2011 - Modular? Did you get a job?

[Go Smoke]

So, if you got your first full-time flying job this year...

1) What is the job?
2) Did you have to fund any additional training up front to get it?
3) How did you apply for the job?
4) Did you have any contacts on the inside who helped your cause?
5) Did you have previous work experience/relevant skills which helped your cause?
6) How many hours total did you have?
7) Where did you train?

As much or as little detail in the answers as you like!

1) Operating a PC12NG throughout Europe
2) Self funded FAA CPL, ME, IR to go with the JAA CPL, ME, IR (I considered this an investment in myself.......considering the direction in which I wish my flying to go)
3) It was a chance offer of employment........person to person......right place, right time.
4) No, it was pure chance
5) 3 years as a flight instructor teaching PPL, Multi and other bits and bobs......examiner on single and multi........captain on a single pilot AOC operating old piston twins.
6) 2,150 (400 twin)
7) Well known modular training establishment.

[CookPassBabtridge]

So, if you got your first full-time flying job this year...

Thanks for the answer, the job sounds nice, but a bit off the point of the topic

[mad_jock]

I disagree with Bealzebub.

There are modular folk out there getting jobs with small carriers. Many of which won't touch intergrated product. 9 in the last 9 months in a 6 ship airline in my experence. And I am just about to start in a new job and we have just got one 700 hour mod pilot doing his bumps before ferrying the aircraft off to start. And we won't be touching intergrated pilots.

The whole economy in the EU is going to take a nose dive again the companys that do like intergrated are not very well placed ride it out and there will be alot of redundancys and very well experenced pilots out of work.

The problem that the companys have that do like the product is that they can't use pilots in the forseeable future. BUt for the intergrated schools to continue they need 100-200 students through the doors every year otherwise they are stuffed. If they don't get them, the product is not viable. Even if BA put the whole lot that they have planned through one school it wouldn't be enough.

So in essance even though they arn't taking any, they need the folk to carry on paying the money to keep the reasource available for them to use. The fact that over 50% of the students won't end up with a job ever isn't their problem.

Virtually every airline has had a school rep through the door offering "deals" to have a partnership in placing intergrated pilots in the last year. I know of at least 3 which in the grand scope of things are dregs of the industry and something that the student is not trained to deal with. And I really would pity anyone getting dumped from a supervised fully supported ops enviroment. Into a enviroment full of "in opp ADD#" stickers and an ops department that only relpys with "when you going" or "I don't know" when ever you ask them a question if they ever answer the phone.

Alot of the pro intergrated pilots on here have been sat very happy with a legacy carrier for years and years. There exposure to the dirty coal face side of the industry which I might add is the only side of the industry likely to take pilots on in the next few years is minimal.

But if you have the money and don't need to put yourself in debt to do it crack on subsidising the legacy carriers that want the intergrated product. Your saving them a fortune and allowing them access to a resource which is highly expensive which they don't want to pay for.

There really isn't many jobs out there just now and most of them are gained through world of mouth, current pilots putting CV's on the right desk and networking. Modular have a huge advantage because they have been knocking around airfields with current pilots through out thier training.

[Bealzebub]

Firstly MJ, nobody takes "intergrated" pilots, because as I have pointed out to you before, there is no such thing. The word you want is integrated and even then, you place it in a context that really isn't relevant to the point.

Secondly, you are still part of what I would term the stepping stone process, so your perspective and experience is perhaps incomplete with regards to the advice you offer.

Let's start off with this Modular / integrated distinction. They are two methods of obtaining professional licence training. I do not doubt that there are good and bad providers of both types of training. There are many providers who cater to both types of methodology. There are also strong, average and weak aspirants in both methodologies.

Airline cadet programmes, do not usually restrict their input to simply integrated trained pilots, they go much further than that. They restrict their input to only a handful of schools with whom they have affilated their programme with that schools own training programme. In the UK, if you look at large companies across the broad marketplace such as easyjet, Thomas Cook, Monarch, British airways and Flybe to name but a handful, they all affiliate their cadet programmes to pretty much the same three principal training providers. In many cases, just one of those principal three.

Each of the "big three" provides initial and intermediate training using an integrated programme of training. There is no getting away from the fact. They all do! So if somebodies goal is a fast track airline career on one of these cadet schemes, there isn't really much point in discussing "modular" because it simply isn't a way in. You can rant and rave and bang your head against the wall to your hearts content, but it is the reason that I keep trying to make this point clear.

People who embark on a modular, or indeed many forms of integrated flight training, are likely to follow the "stepping stone" career path to their eventual goal. That isn't to say that anything other than a minority will be successful in doing so, but it is a tried and trusted route. In the old days we would have referred to this path as the "self improver" route. This route usally involved a mix of aerial work type jobs such as instructing, aerial photography, air taxi, commuter, third and second tier airline operators, before amassing the sort of experience that first tier airlines demanded of direct entry first officer recruits.

