PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Interviews, jobs & sponsorship (https://www.pprune.org/interviews-jobs-sponsorship-104/)
-   -   The Reality of OAA's Employment Statistics (https://www.pprune.org/interviews-jobs-sponsorship/330796-reality-oaas-employment-statistics.html)

modern monkey 11th Jun 2008 19:04

The Reality of OAA's Employment Statistics
 
Here are the latest stats from OAA's website:

GRADUATE JOBS 2008
[Last Updated: Wednesday 11th June 2008]




AIRLINETOTAL
AER LINGUS

2
AFRIQIYAH AIRWAYS
1
AIR GREENLAND
1
AIR SOUTHWEST
3
AMSTERDAM AIRLINES
1
BRITISH AIRWAYS
13
BRUSSELS AIRLINES
1
CITYJET
1
DHL
4
EASYJET
1
FLYBE
20
JETSTREAM EXECUTIVE
1
KLM
5
LONDON EXECUTIVE AVIATION
1
LUFTHANSA CITYLINE
1
RYANAIR
42
TIGER AIRWAYS
1
TRANSAVIA
2
TYROLEAN
1
VIRGIN NIGERIA
1
WIZZ AIR
1
TOTAL FOR 2008 104
lets have a look at these stats shall we.

1. 40% of their "graduates" have gone to Ryan Air! Not only have these people paid £63,000 for their training, when exactly the same training can be bought for under £40,000, they have also suffered the indignity of forking out around £25,000 to be screwed over by Michael O'Leary. Hardly something to be proud of is it OAA?

I can also tell you now that OAA would have had nothing to do with the students getting those jobs, so thats at least £23,000 thoroughly wasted by these unlucky 42 desperados.

2. How many of these jobs are with airlines that only accept nationals of their country or fluent speakers of a language which is not English? Id say around half, which would mean that Oxford is in fact failing to get jobs for British nationals, the people who make up the majority of OAAs customers.

3. Discounting the Ryan Air boys, that leaves 62 graduates who can claim to have been sucessfull in their job hunting up to half way through the year. That could be said to be around 120 / year. If I am right in my calculations, OAA churn out around 300 pilots a year? That means that there is around a 1 in 3 chance that you will be sucessful in finding a decent Airline job.

Doesn't make very good reading when you take away the OAA spin, does it?

So it looks like two conclusions can be drawn:

1. Pay OAA £63,000 for their course, and the most probable place you will end up is Ryan Air, forking out another £25,000 in the process and feeling like a complete chump.

or 2. You have around a 1 in 3 chance of finding a decent airline job if you choose not to go for Ryan Air. This probability will only get worse over the next year or so, as the airline industry slows down.

Still want to go?

Juneau 11th Jun 2008 19:33

Are you going to provide comparable statistics for how many modular or other integrated FTO students (who will also have to pay for their TR) have secured employment with Ryanair in the same period? You can hardly blame OAA for the current market, but 42 'unlucky graduates' getting jobs in under six months is damn good if you ask me.

With some rather plain maths deriving a 1 in 3 chance of a 'decent' job, perhaps you'd like to enlighten us where those 42 souls should have gone?

Juneau 11th Jun 2008 19:40

But it isn't a 1 in 2 chance, is it? 104 placements in 23 weeks equals 235 placements per year. If there are 240 students, as you estimate, that's 98% employment.

Am I missing something? :confused:

stuzzy1980 11th Jun 2008 19:45

'there a lies, damned lies, and then statistics!'

your interpretation of their employment figures makes interesting reading. As a prospective student on their APP course (or CTC icp) I doesn't exactly fill my head with positive thoughts!

Yes, with oil prices et al, the future for newly qualified pilots is not quite as rosy. Surely this makes the decision to train with (arguably) one of the best providers will furnish you with the best chances of employment, despite the added costs of the course?

I have been led to believe that taking the integrated route is the route most prefered by airline companies. So why not take the hit, and speculate to accumulate?

What are the statistics for modular route students, or people that have moved about during their training? Surely these statisics would make even more depressing reading!!!!?????????

Also, Oxford only publish the students that have actively contacted them to inform them of their new-found employment.....there is no obligation to do so.

I have a 747 captain as a friend, and he can't praise the likes of OAA and CTC enough.............................

Also the cost of OAA is more like 75k!

