Why aren't there more integrated courses around?

[king rooney]

Heres an interesting one for discussion, given that, for achieving an FATPL taking an integrated course is by far the best option (if price were not an issue), with less hoops to jump through that the Mod route, why are they only offered by so few FTOs?

I would imagine that there are a set of CAA/ JAR criteria which must be satisfied by an FTO in order to offer the integrated course, it would be interesting to know what they are.

Given that the likes of Stapleford and other highly regarded mod schools would appear to have similar standards of training/ aircraft etc to the likes of OAT, the only thing that springs to mind is that an integrated provider must have to provide its own on site ATPL ground school, which the modular FTOs do not appear to have the capacity to do.
However, given that the ground school is taken right at the start of an integrated course, why shouldnt it be possible to do the theory elsewhere, and then integrate the remaining flying side of the training into one package?

Or are there a more deeper set of criteria which must be fulilled?
Given the gravy train that the likes of OAT are on with their integrated courses, id imagine that many mod schools would jump at the chance to offer integrated training, so why don't they?

[FlyingForFun]

Perhaps because the far higher price of an integrated course means that there is insufficient demand for them to require any more providers?

FFF
----------------

[buzzc152]

"Heres an interesting one for discussion, given that, for achieving an FATPL taking an integrated course is by far the best option"

..... is it ?? How does that work then ? I can think of many good reasons why a modular route can be better.

Anyhow, I suspect FFF has the real reason. When you have a choice of either shelling out £40,000 or £70,000 for essentially the same thing I think most people would choose the cheaper option.

[king rooney]

but does the price have to be so high?

If you compare the numbers of Dual and solo flying hours between the mod and integrated routes they are roughly the same. Aircraft used are in many cases the same. So why the massive price difference?
Perhaps it could be accounted for by the fact that the likes of OAT pay their instructors more, but just because a course is integrated doesnt meen it has to be more expensive by default.

Buzzc152, you have missed the point of this topic.

[buzzc152]

it wouldn't be the first time..........

[Whirlygig]

From the way you phrased your first post King Rooney, I would say Buzz and FFF have hit the nail on the head!

Modular training involves distance learning whereas (I imagine) integrated training involves much more classroom stuff which will mean an instructor's salary has to be paid. That can be one reason why it is more costly. The macro economics of supply and demand will be another.

Cheers

Whirls

[king rooney]

The cost of for example OATs modular ground school is I think at most about a grand less than their residential ground school. I would imagine that OAT do not make a loss on their residential ground school. Therefore the difference in costs between the two types of theory training does not account for the difference in cost between integrated and modular courses.

Given that integrated and modular courses involve roughly the same numbers of dual and solo hours, it would be perfectly possible to put together an integrated course for the same price as a "structured modular" course, so why doesn't someone do so?

I for one believe that the integrated route is better for getting the ATPL, as it involves less hoops, however the reason im not doing it is because the extra 30grand or so is not justifiable. If someone put on an integrated course for say 35k, which i think IS perfectly possible they would be overwhelmed with interest.

[jb5000]

X3k5,

Remember that with CTC for £60,000 you are getting flights/accommodation/transfers etc. as well as a type rating and the virtual certainty of a job at the end must have a price on it.

Remember to compare like with like, I for one can't understand why Oxford charge so much for an integrated course but the same "Waypoint" programme is identical but cheaper. (Only thing missing AFAIK is the first officer fundamentals section, but that can't be worth 20k upwards a head can it?)

[king rooney]

My intentions when starting this thread were not to once again direct my agressions to OAT, but in answer to jb5000's question,

Why do OAT charge so much for their integrated course?

Because there are enough idiots out there sucked in by their marketing/ looking for a potential fast track route to an airline job that are prepared to pay!

[mcgoo]

no, read again, CTC includes a type rating, this is not included in OAT's course

[mcgoo]

well then how can you say that OAT's price is more justified when CTC includes a type rating and OAT does not???

