The Future for Funded Training
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Future for Funded Training
So we're seeing more frequent occurences of the latest trend in airline integrated training - these monitored/mentored schemes - OAT and Excel/TC, FTE and GB/Tfly/FlyBE, Cabair and FlyBE.
Does this mark a move by the airlines to respond to any shortfall in newbie pilots? Can we envisage a time when we return to a BA cadet model (where the training/financial risk is borne by the carrier)?
For people like me - hovering in the wings trying to understand the best (cheapest/lowest risk) way to fund ab initio training - it's an important point.
Is now the time to move, or hold off pending the next cadet model, but risk a downturn in the market??
ef
Does this mark a move by the airlines to respond to any shortfall in newbie pilots? Can we envisage a time when we return to a BA cadet model (where the training/financial risk is borne by the carrier)?
For people like me - hovering in the wings trying to understand the best (cheapest/lowest risk) way to fund ab initio training - it's an important point.
Is now the time to move, or hold off pending the next cadet model, but risk a downturn in the market??
ef
Join Date: May 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The next economic cycle is predicted to end in 2011 (i.e. should be the bottom of any downturn or recession. Since we are at the top of a cycle (5 years in from the prior bottom in 2001), and at the same point in the last cycle (1996) they were up and running, but now, there are far too many funding it themselves and producing the quality of product required by airlines through integrated schools.
A couple of years ago I would have said yes, but ask yourself - as an airline executive - would you bother with so many paying themselves?
No.
A couple of years ago I would have said yes, but ask yourself - as an airline executive - would you bother with so many paying themselves?
No.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We may have been at the bottom of the cycle in aviation in 2001, but that was an artificial bottom. The general Western economy was in fine shape at the time, and on Sep 10th 2001 the airlines were recruiting like mad!
The aviation sector was far harder hit by SARS than 9/11, but even then the wider economy remained pretty healthy. In UK, I think we are several years further into economic growth in this cycle than we've ever been before, and the future looks reasonably good. But then it always does, just before the fall...!
All that just means that it's more difficult to predict the aviation cycle than it was in the latter years of the last century, in which an 8 - 10 year cycle seemed to be standard. There's no doubt, however, that a downturn will happen sometime in the next few years.
As for training, here we are at the height of a recruiting boom and wannabes are still happy to pay upwards of £100,000 to obtain a job - and the supply of wannabes is showing no signs of slowing down. What company finance director would sanction a company-funded training scheme in that environment? None that I can think of.
Scroggs
The aviation sector was far harder hit by SARS than 9/11, but even then the wider economy remained pretty healthy. In UK, I think we are several years further into economic growth in this cycle than we've ever been before, and the future looks reasonably good. But then it always does, just before the fall...!
All that just means that it's more difficult to predict the aviation cycle than it was in the latter years of the last century, in which an 8 - 10 year cycle seemed to be standard. There's no doubt, however, that a downturn will happen sometime in the next few years.
As for training, here we are at the height of a recruiting boom and wannabes are still happy to pay upwards of £100,000 to obtain a job - and the supply of wannabes is showing no signs of slowing down. What company finance director would sanction a company-funded training scheme in that environment? None that I can think of.
Scroggs
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, there will be the regular ones that already exist. Atlantic is one, and more power to them for doing so. British Airways? Dream on. If they do anything, it will be along the same lines as CTC and will cost them next to nothing.
Scroggs
Scroggs
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Age: 44
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by scroggs
We may have been at the bottom of the cycle in aviation in 2001, but that was an artificial bottom. The general Western economy was in fine shape at the time, and on Sep 10th 2001 the airlines were recruiting like mad!
Others, like Alitalia, in the same boat but rescued by state money ?
Looks like the low-costs are doing the business at the moment, but how many of them keep the same schedule for more than 6 months ? Always new routes added, but many are also scrapped as soon as they don't prove efficient any longer.
Last but not least.. last week I was flying Ryanair from Stansted to Turin in Italy. Boarded by Eastern European accents at the gate, welcomed on board by Polish cabin crew and Polish Captain on board. Service was excellent, perfectly on time as usual (in my 10 years of Ryanair travels) but how much of that was a UK operation ?
Nothing wrong with the global market.. just a curious note !
Last edited by raviolis; 10th Jul 2006 at 18:39.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair is not a UK airline. Why should it appear to be one? In any case, as an Irish (and thus EU) employer, it is bound by law to open its employment to any appropriately-qualified EU nationals.
There certainly were problems on the North Atlantic market in 2001 before 9/11 - that's one of the reasons the conspiracy theorists like to quote in their sad attempts to explain away the events of that day. Nearly all the US majors were in deep doodoo for reasons exclusive to that country and market. There were also problems at Alitalia, Sabena and Swissair, though they may just about have survived had 9/11 and SARS not happened (though they probably would have been subsumed into other carriers). However these weren't symptoms of a failing market, they were failing, nationalised companies - and that can happen at any stage of the economic cycle. The Atlantic market was struggling, but it would have been a temporary correction in a background of general economic strength. Many airlines (including mine) were already looking at shifting capacity away from the North Atlantic prior to 9/11.
