The CTC Wings Scheme thread
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would someone want to pay all that money to CTC and then get a bad contract with EZY that perhaps pays poorly based on some forum comments and not be able to live due if loans have to be repaid.
Its quite amazing
Its quite amazing
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, making that choice before handing over the cash is a lot more straightforward than making it afterwards, that is very true! 
The permanent contracts with easy haven't been too awful considering we're <1000h experience in most cases - easy Swiss in particular have offered quite good deals indeed.
Nevertheless, meeting basic living costs during the initial 8 months with loan repayments to make is not easy (excuse the pun) unless you've got well-lined pockets, which, after paying for part of the type rating, practically none of us have.
The permanent contracts with easy haven't been too awful considering we're <1000h experience in most cases - easy Swiss in particular have offered quite good deals indeed.
Nevertheless, meeting basic living costs during the initial 8 months with loan repayments to make is not easy (excuse the pun) unless you've got well-lined pockets, which, after paying for part of the type rating, practically none of us have.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a chat about the permanent contract issue with a balpa rep I flew with last week, and he said that basically the pool of flexicrew pilots ezy now has flying for them are viewed (by ezy, not by their colleagues) as contract pilots and therefore a further stage of selection is required to offer permanent employment. I think that is completely unfair as many of these guys have been flying with us for a few summers now and if they weren't up to the task they would have been binned a while ago. The balpa rep also told me there are some cadets the company does not want to employ for reasons of personality/performance and therefore this seems like a way of picking who they do want to keep.
It should be a fair and transparent process to offer permanent positions, ie date of joining but of course this is easyjet, and I afraid when you do get here from a ctc scheme you will find out it isn't always as rosy as all those videos they show you at selection/during training suggest it is.
It should be a fair and transparent process to offer permanent positions, ie date of joining but of course this is easyjet, and I afraid when you do get here from a ctc scheme you will find out it isn't always as rosy as all those videos they show you at selection/during training suggest it is.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: England
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why should easyjet (or any company for that matter) offer a permanent job to someone who has struggled through training and inevitably cost them more to train than someone who hasnt had performance issues? sounds perfectly reasonable...unless of course, you're the person with the performance issues.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Warwickshire
Age: 36
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bond
I know some of you have touched on the matter of the 'bond' that is payable in instalments during the course, but what I don't understand, and what i don't think CTC make very clear is the 'bond repayment' ... they talk on their website and on interview day about the £60 something thousand bond that will be repaid once the cadet gets placed in an airline and starts working??? That apparently tops up the salary?? I don't really understand what this is?? Can anyone enlighten me please?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will try.
On their cadet courses they require a bond deposit of around £69,000. This is in addition to a total outlay of roughly another £10,000 for a foundation course and various insurances. On top of this there is a requirement for the candidates to provide for their own living costs (excluding accomodation which is already included in the above sum.) The bond is payable in defined instalments over a period of some 14 months. This bond is either provided by the candidate directly from their own resources or via a secured loan through a commercial bank.
As a "bond" it serves two purposes. It provides the underwrite for the costs of the integrated training programme. In other words if there is no employment offered or accepted at the end of the training course, or if the employment is offered on terms that do not include "bond transfer" (for example, the candidate obtains their own employment, or accepts an offer where the company does not assume the bond, or there is simply no employment to be offered,) then the bond is converted into the training providers costs of providing that training.
If the candidate is succesfully placed with a partner airline that does recognise the bond facility, then the successful candidate would be transferred to the partner airline usually on a six month without prejudice transfer where the airline provides the candidate with a type rating and a short term period of line flying. In the past these transfers have often been on the basis of no salary other than expenses for the initial period, although the training provider has returned around £1000 a month from the bond security during this phase.
During better economic conditions, many (but not all) of these placed candidates were kept on by the partner airliners, who (presumably) paid the provider for their services and as part of that package, then received the remainder of the candidates "bond" to then provide their own security. This remaining sum was repaid to the new cadet pilot in monthly sums over an agreed period, in addition to the cadet pilots entry level salary.
The advantages of this arrangement over more conventional integrated courses are that in certain circumstances it does provide an opportunity for the bulk of the ab-initio training costs to be repaid to the candidate, although this is by no means a surety. It also may provide an opportunity for the candidate to be placed in an airline career with low levels of experience, although balanced in some measure by airline orientated training regimes and facilities. For the partner airline it has the advantage of recruiting low hour cadet pilots with little financial risk and outlay, during a fixed probationary period. These pilots also have a consistent and recognised training history that aids in selection. If offered an employment contract subsequent to the initial period, there is a monetary bond that provides security to the employer, and also supplements the real costs of remuneration to the employee.