Im not trying to be argumentative here, and im trying not to sound like ive swallowed a 'OAA is great pill' , about to make some huge decisions in my life, and appreciate the positive and negative to every possiblilty........

BerksFlyer 11th Jun 2008 19:47

It's just a matter of timing really. I have no doubt that if the economic climate were looking better the bulk of the good jobs would have gone to people from the likes of OAA. Unfortunately that's the way it is.

However, if you're prepared to work your way up by gaining experience with aircraft other than jets (which will make you a better pilot) and companies other than airlines, having a lot of fun doing so (afterall, it is flying and that's what we love isn't it?), then there is no reason to spend a big premium with the likes of OAA. This also means cheaper training, which means less debt, which means no rush to find a high paying jet job, which means less pressure, which means more fun flying. ;)

Take your pick and pay your money, though be sure how much of that money charged is based on training and how much is based on marketing claims.

99jolegg 11th Jun 2008 20:05

People who usually use the argument that "OAA arguments only end up at Ryanair anyway, so why bother paying integrated prices when you could pay modular prices and do the same thing" ignore the idea that maybe with the slow down in cadet uptake, integrated students from OAA, CTC, FTE and Cabair might take a lot of the places available so going modular might not be the simple route to RYR that people think.

Another point of view.

stuzzy1980 11th Jun 2008 20:19

absolutely dj. good luck to all. At the end of the day, getting a job is what its all about. And there is more than one way to skin a cat!!!

If only we had a magic crystal ball.....................

Kempus 11th Jun 2008 21:09

Good on the guys who finished OAA and went to FR. Yeah maybe it wasn't what they expected when they first signed up but hell they are flying and there's a hell of a good chance they will still be employed "term used loosely" in 2yrs!

I do think some of OAA emplyment statistics are off and should also include an indication of when that person graduated. I personally know people that graduated early 2007 and they have got jobs recently and have been included in this years stats. Also as stated in another post/thread they do put up some names pre sim check/TR in which that person has been unsucessful and dropped. Then again there are others who do not tell them they get a job and these numbers are more likely greater than the amount that get chopped.

Now just to add something alot of you wont like.

The amount of people gaining an fATPL verus the amount of people going to a major and getting their type rating paid either integrated or modular are very small.


Those not willing to pay for a type rating are going to find it very very very difficult to find that first job in the next 2yrs! FR will screw you over for the first 6 months and then your earning more than a BA cadet FO who is on a reduced salary until year 5! The difference adds up to the around the same as FR screwed you over intially!

I can understand how hard it is to get the additional finances to pay for a type rating but if you'd paid so much its worth that extra to get that foot in the door!

Also flying turbo props dosen't always make you a better pilot as flying a slippy jet compared to a draggy prop requires different skills. I handfly my jet as much as pos with the flight directors off and so use the same skills as my TP friends and hell even the same skills of those pre IR! Unless of course you do CATIII landings all the time in your jet your a lazy sod!

Dont turn down anyjobs regardless of TP or Jet, in the current climate you'd be silly too! Added to this, in this CURRENT climate, keep your job and go modular but go to a good school and yes OAA is a good school!

Kempus

ps This post may be all over the place as been watchin the apprentice and now watching girls of the play mansion so apologies!

BerksFlyer 11th Jun 2008 21:24


Also flying turbo props dosen't always make you a better pilot as flying a slippy jet compared to a draggy prop requires different skills.
Maybe I worded it wrongly. Sure it isn't true that every TP pilot is better than their jet counterpart, but I was just trying to say that we all love flying and flying different aircraft can only develop different skills which you can add to your armoury overall making you a more rounded pilot. Good on you for doing as much hand flying as possible - that's what it's all about afterall.


FR will screw you over for the first 6 months and then your earning more than a BA cadet FO who is on a reduced salary until year 5! The difference adds up to the around the same as FR screwed you over intially!
This is something else I've never understood. Why do people seem to undervalue the salary difference between a DEP and an SSP? A job's a job's a job as far as your first is concerned. Once you're unfrozen then you can start going for the airlines you wish to fly for - with the added benefit of being on a higher DEP salary rather than a diluted 'we gave you a job when you were low hours, so we're going to pay you less for a long time' salary.

