Forget the traditional route
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have said before though, the one and only reason why these schemes exist in the first place is because people are willing to pay it. It really is as simple as that. They would disappear overnight (well, not literally) if people just stopped paying for it.
The CTC EZY scheme sees you earning £1,200 a month tax free for 8 months and then getting paid at the rate of approx £43 per block hour which at, say, 800hrs works out at £36,800 gross.
When you compare that to working as a flying instructor, other air work or joining the lower end of the turboprop operator market then its a no brainer.
As soon as you have six months under your belt the BA/Emirates application form is all ready and waiting.
Sad to say but the traditional route is not looking good and unlikely to improve.
The world has changed and until people with >£100k to spend on training dry up it ain't going to change back.
WWW
When you compare that to working as a flying instructor, other air work or joining the lower end of the turboprop operator market then its a no brainer.
As soon as you have six months under your belt the BA/Emirates application form is all ready and waiting.
Sad to say but the traditional route is not looking good and unlikely to improve.
The world has changed and until people with >£100k to spend on training dry up it ain't going to change back.
WWW
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So would it be fair to say that the Integrated route has eventually won out, and that tomorrow's airline pilots need look to it to break into this industry?
I'm still absolutely astounded at the number of young people with access to this magnitude of funding, my friend attended the CTC assessment recently and apparently they are still queuing up to put the parents house on the line. I don't think they ever stopped, despite the economic climate, and I don't think they ever will.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The money is less available from the banks, which is probably no bad thing, since much of the lending and the borrowing proved to be irresponsible. However all the other traditional windfall resources continue to exist: Savings; Inheritance; Pension lump sums; Property downsizing; Equity guarantees and gifts. These continue to be the prime resources for this type of financing, and nobody should be perplexed by the significant sums that sufficient people can raise from these resources. Unfortunately that doesn't apply for many individual cases, and of course for the majority it won't.
I have said it before, but will say it again. Airlines have never employed anything other than a tiny percentage of low houred pilots. Almost all of that tiny recruitment came from approved (integrated courses) usually tied to that airlines own cadet programme. The changes that came about with the introduction of JAR, reduced the non-approved experience requirement for the issue of a CPL/IR from around 700 hours, to around a third of that level. This enabled the licence to operate as an "aerial work" type licence, in much the same way as it did in the USA and most other countries. At the same time as this change came about, so the requirement for a flying instructors rating, required the holder to have a CPL, rather than only a PPL as had been the case previously.
A lot of people thought that this massive reduction in the experience levels required for licence issue via the modular route, was some sort of bonus that meant airlines would snap them up with far less experience than they had in the past. This misconception was fuelled by one or two new entrant Lo-cost airlines who also exploited the situation in order to change the role of the First Officers seat. Some of their more flamboyant CEO's made absolutely no secret of their desire to eliminate this seat altogether. Fortunetaly, neither the regulators nor the manufacturers gave this idea any serious consideration. Instead those airlines turned the seat into a revenue opportunity, that satisfied both their shareholders and the regulators basic requirements.
Most companies have taken some advantage of the situation, but only in so much as they have expanded their own cadet schemes whilst still tying themselves to integrated full time training schools. This enables them to employ cadets whose continuous, integrated, training regime is something that they can understand, monitor and to some extent control. Not only that, but they can obtain the output at a very attractive price, often with built in bonds and often on a probationary (no risk) basis.
If I were 30 years younger and looking at the best prospect of a fast track airline career, there is no doubt that in the UK at least, I would be looking at 2 primary training providers, and one other long established provider.
The primary providers, would be those two who have direct seamless links with the end employers. The employers are those companies that have either contracted to take on a variably defined number of cadets, or those companies with formalized cadet programmes linked to the training school in question. In both cases you are likely to find yourself in New Zealand or Spain.
The secondary provider would be a well established school whose previous track record included provision of cadets to both UK and overseas airline companies. These days it seems to be running third to the competition, but nevertheless has a reasonable recent record of providing candidates to a large lo-cost airline.
For those whose finances, or whatever other reason, don't allow for these options, then things are more difficult. The chances of airline employment at the licence issue level are largely unrealistic, and likely to remain so until and if they can raise their experience levels elsewhere. Once they do, they are still likely to be in disadvantageous competition with ex-military pilots, career advancement experienced pilots, and unemployed experienced pilots. Indeed this has always been the case, but the expansion of the "integrated cadet" market, is likely to put significant additional pressure on this end of the job seeking market, even in an improving economy.
I appreciate this isn't necessarily what some people might want to hear, but it is what I have experienced and seen happening over the last 30 odd years, coupled with what I see happening now.