So when you say there are

modular folks getting jobs with small carriers

that is exactly what I would expect. That these types of job have a higher requirement than 250 hours doesn't surprise me in the least either, because that has always been the case. This "coalface" of which you speak, isn't quite the surprise you would imagine it to be. Many of us worked our own careers up through exactly the same sort of stepping stone jobs.

If you turn the clock back thirty years in the UK, there were two primary civilian methods of embarking of an aviation career. There was the "approved school" integrated flight training method. This involved a handful of training establishments who were approved to conduct full time courses of training leading to an abridged number of hours for the issue of a CPL/IR (with ATPL written exams completed.) These few schools (Hamble, CSE Oxford, AST Perth) did pretty much what the "big three" do today, in that they provided the fast track cadet input in the small number of airlines that offered the rare, much sought after, and highly selective programmes that were on offer.
Then there was the "self improver" route, where you worked your way up to achieving the minimum 700 hours needed for licence issue. Then you started looking for the sort of commercial "jobs" that might actually be available to you. If you think the "coalface" is dirty now, I can promise you it was no cleaner in those days!

In many fundamental respects, things haven't changed a great deal. Those first tier airlines with actual cadet programmes, are still sourcing though the latest incarnations of the approved schools. Failing that, it is case of working your way up through a system that has a very high attrition rate and very strong qualification levels. Most of the "A-listers" still demand 2000 hours of relevant experience and an absolute minimum of 500 hours turbine time to even get the chance of a "maybe" for the interview pile. Finding "jobs" further down the food chain is (judging from your own comments) every bit as difficult as it has historically been, and perhaps more so.

Where things have changed over the last three decades has been in the following areas:

Licensing. With the introduction of JAR, the UK changed the requirements of licence issue to bring it more into line with the rest of the world. The old 700 hour CPL (perceived airline qualification) was dropped to a 250 hour basic "aerial work" licence. This deluded many people into believing it was the new basic airline pilots licence. In fact this is where much of the current integrated / modular confusion debate and nonsense is born. That wasn't helped by one or two outspoken airline CEO's using the change to promote their belief that Co-Pilots were an unnecessary superflous expense that should be eliminated. Unable to fulfil their desire, they put the old "job" out to tender and were delighted when they found thousands of would be hopefulls tripping over each other for the chance to pay for this experience.

Training. You now still have the "approved" fast track airline cadet programmes. As they have always been, they are still fully integrated training programmes conducted at a handful of recognised and affiliated schools.
You still have "self improvers" looking for the stepping stones to reach their goals. No longer do they need 700 hours for a CPL, they only need 250 or so. The problem is that the licence is no longer regarded as the same type of qualification simply because the experience requirements were slashed. The licence became what it had always been in most other countries. This was a reality that many people simply refuse to grasp even today. Integrated training became far more deregulated, with seemingly every other flying school offering their own integrated course. Some of these were no doubt very good, but again it provided a landscape ripe for confusion.

Many people convinced themselves, or allowed themselves to be convinced, that these courses were exactly the same, and led to the same result as the old "approved training schools" more often than not they didn't, although the rougue CEO's to whom I referred to in a previous paragraph, did nothing to discourage this belief, particularly if there was a shilling to be made.

Employment. At the first tier level, this has evolved in line with the new realities but fundamentaly hasn't changed a great deal, save as to the following. The direct entry requirements are still broadly based on a solid previous level of flying experience, to include a properly acquired and managed type rating, and or at least 500 hours of meaningful turbine time. Military pilots once much sought after, are now finding themselves squeezed out by the expansion in more cost effective cadet programmes, coupled with the rise in available civilian experience.

The expansion of cadet programmes, has become a larger part of many airlines ab-initio requirement. This has proved cost effective, successful and when coupled with regulatory changes to retirement dates, and economic stagnation, has put a very significant squeeze on the traditional routes for airline recruitment. The economic stagnation has served to mask from view the investment in cadet training that is being planned for the future. In other words, as and when the market improves generally, the infrastructure is already either in place, or soon to be ready, for a large expansion in this source of ab-initio recruitment.

MJ, you said:

Alot of the pro intergrated pilots on here have been sat very happy with a legacy carrier for years and years. There exposure to the dirty coal face side of the industry which I might add is the only side of the industry likely to take pilots on in the next few years is minimal.

I think I have answered this point generally, but I would take serious issue with the section I have highlighted. In every economic cycle I have seen in the last three decades, if the big boys are hurting you can bet your cotton socks it is hurting even more where the crumbs usually fall. The first tier companies are slashing their costs and looking for the most cost effective resources. In simple economies of scale and access to the best levels of credit that is where you will find the muscle. The suggestion that your segment of the market is where recruitment is likely to buck the trend hasn't been born out historically, and nothing indicates that will change anytime soon.