SD. 11th Jun 2008 22:08

I imagine that a large percentage of OAA students are sold the dream of working for the national flag carrier. BA have taken on 13 so far and I would guess that the year end figure is around 20 - 25 'graduates'.

Would you gamble 25k on a 10% chance of landing a job with BA? Disregarding FR, the next big company to hire from OAA is FlyBe. With all due respect to FlyBe pilots, their FO salary is not as competitive as the likes of EZY, FR etc. You'll need every penny you can get to pay off that 75k of debt.

Personally I'd rather go modular & save 30k+

99jolegg 11th Jun 2008 22:11

I should add that I wasn't suggesting that integrated is the way to go because you are more likely to get a job, I was basing what I said on the statistics from integrated FTOs. All of their statistics have a large proportion going to RYR - with uptake slowing down and 80 or more pilots from integrated courses going to RYR, there surely can't be many spaces left to fill :eek:

Aviation is about getting your foot in the door and securing it. Do that and your laughing!

speedrestriction 11th Jun 2008 22:19


Good on you for doing as much hand flying as possible - that's what it's all about afterall.
Nonsense - its is about getting people safely from A to B. Hand flying is a minor perk in suitable conditions, certainly not "what it's all about."

When considering flight training be as objective as you can. Look for the reasons why you shouldn't spend that £50k thats burning a hole in your back pocket as well as reasons why you should.

sr

BerksFlyer 11th Jun 2008 22:40


Nonsense - its is about getting people safely from A to B. Hand flying is a minor perk in suitable conditions, certainly not "what it's all about."
Hence why I mentioned hand flying as much as 'possible'. Perhaps I should have said as much as 'safely possible'.

I didn't actually mean it in the sense 'hand flying is what flying an airliner is all about', I meant 'hand flying is flying in its rawest form and that is where it all pilots started'.

Safety is what it's all about, you are correct. Though personally I feel that you should keep your hand flying skills should you need them, they are important to a degree. Of course safety is paramount and you use your discretion/SOPs.

cfwake 11th Jun 2008 22:45

mm

Do you have a personal vendetta against OAA or have you just decided to launch another broadside at them?

Feel like you were almost promised a job at a Big Airline? Well having been at OAA and having known an awful lot of people there (obviously) only a very, very naive few believe that. They're a business and as such have a responsibility to sell their product, and they do it very well but I do not for one minute feel that I have ever been lied to about job prospects!

Most of us ARE fully aware, however, that the quality of training at OAA is second to none, and this has been agreed by countless ATPLs at all seniority levels who advised me to go there, and who specifically stated that OAA was, in fact, a damn good string to have in your bow when you look for the first job, because again I have been told, more than once, that OAA is the benchmark in airline pilot training. From day one you are trained to think in an 'airline' way, and while some of you may find it ridiculous, the airlines don't seem to, and never have. That's the difference, and yes, you do pay more for it. How much more? Look at the Cabair and FTE (and now CTC) websites - no-one offers cheap integrated training. In fact, I would suspect that all in pretty much each course is a similar cost. Certainly the basic cost of the all the courses is very, very similar.

And as I have come to realise, OAA can only work with what they're given. They take something like 40% of the applicants from what I remember off the top of my head...they have a certain number of places and have an obligation to fill them. It's a business, not the RAF. They have only an obligation to provide the training that they are paid for. They've done that for me and all of my coursemates so far and the training that they have provided has been absolutely excellent.

Barring a few minor details, which, talking to students at other integrated and modular schools are common, I cannot say I have ever honestly regretted coming here. True the industry is going through a rocky time at the moment, but good training complements ability and intelligence and is the key to sucessful entry into the profession. Having heard from professionals on the flight deck, training office and recruitment office, I'm pretty convinced that I've had that from the right people, and it's like listening to a stuck record coming on here and seeing people having a crack at OAA for one poorly explained reason or another.

At the end of the day, what has always got me is this: if you don't like it, don't go! But don't, as some people on here seem to do (and mm I'm not referring specifically to you here), come and dig in without having experienced it. I have been guilty of that several times before as I dare say most of us have, but until people stop doing so we will all be criticised for our training choice and/or training provider for various reasons that usually boil down to "It's not how I trained, therefore it's not the best way".

Somewhat tangential rant over, donning tin hat!

heli_port 12th Jun 2008 06:03

At the end of the day statistics aside, what convinced me to go there is the professionalism displayed when I went to visit them and when I sat the entrance tests? Don't get me wrong the statistics helped I however felt that the OAA approach was a very 'low risk' approach and thus I paid my deposit.

