Everything that you need to know

[Genghis the Engineer]

Right, for those who are new to this game.

Learning to fly an airliner will cost lots of money, almost certainly you need to find it yourself. If you are 18-25 you are not too young to start, if you are 30-45 you are not too old to start. If you do a degree you will get a lot from it, but almost certainly it will not help your airline career, although there are other flying jobs than being in an airliner. Do the licence that is valid in the country you are have nationality to work in. It is possible to fly for fun instead of being paid to fly. You need a class 1 medical for most professional flying jobs so do that first. There are two routes to get your fATPL - integrated and modular, the first *may* give you an advantage with a few airlines, in getting your first job - but also costs twice as much, and the odds of getting a first job with one of those airlines are tiny anyhow - so mostly integrated is just money donw the drain. MPL probably will generate acceptable first officers, but is incredibly inflexible and for years most of your colleagues will assume that you actually can't fly for toffee, and certainly you'll get no flying job except in an airliner whilst with a CPL/fATPL you might. There are far more newly qualified pilots than jobs, flying is not the only profession for which that is true - live with it and stop whingeing. Flying is supposed to be fun, if you aren't in it to enjoy the flying - whatever other reasons - go and do something else.

Any questions?

G

[EK4457]

Just one. Why has it taken around a decade for this post to appear?

[The Old Fat One]

Any questions?


Yes.

Why is abbreviation such a long word?

[Bealzebub]

Yes, one question.

so mostly integrated is just money donw the drain.

Why?

What you have neglected to point out in your opinion, is that for those wannabes looking for an airline pilot career, and that is most of them, this is the only realistic game in town.

Not only that, but a full time professional pilots licence course of training, at a good recognised training school with a seamless continuity of properly monitored and structured training, has to be worth a premium.

Whilst it is certainly true to say there are no guarantees at the end of it, a low houred licence holder looking for airline employment is going to find a desert out there, until they have amassed a significant level of experience, and even then it won't be easy.

If all you want is a licence, then there are likely cheap ways of obtaining one. If you are looking for low houred airline cadet entry, then there aren't.

Cadet programmes are all run in conjunction with an established integrated training provider. In the UK that is usually FTE, CTC or Oxford. Those airlines recruiting cadets: Flybe; Thomas Cook, Monarch, Easyjet, etc. all utilize programmes through one or more of these integrated programmes. As the market picks up, so these programmes will expand and more airlines will source cadets from them.

Why?

Airlines like cadets. Although they are intensive on the training department, they are flexible and cost effective. The inexperience downside risk is mitigated by virtue of their specific, continous, monitored, verifyable training background, that has been structured to that customers operating philosophy.

Contrast that, with the low houred licence holder who has done a bit here and a bit somewhere in Florida. Who wonders where the cheapest place to do everything might exist. Who wonders about buying a type rating course from somebody in a rented office behind a hanger at Miami airport.

Make no mistake, I am not sugggesting that a pilot embarking on modular training necessarily falls foul of the many traps waiting out there. Some of the best, determined and most hard working F/O's I have flown with, have come up through this route. However, not with 250 hours.

The problem is that some people believe that £40,000+ worth of modular training, 250 hours, and £30,000 for a type rating will put them on a level footing. Most of the time that simply isn't the case.

I personally know or am remotely aquainted with 14 low houred pilots who have found jobs with airlines in the UK since the start of this year. Eight of those are the cadets my own company has recently recruited from their integrated training partner. One is the son of a colleague who has graduated from an integrated programme at FTE. One is the son of a colleague who has graduated a programme at CTC. Two are the children of aquaintances who have graduated from Oxford and are both now flying for Ryanair. Two are people my son went to school with and have completed courses at CTC, both now working for Easyjet.

It is interesting to note that many of those in the industry are electing to advise or send their own children through integrated training regimes. This will be for a reason that trancends their supposed desire to "waste money." It doesn't really matter whether you invest £75,000 or £100,000 unless that investment stands any chance of realising a return.