I have said it before, but will say it again. Airlines have never employed anything other than a tiny percentage of low houred pilots. Almost all of that tiny recruitment came from approved (integrated courses) usually tied to that airlines own cadet programme. The changes that came about with the introduction of JAR, reduced the non-approved experience requirement for the issue of a CPL/IR from around 700 hours, to around a third of that level. This enabled the licence to operate as an "aerial work" type licence, in much the same way as it did in the USA and most other countries. At the same time as this change came about, so the requirement for a flying instructors rating, required the holder to have a CPL, rather than only a PPL as had been the case previously.
A lot of people thought that this massive reduction in the experience levels required for licence issue via the modular route, was some sort of bonus that meant airlines would snap them up with far less experience than they had in the past. This misconception was fuelled by one or two new entrant Lo-cost airlines who also exploited the situation in order to change the role of the First Officers seat. Some of their more flamboyant CEO's made absolutely no secret of their desire to eliminate this seat altogether. Fortunetaly, neither the regulators nor the manufacturers gave this idea any serious consideration. Instead those airlines turned the seat into a revenue opportunity, that satisfied both their shareholders and the regulators basic requirements.
Most companies have taken some advantage of the situation, but only in so much as they have expanded their own cadet schemes whilst still tying themselves to integrated full time training schools. This enables them to employ cadets whose continuous, integrated, training regime is something that they can understand, monitor and to some extent control. Not only that, but they can obtain the output at a very attractive price, often with built in bonds and often on a probationary (no risk) basis.
If I were 30 years younger and looking at the best prospect of a fast track airline career, there is no doubt that in the UK at least, I would be looking at 2 primary training providers, and one other long established provider.
The primary providers, would be those two who have direct seamless links with the end employers. The employers are those companies that have either contracted to take on a variably defined number of cadets, or those companies with formalized cadet programmes linked to the training school in question. In both cases you are likely to find yourself in New Zealand or Spain.
The secondary provider would be a well established school whose previous track record included provision of cadets to both UK and overseas airline companies. These days it seems to be running third to the competition, but nevertheless has a reasonable recent record of providing candidates to a large lo-cost airline.
For those whose finances, or whatever other reason, don't allow for these options, then things are more difficult. The chances of airline employment at the licence issue level are largely unrealistic, and likely to remain so until and if they can raise their experience levels elsewhere. Once they do, they are still likely to be in disadvantageous competition with ex-military pilots, career advancement experienced pilots, and unemployed experienced pilots. Indeed this has always been the case, but the expansion of the "integrated cadet" market, is likely to put significant additional pressure on this end of the job seeking market, even in an improving economy.
I appreciate this isn't necessarily what some people might want to hear, but it is what I have experienced and seen happening over the last 30 odd years, coupled with what I see happening now.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: England
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would the right to live and work in the USA change the chances of someone progressing in a somewhat traditional route? I have a US passport through my mother, is that any advantage?
I'm at PPL with approx £30k saved up, and as briefly as I can my plan is to finish uni, and have my CPL/IR done by 2 years from now with no debt. At the start of 2013 I plan to head to Southern Africa and get a job there, working for a year or two to get my experience to the 700+ hour level that hopefully opens the GA world in USA up to me.
I'll convert my licence to FAA and apply for skydive jobs/float companies etc, hopefully finding one with a varied fleet that allows internal progression on to larger and multi engine aeroplanes, and perhaps even turboprop skydive droppers or a regional airline to get turbo time.
I have no desire to go straight into an airline - I'm sure I would find that type of flying boring at the moment. However, I would like to end up there as I get older (say 15-20 years from now). Are people saying there's little chance even then of getting an airline job, with say 7000 hours TT, two or three thousand of which is hopefully on multi crew turboprop?
If still no chance compared to CTC graduates, what's to stop someone doing the traditional route from *gasp* paying for a type rating/line training themselves once they finally want an airline job? Leaving aside the morals and degrading effect on T&Cs this has, surely an airline would consider someone with the above time, plus 500 hours on an A320, very well?
I just get the impression that it can actually be a disadvantage to have a whole bunch of hours on SEP/MEP/TP and be 30-35, compared to being a 200 hour 20 year old, when surely at the very worst it's a level playing field once you both pay for type rating/line training (which you could do with a career of saving).