[WingDown]

Remember to compare like with like, I for one can't understand why Oxford charge so much for an integrated course but the same "Waypoint" programme is identical but cheaper. (Only thing missing AFAIK is the first officer fundamentals section, but that can't be worth 20k upwards a head can it?)
What about the 100+ hours initial flight training? The 26 weeks classroom tuition?
Certainly goes someway to explaining the difference in price between integrated and waypoint programmes

[king rooney]

x3k5, do you by any chance work for OAT?

Reading your previous posts you seem to have been quoting directly from OATs marketing brochures.... eg

"Whatever you say, Integrated is still better to get you a job than Modular which really ends this debate. I do not wish to pointlessly argue further." - today

"And for an example why integrated is better than the other schools, BA only takes Integrated low hour pilots with an exception of CTC. Note - "Low hour pilots"." -today

"Integrated is much more expensive but its worth it." --today.

"in Oxford you basically need around £72K to start with but they do have an excellent scheme with HSBC to provide a max of £50K. "- 28 May

"And do you have any idea how expensive it is to run a flight school, especially integrated with classroom studying. Please do not express your views in just criticism if you do not have deep insight within that area." - yesterday... You however would appear to have insight "within that area", a statement which could be interpreted to be incriminating.

"OAT on the other hand focus on all ranges of students(mostly good) and get them through the obstacles so the quality here must also be good." ... I notice your use of the word "here". A freudian slip perhaps?

There was a guy who was shamefully exposed a couple of months ago, a certain Nimbus5 I believe, who was an OAT member of staff posing as a prospective student. If its been done once, it can be done again.

Wing down, you claim that the 100 initial flying hours justify the massive cost difference between the waypoint scheme. May I bring to your attention that those hours are carried out in the US, where flying costs are around half the price of what they are here.

[WingDown]

Wing down, you claim that the 100 initial flying hours justify the massive cost difference between the waypoint scheme. May I bring to your attention that those hours are carried out in the US, where flying costs are around half the price of what they are here.

King Rooney,

I do not wish to start debating how OAT justify the cost breakdown of each of their courses. I was simply stating, in reply to jb5000's post, that the Integrated programme was not same as the Waypoint scheme so cannot be directly compared on cost. I offered a couple of points that differentiate the two courses, factors that would affect the overall price.

On another point, why not contact OAT and ask them to give you a full price breakdown for the course? You claim the course is grossly over priced? Well pose that question to them, I'm sure you wont be the first person to ask.

[jb5000]

Well taking from OAT's website the total cost for waypoint is:

£25,000 for Multi onwards
£2,000 for JOC that is included in APP
£3,995 for full-time classroom based tuition as in APP
-------
£30,995

Leaving about 25-30k for PPL up to 150hrs, so perhaps not as cheaper as I was thinking but there is still a massive gap there.

X3k5, accommodation is included in the US but not in the UK so if you opt for the £200 a week at OAT when you're in the UK then there is a big difference there.

[whiskey1]

King Rooney,
If your looking for an intergrated course have a look at
[URL="http://www.waaviationcollege.com.au/"]
Certainly cost effective

[scroggs]

The primary reason why Integrated training costs more than Modular is that the integrated syllabus is from zero to CPL/IR with MCC. Modular only covers the instructed modules required by the JAA. Structured modular (eg CTC) is similar to Integrated except that different training providers may be used in various parts of the course.

The pricing of any of these courses is rarely done on a cost-plus basis. In other words, FTOs don't usually sit and work out what these courses cost them and then add a gross profit margin. They certainly know what their costs are, but the pricing is almost always based on what the FTO believes the market will bear. Perhaps the major factor influencing this is what the FTO perceives its own reputation to be worth. If a school is operating at or near capacity, then the pricing is about right for that school.

Now, a school's reputation may well be based on factors which have little or nothing to do with the quality of its training, and there is no doubt that certain schools use effective marketing to present themselves as being perhaps rather better than they really are. There's nothing wrong with that; as in all purchase decisions, caveat emptor is the watchword. It's up to you how you judge the value for money that you receive from any particular school.At the end of the day, you'll get the same licence whether you go to OAT or to Little Snoring Flying Club - it's the examinations (air-and ground-based) that ensure all fATPL graduates achieve the standards required, and they have nothing to do with the schools.

