Flying School Claims?

[Spiggy]

My son has just attended a careers briefing and been very impressed by what he has been told by a well known flying school. I've been a professional pilot for more years than I care to admit to but the expertise at the starting end is clearly with the people involved in it.

Questions will naturally be asked at the open day but they implied

a/ a price I don't believe
b/ between a government grant and a guaranteed loan the finance is in the bag
c/ a guaranteed job with one of two major European airlines

Maybe I'm just old and cynical BUT

any offers on the likely actual cost of an integrated course
and views on guaranteed loans & jobs

I know modular is likely to work out a lot cheaper but would it not be fair to say integrated is more likely to lead to a jet job?

Many thanks in anticipation of your thoughts

[welliewanger]

Hi Spiggy,
I finished an integrated course in 2007 and now have that dream job. Here's my version of the answers:

Probable cost: My training at FTE (Jerez) cost about £3000 more than advertised. This was due to some extra Seneca flights I had (extra flights are charged at a very high rate because of the "calibre of instructors and aircraft") On the plus side, there were no other costs to pay which I hadn't thought of. all the food and accommodation was paid for. The only "unforeseen" cost was how much drinking I did in the year!

Loans: As long as you've got the collateral I'd be surprised if you couldn't get a loan for an integrated course.

Jobs: The question of whether an integrated school is more likely to lead to a job has been done to death here. There are more "modular people" here so inevitably more of them will have got a job straight out of flight school and there are more of them to tell you about it.
The best information I can give you is this: At a careers fair I had the opportunity to ask 6-8 industry leaders (chief pilots and the like) to expand on their preference for integrated or modular. ALL OF THEM HAD THE SAME ANSWER:
We know the history and the standard of training of integrated schools. Students have been primed from day one to think like an airline pilot. Depending upon the market, many of them would accept integrated students with lower hours (and some from large, well known modular schools too) but in general they all leant towards integrated training. Having instructed since, I can understand their point of view.

So these guys seemed to think that integrated students were more likely to get a job. The question is How much more likely? Is it enough to warrant the extra money? There is still every possibility that the student could graduate and never get a job. Or maybe they'd get the same job no matter whether they went integrated or modular, however by going modular you've saved a lot of money which would pretty much cover the cost of a type rating.

[Bealzebub]

I think you are absolutely right to be cynical.

A flying school as a commercial entity is little different from an airline or any other business selling a product or service. It must be succesful in selling the product in order to make a profit and therfore survive.

Not a day goes by when most of us are not bombarded with images of success, happiness and well being being thrust upon us, from companies selling everything from baked beans, through to stair lifts!

People sometimes seem to convert the suggestion of success, into an idea that it is a "promise" or "guarantee," when it is seldom anything of the sort.

Without knowing the companies you are referring to, I would suggest the following answers to your questions.

A) The price of an integrated course at one of the "big 3" UK providers is going be in the region of £80,000+ for a fATPL full time course. This should include accomodation (at UK and overseas locations,) but would likely exclude other living costs which would need to be budgeted seperately. This cost will include ground school, flight training for the CPL and multi engine Instrument rating and an MCC/AQC course.

These same schools often have affiliations with airline customers or "partners," who in accordance with their own requirements, often source "cadets" or low hour first officers from these same schools. Usually (but not always) that will involve significant extra cost for the student for the additional type rating course. This can be anywhere from £8000 to £28,000.

One or two of these schools also offer courses for the MPL, whereby the programme cost is reduced (to reflect the greater use of simulation in the syllabus, and the lower number of flying hours in the programme.) In truth the cost isn't a great saving, but the advantage for succcessful applicants, is the fact that these courses are conducted with a mentoring airlines involvement, thereby providing a better degree of assurance of commercial flying at completion of the course.

Those few airlines that run cadet programmes almost always do so in conjunction with an integrated training provider of this type. It reflects the involvement, understanding and assurance that they seek from individuals who have a recognised, continuous, verifiable, standard of training that the programme managers from these airlines can and do involve themselves with.

B) This is nonsense. There may well be countries where this is more likely, but in the UK there are no government grants, nor is there such a thing as a guaranteed loan. Career develpment loans are often available to qualifying students whereby the government pays (only) the interest on a loan during the full time course of training, but these schemes are run through a handful of commercial banks and are normally capped at around £10,000. For any other loans, normal terms would apply. Guarantors (usually parents) may be required for a candidate to secure borrowing and possibly this where the confusion with the term "guaranteed" is coming in? Unsecured loans would be subject to normal banking criteria and almost always capped at £25,000. Secured lending may be available to those (or their guarantors) with sufficient capital equity, or securities acceptable to a commercial bank.

C) As you will of course be aware, there is no such beast as a "guaranteed" job in this industry. Those schools with the best affiliations and track records in placing their students, are probably the best way to proceed, and research will likely direct you back to "the big 3!" For somebody with 200 odd hours there has never been a significant demand from airlines, and there isn't now. At this level the best chance (and there is no guarantee at all,) of airline employment with such low experience, is through one of the cadet programmes I mentioned in my previous answer.

Modular is cheaper, it was always intended to be. However that was because licensing changes (with the introduction of JAR) resulted in many "aerial work" types of employment (such as flight instruction) requiring a commercial licence when that had not previously been the case. Historically a (non-approved) CPL required some 700 hours of experience. The new modular requirements, sought to address this anomaly, and bring the UK into line with the licence/experience requirements that existed in the USA and most other ICAO countries.

The mistake that many people make, is to assume that this level of experience, however acquired, is all they need to have airlines beating a path to their door. To some extent that belief has been fostered and encouraged by one or two lo-co airline CEO's, stating that if they can't do away with F/O's altogether (as is their stated wish,) they will opt for the next best course available to them.

For many people, modular training will be the way to achieve their licences, and there is no reason why they shouldn't be any less succesful in their end goals, with the requisite levels of experience and a strong economy. However the comparison at the 200 hour level mark is not what many would hope it was.

[welliewanger]

I never thought I'd say this... "Well said Bealzebub!"

[Spiggy]

Many thanks for your detailed and clearly very well informed replies. Best of Luck