There are also limited protections in place for possible repayment of the bonded amount up to a defined ceiling (£40,000 I believe) should the candidate fail to the complete the training for specific reasons and in defined circumstances.
In summary, you may get the monetary sum of this bond repaid back to you over a period of some years, thereby reducing your ab-initio bill for training if all goes well. That is by no means guaranteed though, and it should be clearly understood that the bond is in effect the cost of the training provided, that will be converted into the price paid by you should the bond not be assumed for whatever reason after the course has been completed.
On their cadet courses they require a bond deposit of around £69,000. This is in addition to a total outlay of roughly another £10,000 for a foundation course and various insurances. On top of this there is a requirement for the candidates to provide for their own living costs (excluding accomodation which is already included in the above sum.) The bond is payable in defined instalments over a period of some 14 months. This bond is either provided by the candidate directly from their own resources or via a secured loan through a commercial bank.
As a "bond" it serves two purposes. It provides the underwrite for the costs of the integrated training programme. In other words if there is no employment offered or accepted at the end of the training course, or if the employment is offered on terms that do not include "bond transfer" (for example, the candidate obtains their own employment, or accepts an offer where the company does not assume the bond, or there is simply no employment to be offered,) then the bond is converted into the training providers costs of providing that training.
If the candidate is succesfully placed with a partner airline that does recognise the bond facility, then the successful candidate would be transferred to the partner airline usually on a six month without prejudice transfer where the airline provides the candidate with a type rating and a short term period of line flying. In the past these transfers have often been on the basis of no salary other than expenses for the initial period, although the training provider has returned around £1000 a month from the bond security during this phase.
During better economic conditions, many (but not all) of these placed candidates were kept on by the partner airliners, who (presumably) paid the provider for their services and as part of that package, then received the remainder of the candidates "bond" to then provide their own security. This remaining sum was repaid to the new cadet pilot in monthly sums over an agreed period, in addition to the cadet pilots entry level salary.
The advantages of this arrangement over more conventional integrated courses are that in certain circumstances it does provide an opportunity for the bulk of the ab-initio training costs to be repaid to the candidate, although this is by no means a surety. It also may provide an opportunity for the candidate to be placed in an airline career with low levels of experience, although balanced in some measure by airline orientated training regimes and facilities. For the partner airline it has the advantage of recruiting low hour cadet pilots with little financial risk and outlay, during a fixed probationary period. These pilots also have a consistent and recognised training history that aids in selection. If offered an employment contract subsequent to the initial period, there is a monetary bond that provides security to the employer, and also supplements the real costs of remuneration to the employee.
There are also limited protections in place for possible repayment of the bonded amount up to a defined ceiling (£40,000 I believe) should the candidate fail to the complete the training for specific reasons and in defined circumstances.
In summary, you may get the monetary sum of this bond repaid back to you over a period of some years, thereby reducing your ab-initio bill for training if all goes well. That is by no means guaranteed though, and it should be clearly understood that the bond is in effect the cost of the training provided, that will be converted into the price paid by you should the bond not be assumed for whatever reason after the course has been completed.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ground
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bond is just a loan
DO NOT GET FOOLED BY THIS!
THE "BOND" IS SIMPLY A LOAN THAT HAS TO BE TAKEN OUT IN YOUR NAME TO PAY FOR THE TRAINING.
iF YOU ARE NOT PLACED IN AN AIRLINE OR ARE IN A HOLDING POOL FOR ANY PERIOD OF TIME YOU WILL BE RESPOSIBLE FOR THE MONTHLY REPAYMENTS IF YOU ARE FLYING OR NOT.
THE BANK VIEWS IT MERELY AS A LOAN IN YOUR NAME WHICH YOU MUST REPAY.
THIS TERM BOND IS INTENDED TO CONFUSE AND IMPLIES THAT EMPLOYMENT IS GUARANTEED WHICH OF COURSE IT ISNT.
THE "BOND" IS SIMPLY A LOAN THAT HAS TO BE TAKEN OUT IN YOUR NAME TO PAY FOR THE TRAINING.
iF YOU ARE NOT PLACED IN AN AIRLINE OR ARE IN A HOLDING POOL FOR ANY PERIOD OF TIME YOU WILL BE RESPOSIBLE FOR THE MONTHLY REPAYMENTS IF YOU ARE FLYING OR NOT.
THE BANK VIEWS IT MERELY AS A LOAN IN YOUR NAME WHICH YOU MUST REPAY.