In summary, what I am saying is what I have been witness to and a part of over the last 30 odd years. I am not selling anybody anything. I do think that much of what I say should be obvious to anybody who cares to research for themselves. The information is offered to help. If it doesn't, or is unpopular, or invites disagreement, protest or counterpoint, that is all fine. It is there for anybody to take on board, consider, disregard, object to, or simply ignore. I don't mind. It is however an observation of what I have experienced, witnessed and am still very much an integral part of.

There really isn't many jobs out there just now and most of them are gained through world of mouth, current pilots putting CV's on the right desk and networking. Modular have a huge advantage because they have been knocking around airfields with current pilots through out thier training.

No, there aren't many jobs out there, and demand for them now comes from a super-saturated market of would be aspirants. Networking is always a good thing and always has been. In many ways it is part of the research process. The last sentence I classify as flying club bravado. For the many who want to work for an airline with 200 hours in their logbooks, it is for all the reasons I have already stated a virtual non-starter. At this level nearly all cadet recruitment is as defined though the programmes already stated. For the "pay your money and take a punt" schemes, it would seem that the structured full time integrated courses provide a very definite and obvious advantage. (Have a look where most Oxford students have found this type of employement.) The whole premise of this thread indeed belies any suggestion of a "huge advantage."

[mad_jock]

So you wouldn't take issue with the fact that the majority of intergrated students going through the big three are there only to support the infrastructure for the legacy carriers to put students through when they feel like it and the economic situation allows?


If airlines payed for the training I couldn't care less how its done. But its not. They are relying on 4-500 students per year to subsidise there method of training. TCX is knackard, BA was very nearly knackard over the strikes and may yet have problems with pax tax european downturn and the old pension pot, Monach again an old boys club with the big three but not recruiting.

Flybe yep they do but its all down to tax which its impossible to do with modular students. They did take modular for years.

I know the industry needs students to continue to go this route otherwise they will have serious problems when they require expansion or more pilots quickly.

But getting 300-400 people a year to sacrifice 70-80k just to subsidise 4 or 5 carriers prefered training method is immoral.

[Bealzebub]

So you wouldn't take issue with the fact that the majority of intergrated students going through the big three are there only to support the infrastructure for the legacy carriers to put students through when they feel like it and the economic situation allows?

I have read this a few times (and notwithstanding the word is still integrated, I am not sure I understand what you mean? If you mean that the "legacy carriers" will only take students (cadets) as and when the economic situation allows them to? Then yes, of course. That is what most companies would do. Nobody is recruiting pilots at any level, that they either do not require, or are "economically" prevented from doing so. That would seem obvious, so if it is not what you mean, perhaps you could clarify the question?

If airlines payed for the training I couldn't care less how its done. But its not. They are relying on 4-500 students per year to subsidise there method of training. TCX is knackard, BA was very nearly knackard over the strikes and may yet have problems with pax tax european downturn and the old pension pot, Monach again an old boys club with the big three but not recruiting.

Again it really isn't clear what you mean. Airlines do not generally pay for anybodies ab-initio training anymore. In reality few ever did. BEA/BOAC had an excellent if highly selective scheme many years ago. On top of that a few other airlines of much the same vintage offered some ab-initio sponsorships. However those ships largely sailed decades ago. In the second decade of the new millenium, the closest equivalent is likely to be found in the few schemes whereby the training course becomes a "bond" that may be repaid to the few succesful candidates over a subsequent number of years. In the examples given, at least three of the airlines concerned have offered such a programme. In any event, the cost of training is generally a risk borne by the student these days. That is true whichever method of training you select.

Whatever your view of these first tier companies and the problems that they face, they are all still fighting to survive in a fiercely competitive marketplace. TCX has contracted as part of this reality. Whatever problems BA faces, it has recently recruited pilots and ressurected a cadet programme of just the sort I have alluded to in this paragraph. If Monarch isn't recruiting, it will be news to the dozens of pilots (cadets and experienced) who have been offered jobs in the last few weeks. I think you may be allowing your prejudices to get in the way of the realities of what is actually happening. It is certainly true that the future is very uncertain, and times are hard, but there is recruitment taking place, and their are opportunities to be found if you know what you are looking for, have the ability resource and luck, and do your homework.

But getting 300-400 people a year to sacrifice 70-80k just to subsidise 4 or 5 carriers prefered training method is immoral.

Is it? Why? Is the premise of the statement true? Even if it were, so what?