So will I get a job? And by that I mean will I get recommended to BA? I hope so if not it's not at the end of the world as I have come from a solid school with a great reputation and hopefully will be snapped up by another airline. What this all comes down to is money. If you are willing to stump up the cash and take a 'punt' go for it if not then don't whine about it and go elsewhere :eek::};):p:cool:

modern monkey 12th Jun 2008 07:40

Ok, so bashing OAA is a bit like a stuck record. Where I am coming from is that I have a personal vendetta against the exploitation of wannabees in general. See my other posts, eg on the Easyjet "pay to work" scheme.

Having come through the modular UK flight training system and having overcome the struggle to get my first airline job, I can now view things "from the other side" as it were.

It is now clear to me just how pathetic and rediculus wannabe exploitation by the likes of Ryan Air, OAA, etc really is. The amount of sh*te talked by them to justify their greed is unbelievable.

Wannabe pilots are like a rotting corpse surrounded by flies.

The wannabes are the corpse and the flies are the FTOs et al, all scrambling to get their pound of cash.

99jolegg 12th Jun 2008 08:11

I think it's easier to think like that after the process. I'm sure you worked very hard to get where you are in the airline industry but that's just it, you are there and the modular (cheaper) route worked for you, so you look back thankfully that you didn't "waste" your money on an integrated course because, after all, there was no need.

However, if you weren't so successful in the route you chose - would you still be saying these integrated courses "suck you in" and all want to get their "pound of cash"? I think you'd probably question and evaluate the route you chose and ponder about where you would have been if you took another route.

It's certainly easier with hindsight and success. This is similar to someone going through an integrated course, getting a job and saying that it's the way to go, simply because it worked for them.

The African Dude 12th Jun 2008 12:14

djfingercrossed

Your desire to go modular may just come true. Don't forget - the CTC Wings course always was a one-stop modular course until quite recently. But it won't cost you any less than an integrated course. Why? Because there's hardly any difference between the two.

Whether the path one takes is right or wrong can only be assessed in terms of the consequences of said path in relation to the intended outcome. The wrong path into the industry is the path that doesn't actually get one into said industry. Depending on how good a bricklayer one happens to be, ones path can vary in both quality and direction; but a good bricklayer is more likely to make a good path out of bad bricks than a bad bricklayer - catch my drift? :}

Back to the topic:
OAA are a business, just like the government. The government uses spin on their statistics to prove their point. OAA will do the same. Caveat Emptor - as has been said so many times before!

Skintman 12th Jun 2008 12:25

Modern Monkey

Your origianl post/rant serves very little purpose to wannabies apart from making you look very anti OAA. Is there a reason behind this? :eek:

OAA have been training cadets for many years and will continue to do so I'm sure. The fact that RYR has taken a lot of pilots this year is not the fault of OAA. Would you rather OAA graduates did not get these jobs?

Who cares where you get your first job. BA/BMI would be great, but not really realistic for most. At least OAA publish their figures and are happy to take the flak accordingly.:=

Training to fly is expensive whichever route you take unfortunatley and wannabies should do research in full thermselves. Your rant hardly helps them.:=

I suspect that persons on this site would listen to your views more if you had experienced OAA, rather than just taking a pop for an unknown reason. Why not rant against the other FTO's - because they don't publish their figures, that's why. Perhaps some more constructive comments from you might help.

The maths aint hard - today 105 in 5.36 months = 235 pro rata for 12 full months.:confused:

Skintman

BerksFlyer 12th Jun 2008 16:59


Training to fly is expensive whichever route you take unfortunatley and wannabies should do research in full thermselves. Your rant hardly helps them.:=
But it's the vast difference in expense in question usually when talking about the likes of OAA.

cfwake 12th Jun 2008 17:05

Can I again ask people who are interested to look at the course costs for CTC iCP, FTE, Cabair AND Oxford and then come back when talking about costing?! As far as I can see, they're all pretty much of a muchness and all inclide some things that the others don't and visa versa! In fact, looking at OAA, the argument that it is outrageously expensive seems somewhat false - the other courses cost the same!

And i know that they don't include some things such as accom and food whereas some do, but you tend to pay the same amount for it once they make the course more expensive!