THIS TERM BOND IS INTENDED TO CONFUSE AND IMPLIES THAT EMPLOYMENT IS GUARANTEED WHICH OF COURSE IT ISNT.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you may have left your "Caps Lock" switched on.
I believe you will find the bond is what I have already described it as. It isn't a loan, although you may need to enter into a loan agreement in order to secure the money for it. It is intended to cover your training costs in the event that it is not picked up by a potential employer at the end of the course. The bond can be provided by any monetary vehicle (such as your savings, or somebody elses savings) not simply a loan.
I am not confused by the term, although you seem to be. I cannot see that there is any guarantee specified, nor would it seem intended to confuse anybody with sufficient wit to read it.
It is a commercial agreement with attendant risks, but it comes with some limited safeguards and the possibility of some beneficial prospect. The benefits and drawbacks should properly be weighed up against what else is available in the marketplace, and any decision should rely on careful and studied research.
I believe you will find the bond is what I have already described it as. It isn't a loan, although you may need to enter into a loan agreement in order to secure the money for it. It is intended to cover your training costs in the event that it is not picked up by a potential employer at the end of the course. The bond can be provided by any monetary vehicle (such as your savings, or somebody elses savings) not simply a loan.
I am not confused by the term, although you seem to be. I cannot see that there is any guarantee specified, nor would it seem intended to confuse anybody with sufficient wit to read it.
It is a commercial agreement with attendant risks, but it comes with some limited safeguards and the possibility of some beneficial prospect. The benefits and drawbacks should properly be weighed up against what else is available in the marketplace, and any decision should rely on careful and studied research.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: deep south
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HappyLittleRainCloud, simpler vesion.
YOU GET THE LOAN, YOU AGREE TO PAYBACK THE LOAN OVER 7 YEARS, STARTING FROM WHEN YOUR TRAINING SHOULD BE COMPLETE! (secured against assets).
CTC DRAW MONIES DOWN FROM YOUR LOAN, OVER 14 MONTHS APPROX`.
AFTER 18 MONTHS, IF YOU COMPLETE YOUR TRAINING YOU THEN HAVE AN fATPL.
CTC THEN TRY TO PLACE YOU ON A P2F, BASES. IF PLACED WITH A CERTAIN AIRLINE YOU MAY HAVE TO BORROW ANOTHER £30k FROM THE CERTAIN AIRLINE FOR YOUR TR.
YOU THEN RECEIVE THREATS FROM THE BANK FOR MONTHLY REPAYMENTS, WHICH YOU CANNOT FURNISH! THE AIRLINE THEN LAY YOU OFF FOR THE WINTER.
CTC THEN OFFER SWIMMING TRUNKS AND A SNORKEL, FOR AN UNDISCLOSED LENGTH OF ATTRITIONAL TIME!
BEAZLBUB,
YOUR INFORMATION IS OUT OF DATE! WAS CORRECT 2 YEARS AGO!
YOU GET THE LOAN, YOU AGREE TO PAYBACK THE LOAN OVER 7 YEARS, STARTING FROM WHEN YOUR TRAINING SHOULD BE COMPLETE! (secured against assets).
CTC DRAW MONIES DOWN FROM YOUR LOAN, OVER 14 MONTHS APPROX`.
AFTER 18 MONTHS, IF YOU COMPLETE YOUR TRAINING YOU THEN HAVE AN fATPL.
CTC THEN TRY TO PLACE YOU ON A P2F, BASES. IF PLACED WITH A CERTAIN AIRLINE YOU MAY HAVE TO BORROW ANOTHER £30k FROM THE CERTAIN AIRLINE FOR YOUR TR.
YOU THEN RECEIVE THREATS FROM THE BANK FOR MONTHLY REPAYMENTS, WHICH YOU CANNOT FURNISH! THE AIRLINE THEN LAY YOU OFF FOR THE WINTER.
CTC THEN OFFER SWIMMING TRUNKS AND A SNORKEL, FOR AN UNDISCLOSED LENGTH OF ATTRITIONAL TIME!
BEAZLBUB,
YOUR INFORMATION IS OUT OF DATE! WAS CORRECT 2 YEARS AGO!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is it two years out of date?
The only significant differences that I can see prevailing two years ago, were that unsecured loans were often available for these courses, and the global economic markets had yet to start melting.
Loose credit markets, and expansions in relevant sectors of the market, enabled these programmes to attract unsecured lending, coupled with a high likelihood of career placement with partner airlines at the end of the training. However there was always a risk, and the terms and conditions of contract never provided for a "guarantee" that obviated that risk. Unsecured lending, didn't mean unenforceable or unrecoverable lending either.