Most of these airlines would say that it isn't simply a one way street. They might pay for a type rating saving the trainee up to £30,000 in costs. They might argue that a placement with a first tier carrier saves the trainee years and years of insecure, low waged, experience, much of which probably doesn't fit into the experience model they actually want in any event. They might argue that the student investment of £90,000 has been countered by an up to £30,000 type rating (free or partially subsidized) and the possibility of around £70,000 of the students training costs being paid back to them over 7 years. Thereby the succesful student has an outlay of around £90,000 with a repayment of £70,000 (albeit less in real terms due to inflation and interest,) and a type rating worth up to £30,000, and a job with a first tier company.

I would be the first to state that success at this level is the thin end of a very big wedge, but if this is the aspiration, that is the wedge you are looking at.

Then it just a very big bad world. It is extremely difficult and the decisions you make early on will often dictate the possibilities that are open to you. I am not interested in the morality of the argument, because it is a debate for a different time. It has no bearing on the history, the reality of the here and now, or likely on the future either. All I am doing is stating the way it is.

[Go Smoke]

Thanks for the answer, the job sounds nice, but a bit off the point of the topic

Sorry, my bad. I assumed instructing didn't count as 'first paid job'.
Few seem to value it and it certainly doesn't pay well at all.

Good luck in 2012.

[CookPassBabtridge]

Au contraire GS, instructing is a very real job even if it is grossly underpaid and undervalued by some, I'm sure your PC12 boss didn't sniff at your experience!

Regarding the above thread drift, all very well and good but I didn't even mention airlines specifically in the OP...can we get back to the point?

OK, so who out there did modular last year and hasn't found work?!

[dood]

Finished training mid 2011 all modular alongside a BSc. Had an interview on the A320 and was offered a job based on me paying for my TR. Don't have money for TR but working on it slowly.

Have turned down many many job offers from other industries and graduate programs to focus on aviation and it's been fruitless.

All I can say is. Aviation in Europe is full of back-stabbing money grabbers hiding behind a facade of smiles and professionalism. And most pilot's already in the industry have no clue of how bad it is at the bottom and how their own company is screwing the new guys to support the 2% pay rises and holiday pay that the big unions are fighting for. The money has to come from somewhere but as long as you get more money it doesn't matter to you.

I do have a job offer, but having a recent university and CPL graduate come up with €25000 is a joke even if they say 'but you'll make it back in a year'. I'm apparently expected to eat grass and live in an underpass till then right?

Experience - Aviation Operations, Safety, Fleet Planning. Have a JAA and FAA licence with first time passes across the board and early 90's first passes in ATPL exams.

Had contacts help with the 320 gig & TT around 300.

All I can say is I will never work in Aviation in Europe (especially UK) other than Germany. At least in Asia I will be able to afford a house and food even if the pay is poorer.

Happy new year

[WeMadeYou]

Finished my training summer 2011. Im now hired by an big Irish low cost carrier.
I have attended 4 different FTO:s and the recruiters didn't mind at all.
Just the integrated flight schools trying to spread rumours it's easier to get a job with a integrated course. Of course because they make more money.

[captain.weird]

Good job WMY!

[Aviator74]

I feel i should point out recruitment is a subtle thing, I am with my second employer, and both were actively NOT recruiting when i got my jobs, i just kept sending CV's and listening to rumours and word of mouth.

first job was abroad on 319's only got paid around £9000pa and had to repay all my loans AFTER tax needless to say i ended up worse of financially after that one, but i just kept applying and guess what now that i had a few hundred hours and was current I suddenly appealed to other carriers who needed people short notice. Second job came about because a friend mentioned they were short of crew and needed them to start in 6 week, i called, sent cv, interviewed, and was offered the job within a week, when the first airline complained and tried to claim on a dubious "bond" and said i was burning bridges with them i said, you havent paid me and i am getting a 300% pay rise ... what would you do. they grumbled and never came after me about the bond.

Stick with it... alot of airlines are recruiting now, Emirates 500 odd per year, BA, Virgin, this guys suck up from the low costs and apparently ryan air have lost 400 in the last 12 months, there is ur first job!

[redsnail]

Thread drift for which I apologise.

I guess what Bealzebub and Madjock are trying to say in their own way is that every one's situation is different.

If you have a burning desire to only ever fly a medium (or more) sized jet for an airline and you can get yourself onto a tagged scheme and you can afford the exorbitant fee charged and you know the game can change in heart beat, then great, go for a full time course.

If however, you want to enjoy the aviation journey, can pace the training, have other life skills handy and don't mind a challenge, then go part time/"modular".

From what I can see the person with the greatest burden is the one who has joined a full time course but is not aligned with any airline schemes.

The bottom line is, not every one will get a decent well paying job. Sad but true.

I personally do not want to fly for an airline. The view from the front of a HS125 is pretty much identical to the view from an Airbus. Similar pay but a lot more fun.