Flight training is very expensive, and for the majority of wannabes these often eye watering sums are going to involve a lot of risk, sacrifice, heartache and disappointment. The structure of the industry and its evolution is complex and dynamic. Many people reading this and most of the other posts on here, will only seek positive reinforcement of what they want to believe in any event. Nevertheless, and no matter how tempting, it doesn't present an accurate picture to simply state that "integrated is money down the drain." Not only is that an oversimplified opinion, but for the reasons I have suggested, it is also wrong!

[Whirlygig]

but a full time professional pilots licence course of training, at a good recognised training school with a seamless continuity of properly monitored and structured training, has to be worth a premium.Are you saying that that cannot be achieved via a modular route?

Cheers

Whirls

[Desert Strip Basher]

Bealzebub - read my responses to you on the other thread. Integrated isn't money down the drain for the lucky few. For many (ie mostly), the bigger picture is mostly money down the drain through the majority of self sponsored applicants giving their money away to training providers who charge over inflated prices for the same training when they are not employers and so have no control over the end product they are trying to sell - ie employment. If all integrated schemes were linked to airline recruitment (ie similar to sponsorships of old but with applicants now footing the bill), then there might be some balance, fairness and less heartache. But when people are building businesses and can sell to far more lemmings than there are jobs, an over inflated product then why would anyone want to do that?? In such circumstances I'm surprised you wish to fan the flames by grasping on this particular part of the thread.

Either way - I've forwarded your judgement to PAT, Stapleford, BCFT, Aeros, Atlantic Flight Training, Multiflight etc. Perhaps they'll all now realise the error of their ways and sell up as their training is apparently not recognised as being good enough?

[Bealzebub]

Are you saying that that cannot be achieved via a modular route?

No, but it rarely is at the 250 hour level. I have seen some excellent apprenticeships that have brought people into the industry utilizing this route. Unfortunetaly they are few and far between as well. Historically a lot of people have progressed their careers utilizing what was once called the "self improver" route. In essence this meant you worked your way up through the system as and when you could afford to. It was little different to what people now call "modular" although the latter sounds much better. The "self improver" route didn't allow for 250 hour pilots to sit in the right seat of a jet airliner, or indeed any airliner for that matter. The licence required a minimum of 700 hours. Usually people utilizing this system had significant experience in aerial work type roles as part of their career development. Airlines generally set a benchmark level of experience in these roles for consideration when interviewing.

Historically there always were "approved" training programmes that led to CPL issue with 200 odd hours through a few selected training schools. These were integrated programmes intended to lead to fast track airline entry.

The introduction of JAR brought changes to the licensing system that brought the system more into line with that existing in the rest of the world. the hours requirement for a CPL plunged from around 700 hours (non approved,) to around 200 hours. A lot of flight training establishments expanded their programmes to offer these low hour courses on an integrated basis.

The problem was in the perception that this somehow equated to what the old integrated course system was. In other words many people believed that 250 hours and a CPL or fATPL, was the new utopia for airline employment.

It isn't, and it never was!

It is the new benchmark for "aerial work," such as employment as a flight instructor, and in other countries (such as the USA) it aways has been. The "fast track" or "approved" schemes still exist albeit in a much expanded role, and the requirements really haven't changed a great deal in tems of the qualifying hours required.

There is a lot of confusion surrounding the terms "modular" and "integrated" and much of it is auto induced. The schemes that lead to the airline "cadet programmes" are all integrated schemes. Indeed they always were, even in the days of "Oxford, Hamble, Perth etc." Now they are evolved schemes through the likes of Oxford, FTE, CTC etc.

In addition these same training providers and many others offer full time courses of integrated training that are not part of "cadet schemes" but they would argue are still structured towards the customer airlines requirements and operating philosophies. That, and the seamless programme is what you are paying the premium for. Whether that is something you feel is valuable, worthless, or not a realsitic financial option or choice, is clearly a matter for the individual.

Desert Strip Basher

I am telling you what is really happening in the world. It doesn't bother me whether you believe it or not. The observations are free and you can ignore or deny them as you see fit. It is not a judgement, it is what is happening. If you don't think so, then look around you.