When the recession bit hard, those partner airlines not only stopped their input from these programmes, but they also made swingeing cuts to the terms and conditions of their existing employees. Many made redundancies, and some went out of business. Credit markets dried up and unsecure credit for what had now become a highly risky endeavour, became a thing of the past.
For a commercial training provider with hundreds of people in the pipeline what were they supposed to do? The terms of contract stated that there were no guarantees of placement. The airlines were under absolutely no compulsion to provide employment where none existed. The whole supply line simply backed up with nobody taking that supply any more.
In fairness, the company apparantly went out and negotiated whatever opportunities it could find in a almost moribund marketplace. The "flexicrew" placements it obtained (and I assume you were alluding to,) were significantly less attractive or enticing than the prospects that had prevailed previously, but in a market where highly experienced type rated pilots were sitting at home with no relevant employment, they were something where otherwise there would have been nothing.
Many of the previous partner airlines are still in existence, and as their own business starts to improve, will in all likelihood start to intake recruits once again. The terms may or may not change depending on the conditions prevailing at that time, but the prospect for future "bond transfer" still exists.
This programme, even without the job placements, is broadly no more expensive than similar integrated training provision from the other major schools. No matter what your views on "flexicrew" or similar schemes, the truth is that they have recently been the only games in town, and if airline flying still remains the end goal for these low hour candidates, then this has still been one of the primary routes to that goal.
The only significant differences that I can see prevailing two years ago, were that unsecured loans were often available for these courses, and the global economic markets had yet to start melting.
Loose credit markets, and expansions in relevant sectors of the market, enabled these programmes to attract unsecured lending, coupled with a high likelihood of career placement with partner airlines at the end of the training. However there was always a risk, and the terms and conditions of contract never provided for a "guarantee" that obviated that risk. Unsecured lending, didn't mean unenforceable or unrecoverable lending either.
When the recession bit hard, those partner airlines not only stopped their input from these programmes, but they also made swingeing cuts to the terms and conditions of their existing employees. Many made redundancies, and some went out of business. Credit markets dried up and unsecure credit for what had now become a highly risky endeavour, became a thing of the past.
For a commercial training provider with hundreds of people in the pipeline what were they supposed to do? The terms of contract stated that there were no guarantees of placement. The airlines were under absolutely no compulsion to provide employment where none existed. The whole supply line simply backed up with nobody taking that supply any more.
In fairness, the company apparantly went out and negotiated whatever opportunities it could find in a almost moribund marketplace. The "flexicrew" placements it obtained (and I assume you were alluding to,) were significantly less attractive or enticing than the prospects that had prevailed previously, but in a market where highly experienced type rated pilots were sitting at home with no relevant employment, they were something where otherwise there would have been nothing.
Many of the previous partner airlines are still in existence, and as their own business starts to improve, will in all likelihood start to intake recruits once again. The terms may or may not change depending on the conditions prevailing at that time, but the prospect for future "bond transfer" still exists.
This programme, even without the job placements, is broadly no more expensive than similar integrated training provision from the other major schools. No matter what your views on "flexicrew" or similar schemes, the truth is that they have recently been the only games in town, and if airline flying still remains the end goal for these low hour candidates, then this has still been one of the primary routes to that goal.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smooth flyer is absolutely right BUT if the cost is huge the job prospect is still very good.
You will not find any other Integrated program that offers all its trainees such a massive opportunity.
and the training standards are simply amazing!
You will not find any other Integrated program that offers all its trainees such a massive opportunity.
and the training standards are simply amazing!
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trying to keep the Caps Lock off, I think a simpleton's view is required (and I'm a simpleton). 
Call it what you will, the financial risk involved in entering flying training is always held by the student pilot. Any loan/bond is held against his/her name. All CTC (and all other flying schools) promise is that:
a. They will train you to a particular standard.
b. If you attain that standard they will try and place you with an airline.
c. They will take your money regardless of the outcome of b.
Cadetship, flexicrew, Wings, ATP, bond - it all means the same and the bottom line is are you willing to take that risk?
In a previous existence I would often be required to make a SWOT analysis.
Strengths
Weaknesses
Opportunities
Threats
I would recommend that each potential fATPL candidate does something similar when looking at each and every training program. Undoubtedly, some will turn out to be more attractive than others.
Call it what you will, the financial risk involved in entering flying training is always held by the student pilot. Any loan/bond is held against his/her name. All CTC (and all other flying schools) promise is that:
a. They will train you to a particular standard.
b. If you attain that standard they will try and place you with an airline.
c. They will take your money regardless of the outcome of b.