BerksFlyer 12th Jun 2008 17:20

cfwake,

Don't jump to conclusions.

I'm talking about the vast differences in cost when compared to modular training. No need to jump on the defensive, I've got nothing against OAA or any other integrated school for that matter. Just think it's interesting that so much more is charged for a course that is the same as a one stop modular type course but with less flying! Especially as a few of the integrated schools do a lot of the flying in the US where it's much cheaper...

phil1mac 12th Jun 2008 17:40

Adding to wango, how long does it take from zero hours to your first job through a modular route? (hope this isn't too off topic)

cfwake 12th Jun 2008 18:01

BF

Sorry buddy wasn't referring to any specific post, just a general whinge!

99jolegg 12th Jun 2008 18:20

Modular route can take anywhere from 18 months to 36 months or more. Time constraints apply once you have completed some sections. ATPLs must be completed within 18 months and once you have done your ATPLs, I think you have to pass your IR within 36 months - did I read that somewhere?

It'll cost from £35,000 to £50,000 inc everything depending on how well you plan and where you do your training.

HappyFran 12th Jun 2008 18:34

I agree with 99 on the cost estimates, I am sure some super economic penny minder will quote £2.50. But £35 -£50K is realistic to get good training at a reputable school(s). :)
Don't see why it takes 18 months through. I can see my way to completing in ~ 12months. I'm doing a joined up modular path. :).

Though given current economic outlook and WWW constant gleeful prediction of immenient end of world, I am considering slowing down pace to minimize risk of finishing with shiney f(atpl) and zero job prospects. :uhoh::uhoh:

sorry even more thread drift

99jolegg 12th Jun 2008 18:43

Because at a minimum, if you are a fast learner, the ATPLs will take 6 months. That leaves you 6 months to get your PPL, night rating, hour building, CPL, ME and IR. Not too long.

Abbey415 12th Jun 2008 19:15

PPL, Night Rating & hour building prior to ATPLs would be a good idea, which leaves CPL, MEP & IR which can be done in 6 months after ATPLs if all goes to plan. It really depends on the structure that your chosen school works to.

modern monkey 12th Jun 2008 19:25

CFwake. Could you please clarify for me what you consider "being trained to think in an airline way" actually means?

Also, may I ask how many of your instructors have airline experience?

MIKECR 12th Jun 2008 19:37

I know someone who did all their ATPL'S recently in 2 months. All first time passes with an average overallscore of high 90's!! It can be done very quickly on a modular route.

MIKECR 12th Jun 2008 19:50

Admittedly, he did a lot of study beforehand. He is however an incredibly intellegent and capable guy.

clanger32 12th Jun 2008 22:01

sorry, I hate these threads, but nevertheless another thought (or two)
  1. There will always be people who are exceptional and achieve ridiculously in the ATPLs....either in terms of knocking them out quickly, or in terms of getting stupidly high marks...like the recent OAA grad who finished them all with only 2 questions wrong in 14 papers and a 99.8% average....
  2. Ryanair is NOT a neverending supply of low hour jobs. Those who think the OAA guys going there is humouress in that they've spent so much more to get the job than a modular guy, might care to consider that those 44 (?) jobs are 44 that DIDN'T go to modular students....and as far as I can tell FYR seems to be the holy grail [or best chance for a jet job, if you prefer] for most mod students. So, if you can't get into FYR because the integrated students have taken the spots that you may previously have had and none of the other companies who ARE recruiting will take modular (BA are still hiring, Flybe are hiring, but getting very picky on modular), is your thirty grand saving worth a piss in the ocean?
It's a rhetorical question. Yes, FYR will continue to hire mod pilots and that's a good thing, but people seem to get obsessed with the "vast savings you make on a mod course"....but then forget, as 99jolegg alluded to earlier, that that saving is only actually a saving if you manage to get a job at all....and there in lies the crux.

It's kind of like all those people claiming they made ten kazillion on their house through the property boom....no they didn't, because to realise it, they'd have to buy somewhere else which has equally risen in value.

