sausages in a machine at BFC. The integrated choice was clearly BAe (now that WMU is out of the picture).
Prices
The OATS integrated course offered nothing of real value over the competition (in standard or APP form) yet was £1,000s more than the others. The equipment is older (although they are buying some new sims now), the operating base is poor, the accommodation frequently criticised – there seems no justification for the price other than the claim that they increase graduates chances of getting employment. I found absolutely no justification for that claim. I concluded that they must either be making a lot of money or they are very poor at managing their business.
Customer Service Levels
From the first sales enquiry to graduation, OATS prospective students, students and graduates criticise the organisation. In my research they were unique in this respect.
I know I’ve ended up OATS bashing, but I’ve tried to tell you the results of my market research dispassionately. I have nothing personal against OATS – they just failed to measure up and hence convince me to become a customer.
A final thought WWW, why is this thread on this forum; should it not be on the UK pro-training one? Even OATS don’t claim that this course has anything to do with sponsorship or jobs.