The aviation scene away from the North Atlantic was in rude health - several companies reported record profits in 2000/01. Expansion in the Pacific Rim was the real tiger in the market, and all those airlines that could were looking to develop their products in that area. The outlook was very rosy indeed, and recruiting at those airlines that operated over there was very healthy.
At the same time, the low-cost carriers in UK were really driving the market here - and they were barely touched by 9/11 and SARS. The fall-out from the legacy carriers meant that recruiting of low-hour pilots virtually stopped, but that didn't mean that recruiting overall stopped. In fact, it barely paused for breath!
No, the aviation market in general was doing well. It was just the USA that was (and still is) sick.
Scroggs
There certainly were problems on the North Atlantic market in 2001 before 9/11 - that's one of the reasons the conspiracy theorists like to quote in their sad attempts to explain away the events of that day. Nearly all the US majors were in deep doodoo for reasons exclusive to that country and market. There were also problems at Alitalia, Sabena and Swissair, though they may just about have survived had 9/11 and SARS not happened (though they probably would have been subsumed into other carriers). However these weren't symptoms of a failing market, they were failing, nationalised companies - and that can happen at any stage of the economic cycle. The Atlantic market was struggling, but it would have been a temporary correction in a background of general economic strength. Many airlines (including mine) were already looking at shifting capacity away from the North Atlantic prior to 9/11.
The aviation scene away from the North Atlantic was in rude health - several companies reported record profits in 2000/01. Expansion in the Pacific Rim was the real tiger in the market, and all those airlines that could were looking to develop their products in that area. The outlook was very rosy indeed, and recruiting at those airlines that operated over there was very healthy.
At the same time, the low-cost carriers in UK were really driving the market here - and they were barely touched by 9/11 and SARS. The fall-out from the legacy carriers meant that recruiting of low-hour pilots virtually stopped, but that didn't mean that recruiting overall stopped. In fact, it barely paused for breath!
No, the aviation market in general was doing well. It was just the USA that was (and still is) sick.
Scroggs
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something has changed recently - the birth of widespread mentored schemes.
I was wondering what the driver for this development was. Fair enough that it is of little cost to the airline itself, but it does take quite an admin/logistics commitment for that airline to get these schemes up and running. To what extent has the supply/demand dynamic of quality trainees shifted recently? And extrapolating out (assuming the cycle holds up), what (if anything) is the next configuration of training.
If I remember well, the old BA scheme was 'company-funded' upfront, but all being well was ultimately cost neutral to the employer through the reduced salary mechanism. I CAN see an FD sanctioning this kind of managed financial risk - the key to this being effective recruitment screening.
Also, don't carriers such as Air France, Singapore and MEA et al. currently have active cadet intakes? They must see some value.
Is it as simple as saying that here in the UK, in 2006, wanabees are now happy to pay GBP100k for training whereas historically in the UK and elsewhere in the world they are not?
I was wondering what the driver for this development was. Fair enough that it is of little cost to the airline itself, but it does take quite an admin/logistics commitment for that airline to get these schemes up and running. To what extent has the supply/demand dynamic of quality trainees shifted recently? And extrapolating out (assuming the cycle holds up), what (if anything) is the next configuration of training.
If I remember well, the old BA scheme was 'company-funded' upfront, but all being well was ultimately cost neutral to the employer through the reduced salary mechanism. I CAN see an FD sanctioning this kind of managed financial risk - the key to this being effective recruitment screening.
Also, don't carriers such as Air France, Singapore and MEA et al. currently have active cadet intakes? They must see some value.
Is it as simple as saying that here in the UK, in 2006, wanabees are now happy to pay GBP100k for training whereas historically in the UK and elsewhere in the world they are not?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 47
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what is this "mentored scheme" thing?
surely just get the training, get the licence and get job hunting.
sounds like another way for someone (airline&flying schools) to make money out of wannabee pilots.
please tell me I'm wrong and how it works!
jumbo
surely just get the training, get the licence and get job hunting.
sounds like another way for someone (airline&flying schools) to make money out of wannabee pilots.
please tell me I'm wrong and how it works!
jumbo
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jumbo,
A mentored scheme (for example just being run by OAT in conjunction with Thomas Cook, and FTE with GB Airways) is a broadly typical integrated FATPL course, paid for by the individual, but with an airline having (i) preselected you prior to starting the course and (ii) monitoring your progress throughout. The course is apparently tailored to that particular airline's requirements (I assume at the more advanced stages of training, in accordance with their SOPs).
There is usually some financial engineering going on, e.g. you start on a reduced salary compared with a DE hire, but there is an element of 'repayment' of your training costs in addition to the reduced salary.
Theoretically, at the end of the course (vacancies permitting, naturally), you join that airline, who cover the cost of the TR.
A mentored scheme (for example just being run by OAT in conjunction with Thomas Cook, and FTE with GB Airways) is a broadly typical integrated FATPL course, paid for by the individual, but with an airline having (i) preselected you prior to starting the course and (ii) monitoring your progress throughout. The course is apparently tailored to that particular airline's requirements (I assume at the more advanced stages of training, in accordance with their SOPs).