It is true that some airlines have a preference for graduates of certain schools. There may be historical reasons for this, or an established financial relationship, or whatever, but the fact that airline 'A' gets most of its ab-initio pilots from school 'X' does not imply that that school is any better than any other. It simply reflects a working commercial relationship which satifies the needs of both parties. Statements such as 'And obviously there's that point that integrated get better jobs and BA only takes low hour pilots from Integrated except from CTC.', while being common perceptions, may well be (as in this case) demonstrably false - BA takes several low-hour pilots from a whole variety of FTOs, and through a number of different routes.

Why are there not more integrated schools? The establishment costs of a school that takes people from zero to fATPL are substantial - when BAe started up at Prestwick (and subsequently moved to Jerez) the costs involved were reportedly horrendous! And (IIRC) that was under the old CAP509 system, which may have been less costly than the integrated system would be to start up now. Not only that, but the licencing system has a irregular but frequent pattern of wholesale (and often illogical) changes which add to the expense, and the training industry has been plagued with airline sector downturns which have seen many, many schools go bust. It's no wonder that investors aren't queuing up to start new, glossy integrated schools - even if the damand were there, which it isn't. The modular system offers FTOs a far cheaper way into the market, and one which isn't out of the reach of a group of enthusiastic FIs to start up - and those enthusiastic FIs may well offer better value for money to the impecunious student than any major school!

Scroggs

[Quincy M.E.]

I was not making this up.

Here I quote from a BA representative , "BA only hires low hour pilots from Integrated courses"
But note its the "low hour pilots - basically as in starters who just graduated.



Where were you quoting from?

As Scroggs implied, the fact that they use integrated is, IMHO, simply a financial issue. By having a relationship with an integrated school they can recruit more easily. In effect the schools act a bit like a recruitment agency.

[scroggs]

X3k5 This part of your statement: 'And obviously there's that point that integrated get better jobs' is a common misperception and is unsupportable. The other part:' BA only takes low hour pilots from Integrated except from CTC.', while it may be BA's stated policy, is true only in the narrowest sense that those recruited directly from FTOs are from integrated providers or from CTC. There are many low-houred BA recruits over the last year or two that came from normal modular courses, but they may have managed a few hours on other things between leaving their school and starting with BA. BA would rather not broadcast that bit, though, as it might affect their relationships with certain FTOs!

Scroggs

[potkettleblack]

Simple answer. There isn't the demand. When schools like Oxford start advertising for modular students you can bet your bottom dollar that integrated numbers are down or margins are being tightened. I remember the days not so long ago when schools like Oxford wouldn't touch a modular student with a barge pole and were actively advocating how integrated was the only way to go and airlines supposedly thought less of moudlar students. All marketing hype of course but nonetheless thats what they were up to.

If you don't believe me about the demand then check out the CAA website and see just how little CPL's are issued each year and then contrast that with the number of FTO's registered with the CAA that are all jockeying for the business.

[king rooney]

scroggs,

why would the costs involved in setting up an integrated school be so much bigger than for a modular one? Apart from groundschools, the modular schools have everything you need anyway, ie the planes and instructors.

Admittedly setting up an atpl ground school might be a considerable task, with high start up costs, but I see no reason why a school should not be able to offer zero to FATPL "in air" training, once someone has passed all their atpl theory exams elsewhere.
The ground school and the flying training are essentially two separate entites, and do not by any means need to be taught at the same place. I know that u need to get ur ppl b4 starting at somewher like bristol or london met, but that requirement could easily be removed.

The only difference between the flying side of integrated and modular courses is that with modular you take a ppl skills test, with integrated you go straight to the cpl test. ie bugger all.

Oh, a mod school would also need to set itself up for doing MCCs as well, which might cost a bit, but dont a number of the modular schools provide MCCs already?