757drivergla 12th Jun 2008 22:26

Gentlemen,
If a company has a choice of product then they will choose the most reliable/reputable one first almost every time, all costs being equal. It remains exactly the same when an airline takes on a 200 hour pilot. As the product of a reputable integrated course, delivered by a reputable flying school, the pilot is a known entity to the airline. They are familiar with all aspects of his training and as such can rely on him/her fitting in and performing to a specific standard. That is not to say that a self-improver/modular pilot will be any different; they merely remain unknown and unproven entity to the airline. Therefore the risk to said airline is vastly reduced by taking on the tried and tested product of the integrated flight school.In this case, with all pilots holding the same qualifications required for the job, the cost to the company in choosing between a modular and an integrated pilot is nil and as such 9 times out of ten the latter would appear to be a more reliable aquisition. Not necessarily a better one by any means but a safer prospect.

This is what OAT and CTC provide the cadet with: a nice safe brand to sell to the airlines. Hence why you will find that the majority of those flying for airlines (who haven't come from a military background and are from certain generations) are from these schools. Having worked for two uk airlines who are established in the industry, I can count the number of self improvers that I have met on one hand. Frankly, I have nothing but admiration for them as it is a route that must be frought with difficulties and doubt and incredibly tough to deal with given the lack of backup that, having other people going through with you on the integrated course, provides. That said, those of you who are naive enough to think that integrated cadets have an easy life, you don't know how wrong you are; it is a high pressure-filled, time-critical environment that taxes most that are lucky enough to be a part of it.

It is not a case of one being better than another so those of you with elitist attitudes or chips on your shoulder I suggest you take a step back for a while and take a slightly wider look at life. Good luck to everyone though....it's a fantastic job and no matter how annoying the training, it only gets better, BELIEVE ME!:ok:

BerksFlyer 12th Jun 2008 23:06

No worries cfwake :ok:

Not everyone wants to go straight to airline flying. Generally people who go modular already have a PPL so it makes no sense to go through 'foundation' stages again. Already having flying experience and possibly a few years worth of recreational flying means less money on hours building and then it's about £30k for the advanced flying stages and MCC. Of course not everyone is like that, but I think it's fair to say that a vast majority already have PPLs when starting at a modular school.

If all you want to do is fly airliners then no doubt places like OAA are better than the self improver route and if the price of an integrated course was similar to a modular course almost everyone who wants to fly airliners quickly would go integrated. However, with time and experience there's no reason why self improvers can't get to airlines. Believe it or not some even get lucky and a CV sent to an airline pays off - though when we talk about training we always talk about likelihoods, and the likelihood is that you won't get lucky. But then again you make your own luck.

What 757drivergla says is true, the big FTOs provide a trusted brand to airlines. Much like when we go to the supermarket we can trust Heinz to offer a solid, trusty sauce/soup.

cfwake 12th Jun 2008 23:26

mm

In my opinion, and I freely admit I can't answer for how a standard small flying school would teach...

As far as I am concerned, an airline-like way is the extra level of planning and prep that has to be done that, in my experience of private flying, usually goes amiss...in the US, for example, even on singles, OAA students have to file a flight plan, fill out a plog, complete manual m&b sheets for all flights, get them checked out by the duty instructor, and especially turn up early or lose their flight, or fly and get a b*llocking, the logic being that for the job that you want it shouldn't make a difference to your approach what you're flying that day, be it a Warrior or a 737.

While I fully appreciate that there are small schools that will enforce these sort of things, the whole thing seems to be carried out on a more formal basis than most of the mod guys have experienced - as they say themselves. Most of the mod guys reckon that their experience of hours building has been more along the lines of 'hopping in and getting off'. Not that it makes integrated guys better pilots, of course, and of course, not all mod students are the same.

That's my thoughts, once you reach CPL and IR then of course all providers should be as professional as the other, but I still feel that the extra anality gets you into the swing of things.

As for ex-airline, not sure of the numbers, the MCC and JOC instructors are all ex airline, as would be expected, the IR instructors are a good mix of ex airline, ex RAF transport, fast jet, not very fast jet and one raspberry ripple jet, civvy senior instructors and examiners, including a few CFIs who've swapped sides. In short, they all have extensive experience of regimented flying routines (which having waffled on is probably what my ultimate definition of an 'airline-like way' would be). The US has a mix of mainly non-airline guys - some career instructors, a few who have and spend time in bizjets, some have flown for airlines and some who have worked for small operators.

A pretty eclectic mix!