There is usually some financial engineering going on, e.g. you start on a reduced salary compared with a DE hire, but there is an element of 'repayment' of your training costs in addition to the reduced salary.
Theoretically, at the end of the course (vacancies permitting, naturally), you join that airline, who cover the cost of the TR.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry to say but it really makes me laugh when people say that aviation is doing well. There are still a lot of pilots out there who want a job, but regardless what they do, companies still refuse to hire hem because they don't have rating with hours on type. It is really a paradox.
grtz
grtz
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You think it's not doing well? Why - because you can't get a job? Look at the profit and traffic figures of European airlines this year. They're all up between 5 and 50%. That extra capacity has been flown by new pilots. Believe it.
Scroggs
Scroggs
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry to say scroggs, but i'm not the only one who cant get a job!! Perhaps born in the wrong country?? i guess so. So the ones who did get a job are the ones who went to oxford, epst,etc. And if i look to the requirements, still asking for a rating and hours. Nothing much i can do about it.
best regards
best regards
probably wrong country as well
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Scandiland
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at a few of the schools in my part of the world the statistics seems to point towards SSTR's as a nessesary step towards a job. Looking at my own school the majority that graduated in the last few years that has a job today did a SSTR. I have a list from my school that tells me that 99 people finished the course of those 7 became instructors, 4 did the CTC Wings AQC and 16 did SSTR. Only 2 or 3 got a job straight from school onto planes like the PC12 or C208 the rest were still looking for a flying job when the list was compiled. Another school that has a list on the internet shows almost the same - 108 graduates of which 10 got jobs the normal way, 5 became instructors and 20 did a SSTR and 1 did CTC.
Following threads on a local forum suggests the same - SSTR or instructor rating (looking for jobs in the uk as the market is flooded at home) or unemployment.
The case is very different in the UK as far as I've seen myself but there is still a lot of people looking for jobs that has difficulties getting a look at all. Fact is that the 3 main schools gets a lot of the attention when a company needs new lowhoured recruits. That undermines everybody else.
Following threads on a local forum suggests the same - SSTR or instructor rating (looking for jobs in the uk as the market is flooded at home) or unemployment.
The case is very different in the UK as far as I've seen myself but there is still a lot of people looking for jobs that has difficulties getting a look at all. Fact is that the 3 main schools gets a lot of the attention when a company needs new lowhoured recruits. That undermines everybody else.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact that more people have decided that it would be nice to fly aeroplanes is no fault of the airlines. No-one promised you a job when you decided to spend your money! It has always been true that there are far more wannabes than jobs for them to fill. That is still the case. However, there are far more flying jobs now than there were 4 years ago, or 10 years ago, or 20 years ago.
Scroggs
Scroggs
Join Date: May 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by easyflyer
Something has changed recently - the birth of widespread mentored schemes.
I was wondering what the driver for this development was. Fair enough that it is of little cost to the airline itself, but it does take quite an admin/logistics commitment for that airline to get these schemes up and running. To what extent has the supply/demand dynamic of quality trainees shifted recently? And extrapolating out (assuming the cycle holds up), what (if anything) is the next configuration of training.
If I remember well, the old BA scheme was 'company-funded' upfront, but all being well was ultimately cost neutral to the employer through the reduced salary mechanism. I CAN see an FD sanctioning this kind of managed financial risk - the key to this being effective recruitment screening.
Also, don't carriers such as Air France, Singapore and MEA et al. currently have active cadet intakes? They must see some value.
Is it as simple as saying that here in the UK, in 2006, wanabees are now happy to pay GBP100k for training whereas historically in the UK and elsewhere in the world they are not?
I was wondering what the driver for this development was. Fair enough that it is of little cost to the airline itself, but it does take quite an admin/logistics commitment for that airline to get these schemes up and running. To what extent has the supply/demand dynamic of quality trainees shifted recently? And extrapolating out (assuming the cycle holds up), what (if anything) is the next configuration of training.
If I remember well, the old BA scheme was 'company-funded' upfront, but all being well was ultimately cost neutral to the employer through the reduced salary mechanism. I CAN see an FD sanctioning this kind of managed financial risk - the key to this being effective recruitment screening.
Also, don't carriers such as Air France, Singapore and MEA et al. currently have active cadet intakes? They must see some value.
Is it as simple as saying that here in the UK, in 2006, wanabees are now happy to pay GBP100k for training whereas historically in the UK and elsewhere in the world they are not?
Even holding a type rating is worthless as it has no hours on type, is not done to that company's SOPs, and does not allow them to see the speed with which one has picked up the knowledge and the capacity to operate on the line.
Paying without having passed a selection for ability, and dispersing a training record, create a difficult environment in which to get hired, even for the most able people.
All a mentored scheme creates is - for little investment - access to the course, preselection of the best, elimination at an early stage of anyone who could waste their money on a type rating.
Unfortunately there is no need for altruism when easy credit is available from banks.