[Antonio Montana]

X3k5 does seem like a Oxford employee, interesting that you say you are 17 and still at school, but know what BA want.
I don't I am 36 have a job on the 737 and did almost all my training at Cranebank (BA's in house training centre)a few months ago. I had the chance to talk to a BA training Captain, he had just had a couple of students doing their LST's (on the 737 as well) and they were ex Oxford intergrated. They had also had to PAY BA for their type rating, so intergrated gets you a job, but you still have to pay another 20K or so........

[Fletch]

As far as I am aware both Atlantic Flight Training and Bournemouth Commercial Flight Training offer all courses from PPL to MCC. Maybe the owners take the view that there is no commercial advantage/benefit to training by offering an integrated course.

[Antonio Montana]

Now Now X3k5 I did no expect to get such a scathing reply. Your comments have shown me you are young and VERY mature, god I wish I was like you........
Whats lol mean??????

SO to the main part of my post, Oxford students who have already paid over sixty thousand pounds are also having to pay for type ratings with BA, but of course you knew that all along didn't you young man?
I will not be drawn in to arguments regarding the blowing of sixty thousand pounds, it is pointless as you have already decided what you want at the grand old age of 17 and are blind to the wisdom of others, I don't mean my self, but the likes of Scroggs (he knows the score).

I have now recived a PM from this young man it reads:

"http://www.oxfordaviation.net/Forum/...?TOPIC_ID=2669

Go there and see my post, username X3.

Check my email there and check it here. You will see its the same person. And Im an oxford employee???? lmao"

[Antonio Montana]

Thanks for that, I keep getting emails with lol and never understand them

Good Luck, whatever route you take, you will always remember the first time you fly a jet on base training.
Tony

[king rooney]

having read X3s posts on the OAT forum it would appear that his story does add up, he also seems to be a very bright lad with 11 gcses, including 5a stars, and is studying maths, physics, chemistry and biology A-levels, with predicted A grades. Impressive to say the least.

Therefore I apologise to him for accusing him of being an OAT staff member.

It is unfortunate however, that due to OATs previous shamefully deceptive actions of using staff members to pose as prospective students on pprune as a means of promoting their organisation, (remember nimbus5?) anyone who is so in favour of OAT, such as X3k5, will automatically be viewed with suspision, particularly when they seem to quote in a parrot like fashion from OATs markting brochure.

X3k5, I understand you are unsure as to whether or not to go for a degree before flying training. Personally I think you should. With your academic aptitude you would probalby get into one of the top universities and eat a degree for breakfast. Plus, with no responsibilites you will have the time of your life, with nothing to worry about apart from drinking and getting into as many girls knickers as you can. You will only be 21 when you finish, having gained a great deal more maturity than you have now, (no offence but you are only 17) and be a more attractive proposition to an airline. Perhaps then you might have enough life experience to see through OATs facade and make wiser decisions regarding your training. I wish you all the best!

[jb5000]

Hello again all,

I think someone hit it on the head a while back about why Oxford charges upwards of 60k for a course which can be cheaper elsewhere.

They have probably worked out that at that cost they get just enough people through the doors to have enough bright, able people to fill their capacity. Any more then it is just the super-rich and any less and they would be filling their slots but making less money. As I believe scroggs said it is not done on a reverse basis by starting at how much it is going to cost per head.

[king rooney]

I too am in favour of integrated, it is a better way to get an FATPL for sure. The cost difference however is too much by far.

Think what you can do with the 30k youd save by going modular. It is a hell of a lot of money, or if you need to take a loan out to pay for the training, think how much lower the repayments would be. A mate of mine went to OAT, and fair play to em he got an FO job after 6 months. He is however completely crippled by his loan repayments, about 800quid a month I think, to the extent that he cant even afford to put petrol in his car and will not be able to buy a house for about 10 yrs!

jb5000... exactly. It is a market led cost, rather than one properly calculated through profit margins, etc.