Does my plan seem viable? Or is the only way I could get ever get into an airline jet job just by giving up on the idea of having 10-15 years fun while I'm flying, getting a graduate scheme job to save another 40k in those two years, and doing CTC or similar. (I wouldn't do this even if it was - I want to enjoy flying)
Thanks
I'm at PPL with approx £30k saved up, and as briefly as I can my plan is to finish uni, and have my CPL/IR done by 2 years from now with no debt. At the start of 2013 I plan to head to Southern Africa and get a job there, working for a year or two to get my experience to the 700+ hour level that hopefully opens the GA world in USA up to me.
I'll convert my licence to FAA and apply for skydive jobs/float companies etc, hopefully finding one with a varied fleet that allows internal progression on to larger and multi engine aeroplanes, and perhaps even turboprop skydive droppers or a regional airline to get turbo time.
I have no desire to go straight into an airline - I'm sure I would find that type of flying boring at the moment. However, I would like to end up there as I get older (say 15-20 years from now). Are people saying there's little chance even then of getting an airline job, with say 7000 hours TT, two or three thousand of which is hopefully on multi crew turboprop?
If still no chance compared to CTC graduates, what's to stop someone doing the traditional route from *gasp* paying for a type rating/line training themselves once they finally want an airline job? Leaving aside the morals and degrading effect on T&Cs this has, surely an airline would consider someone with the above time, plus 500 hours on an A320, very well?
I just get the impression that it can actually be a disadvantage to have a whole bunch of hours on SEP/MEP/TP and be 30-35, compared to being a 200 hour 20 year old, when surely at the very worst it's a level playing field once you both pay for type rating/line training (which you could do with a career of saving).
Does my plan seem viable? Or is the only way I could get ever get into an airline jet job just by giving up on the idea of having 10-15 years fun while I'm flying, getting a graduate scheme job to save another 40k in those two years, and doing CTC or similar. (I wouldn't do this even if it was - I want to enjoy flying)
Thanks
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: somewhere on this planet
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just get the impression that it can actually be a disadvantage to have a whole bunch of hours on SEP/MEP/TP and be 30-35, compared to being a 200 hour 20 year old, when surely at the very worst it's a level playing field once you both pay for type rating/line training (which you could do with a career of saving).
in fact, the guys with 3000h on light twin can find jobs due to their 3000h flying skills, while the guys of 25 years, with 500h, will be stuck with his FMGC skill.
really, who care of a 500h A320 pilot who can not even land a plane in a X wind or calculate a descent rate without his FCU.
if i was hiring a pilot on my personal Pc12 or king air 200? do you think I will hire a 320 pilot with 500hours of Autoflight?? noway!!.
get real, planes asked for real pilots with real flying skill who know how to fly a real plane, not a bunch of monkeys with momy and daddy money playing the 320 copilot.
for me, a 320 pilot is not a pilot.we are just a bunch of operators with some MCC skill developed by Airbus technocrats . Our license should be "320 commercial operator", not commercial or airline pilot license.
of course the teenagers who pay the 500h on efis plane , don't agree with me, they think they are God!!!.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Domaine de la Romanee-Conti
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
You do talk some extraordinarily ignorant crap sometimes ...
Try and fly an A330 into Kathmandu, or do some night circling approaches to Peshawar or Sana'a in monsoon season, and you'll soon stop talking crap about whether airbus pilots are "real" pilots or not
Try and fly an A330 into Kathmandu, or do some night circling approaches to Peshawar or Sana'a in monsoon season, and you'll soon stop talking crap about whether airbus pilots are "real" pilots or not
Luke,
I wonder how many 500 hour pilots are flying A330s into Kathmandu?
Captain superstorm is probably quite right if he is talking about UK/Northern Europe on A320 and indeed 737.
Most of the flying is in a radar environment, mainly vectors to an ILS, and certainly in the UK it is unusual to do a non-precision approach on a lot of routes and NDB almost never, and most would probably fly it on the FMC anyway.
A pilot who just does a 200 hr CPL then 500 hrs of flying in an Airbus or a Boeing is not very well fitted to do any other sort of flying in any other sort of aircraft. I don't think he was having a go at anyone flying for Emirates or Etihad or whatever it is that you do.
I wonder how many 500 hour pilots are flying A330s into Kathmandu?
Captain superstorm is probably quite right if he is talking about UK/Northern Europe on A320 and indeed 737.
Most of the flying is in a radar environment, mainly vectors to an ILS, and certainly in the UK it is unusual to do a non-precision approach on a lot of routes and NDB almost never, and most would probably fly it on the FMC anyway.
A pilot who just does a 200 hr CPL then 500 hrs of flying in an Airbus or a Boeing is not very well fitted to do any other sort of flying in any other sort of aircraft. I don't think he was having a go at anyone flying for Emirates or Etihad or whatever it is that you do.