I have no doubt that the schools that you mention offer perfectly good products to their customers. However, how many of those establishments tie their product in to a possible airline placement or cadet programme at the end of the course? People need to understand what it is they are buying into and what realistic expectations they should have as a result of that investment.

[Desert Strip Basher]

I haven't expressed disbelief at what you're saying, merely surprise that you can seemingly attempt to endorse current practises by going to the effort of drawing out a small part of Ghengis' thread. You may well be correct that only integrated applicants are being recruited at present and I haven't suggested anything to the contrary. Whether this continues into the future only time will tell, but based on the last recruitment cycle, Ghengis' statement holds true. There is a never ending debate of integrated vs modular (and one which I'm not fighting either way), so there simply must be some weight to what Ghengis says. Your synopsis is only relevant to this moment and what is more pertinent is that if it is only integrated graduates that are successful at present (and accepted it probably is), there are multiples more of their comrades on the scrap heap, heavily in debt having been sold a dream by those only too willing to take their cash for an end product they have very little influence over. As I said, read my reponses here and on the other thread.

[Bealzebub]

Well, there didn't seem to be any particular disagreement in either thread, and I drew out the point because it is an erroneous one. The topic was addressed to people who "are new to this game," which is probably why it is over simplistic. However, to state that one route is "money down the drain" is nothing more than one persons opinion that patently misses the wider reality.

For anybody embarking on a near six figure training course or courses, they need to understand those wider realities, and no matter how much it may be whistling in the wind, I make no apologies for pointing out those realities however drawn out the point is perceived to be.

Far too many people on these forums, and no doubt in the wider world, are of the firm opinion that a CPL/IR and 250 hours, places them on a level playing field for airline recruitment. To that end, it is only a matter of how you aquire
those 250 hours and CPL/IR, that really matters. Entrenched in that belief, follows the question, which is the cheapest way of buying in? From this is spawned much of the nonsensical debate about "modular" and "integrated."

The reality is that at 250 hours, the only realistic recruitment into this type of employment is via cadet schemes, and they follow an integrated format for reasons that I fully understand and have explained. I don't endorse anything, and it would matter little even if I did. That is the way the industry has evolved and looks set to continue. For those that secure this route, it is their best chance of low houred airline employment.

For those that can't, things are harder. Integrated training providers, provide a full time, structured and monitored course of training that has enabled a significant number of graduates to find employment via SSTR programmes with a a few companies. Undoubtably a number of modular graduates have also benefited from this route. However it is a crowded arena where any and every advantage matters. It is also a very limited market at the 250 hour level.

Once again, if you look at those airlines with cadet programmes such as Easyjet, Thomas Cook, Monarch, Flybe etc. You can see that they source all of their cadets from affiliated integrated programmes. Not one of them advertises for 250 hour pilots from any other source. They and other major operators also recruit experienced pilots. Other companies such as BA are currently recruiting experienced type rated applicants, however as they once again activate their own cadet schemes it is still likely to follow the tried and trusted schemes.

The SSTR employers seem to recruit with a heavy leaning towards those who have completed training through one of the integrated schools, though beyond that there is little guarantee of anything.

For the modular candidate and many integrated candidates, the best route is by working up to experience levels that airlines recruit from. This is achievable as indeed a great many people are testament to the fact.

I am only too happy to say "Go modular and save money! It doesn't matter how you get to those 250 hours because all the airlines will care about is that you have 250 hours and a licence." Unfortunetaly it isn't true. None of the 250 hour hour pilots I will be flying with this year will have come through this route, nor will that be the case in most other airlines.

This is why it is important to have a good understanding of the product you are buying, the realties in the marketplace, and just what is it you want. Properly armed, these people will still need a great deal of luck, determination and perseverence. Without a good understanding? Well, read through many of these threads for the tales of woe.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Well, given only one point is apparently contentious in a very detailed paragraph, I thought that I did quite well.

G