Cadetship, flexicrew, Wings, ATP, bond - it all means the same and the bottom line is are you willing to take that risk?
In a previous existence I would often be required to make a SWOT analysis.
Strengths
Weaknesses
Opportunities
Threats
I would recommend that each potential fATPL candidate does something similar when looking at each and every training program. Undoubtedly, some will turn out to be more attractive than others.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Warwickshire
Age: 36
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you all for your views … Obviously anyone paying that amount of money for something has to think twice, three times, and the rest. I start my training in November and am very fortunate that my family have contributed slightly towards the cost of the bond, so the wallet pressure is slightly less for the moment… Here's hoping that EJ etc… will be in need of some pilots in a couple of years time! 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Hungary
Age: 39
Posts: 684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just read the last 10 pages of this thread. I have a burning question...
Why not just take out a loan of £25,000, go to the USA or Canada (where I did my PPL for £3,000 + cheap hour building), get the JAA course (or convert an FAA/Transport Canada one - still going to be cheaper than the £69,000 you lot are talking about!) and then just come back to England and apply for a job?
I don't understand why you lot need to spend £69,000 and be in a huff about jobs when you could go abroad, get your CPL Multi IFR plus a few hours, do your ATPLs whilst flying, come back with 300-400 hours and apply to an airline?
I'm not being sarcastic; I generally want to know why you don't just do that?
If an airline likes you, won't they train you on the Airbus and take it from your salary for the following 5 years?
That way, you only spend around £25,000 abroad, and have £45,000 left over!
Looking forward to some insights since I don't understand why you all care to spend £70,000. Even if you had to pay for your own type rating on top of the £25,000 from being abroad, it still won't total £70,000!
Why not just take out a loan of £25,000, go to the USA or Canada (where I did my PPL for £3,000 + cheap hour building), get the JAA course (or convert an FAA/Transport Canada one - still going to be cheaper than the £69,000 you lot are talking about!) and then just come back to England and apply for a job?
I don't understand why you lot need to spend £69,000 and be in a huff about jobs when you could go abroad, get your CPL Multi IFR plus a few hours, do your ATPLs whilst flying, come back with 300-400 hours and apply to an airline?
I'm not being sarcastic; I generally want to know why you don't just do that?
If an airline likes you, won't they train you on the Airbus and take it from your salary for the following 5 years?
That way, you only spend around £25,000 abroad, and have £45,000 left over!
Looking forward to some insights since I don't understand why you all care to spend £70,000. Even if you had to pay for your own type rating on top of the £25,000 from being abroad, it still won't total £70,000!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because when you come back to England and apply for a job, you end up with a lot of rejection letters or no response at all. This is because most airlines have no burning need for people with 300-400 hours. Of those that do, it is usually as a result of a cadet programme that is contracted to or affilated with one of these Integrated training providers.
With a couple of thousand hours of verifiable turboprop / jet, experience to your credit, you may well satisfy the basic qualification criteria for most airlines direct entry protocols, but a couple of hundred hours of Cessna time from the cheapest overseas "puppy farm" to be found, isn't likely to excite much interest at this level. That isn't to say that this method is unsuitable for an airline career at some point, but for airlines with cadet programmes, they are not usually interested in somebody rolling up at the door with minimum experience aquired, that they (the airlines) haven't themselves had an involvement with.
With a couple of thousand hours of verifiable turboprop / jet, experience to your credit, you may well satisfy the basic qualification criteria for most airlines direct entry protocols, but a couple of hundred hours of Cessna time from the cheapest overseas "puppy farm" to be found, isn't likely to excite much interest at this level. That isn't to say that this method is unsuitable for an airline career at some point, but for airlines with cadet programmes, they are not usually interested in somebody rolling up at the door with minimum experience aquired, that they (the airlines) haven't themselves had an involvement with.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the likes of CTC / Oxford are contracted to airlines to supply low houred pilots. Would'nt this be discriminatory, selective and illegal under UK laws as the roles are not being fully advertised? Assume if it were, BALPA may have done something, perhaps its not
Does anyone know the latested regarding Flexicrew? I understand you can pay for a TR and enter the Flexicrew hold. Anyone done this, did it work or was it a deep hold pool, few months work and then nothing.
Does anyone know the latested regarding Flexicrew? I understand you can pay for a TR and enter the Flexicrew hold. Anyone done this, did it work or was it a deep hold pool, few months work and then nothing.