Adios 12th Jun 2008 23:58

Modern Monkey,

As for all OAA's foreign nationals getting jobs in other countries, that seems better than having them stay here to compete with the British FOs doesn't it? It also leaves fewer OAA graduates competing with those from other UK FTOs. It seems like a win win to me.

12x24=288, so assuming OAA fills every course, every year, the 253 that found jobs last year is an 87% success rate if all of them finish the course. I doubt that any of the above assumptions are perfect, but your 1 out of 3 claim is some very fuzzy maths.

I wonder if you are angry because you perceive that those who paid more for an integrated course may have jumped the queue on you back then, hence your "struggle for the first job."

modern monkey 14th Jun 2008 09:58

CFwake, so what you're saying is that Oxford make you fly in a more "regimented" manner. That certainly seems to be the case, however Id consider filling out a flight plan and doing a mass and balance sheet before every flight a bit pedantic to be honest. Once youve done them a couple of times you know how to do them and I dont really see what it teaches you. Ok, thorough planing is vital to conducting a safe flight, but flight plans do not need to be filed for VFR flights, and it is common knowedge that a warrior with full tanks and two averagely sized people on board will not be out of mass and balance limits.

There seems to be a myth in some quarters of the flying world that being an airline pilot involves some kind of millitary style, super regimented attutide and appearance, which I think comes from the influence of the millitary pilots which come across from the RAF, to either work in Airlines or instruct at places like OAT. In fact, it does sound like Oxford has the feel of a millitary academy, am I right? A lot of millitary instructors, uniforms and epaulets, "bollockings" for being late? Such things may be appropriate in the RAF, but in my opinion, not in a civilian flying school.

I remember reading during my MCC course that when the concept of CRM was first introduced, one of its primary aims was to overcome certain aspects of the attitudes of a lot of ex millitary pilots, which had been blamed for a number of serious acidents. Things like:
- too much respect for rank, resulting in too steep a command gradient;
- the maverick, single minded attitudes of captains which had come from single pilot fast jets;
- a lack of respect for "inferior" first officers;
were blames for a number of accidents where, had the crew worked as a team, the accident would have been easily avoided.

In relailty, being a pilot is a civillian job like any other. If you turn up on time, fit to fly, not looking like you've been dragged through a hedge backwards and do the job properly, then you're doing the right thing. It does not take Oxford style millitary regimentation to learn such an approach.

I have no beef against any of the Oxford students, however I am of the opinion that OAA exploit their sudents' career aspirations by feeding them a load of bull**** to make themselves rich. The exploitation of wannabees by FTOs and Airlines dusgusts me to be honest.

It has been said on here that from the statistics, 87% of OAA students get jobs. Ok that may be true, but one of my original points was that 40% of these people had gone/ will go to Ryan Air. This is by far the majority. If I had gone to oxford, and all I managed to get at the end of it was a job with Ryan Air, then I would feel very pissed off indeed!

One other thing, as part of the integrated course, how much solo time do you actually get? I mean real solo time, when you're the only one in the AC, not "supervised solo" or whatever else they might call it.

cfwake 14th Jun 2008 19:10

OK, maybe I overcooked it somewhat! When I refer to bollockings, I don't mean anything like a full scale dressing down in front of the CFI, but like anywhere you're expected to turn up on time and you'll be told if you're not doing so!

OAA certainly does not have the feel of a military flight training facility, it is unmistakedly civvy, and the instructors are very aware that you are paying an awful lot of money for the course and will bend over backwards to help you through the course. A very pleasant group of people.

And while I am fully aware of the ex mil difficulties that were faced in the past (we do a 3 day CRM course as part of the APP run by an outside company), I have had no sense of a steep authority gradient and all of the instructors are, from our experience, extremely easy to sit in a cockpit with. I have to say that from what I've heard, ex mil mavericks are somewhat career limited these days and don't tend to last too long once it becomes clear that their attitude is not of an MCC manner.

So, again, perhaps I made it sound somewhat more regemented than it is, but it IS still more regimented than most smaller schools, and I'd argue that that's a good thing, personally I think that flying is very different from most civvy jobs and does require a bit more than you'd perhaps get away with in many other careers, due to what can go wrong and what is required of a person facing those issues.

And on the Ryanair note, don't believe everything you may hear. I have spoken to quite a lot of the people who have gone there - their pay is excellent, admittedly the first 4 months is unpaid, but if you can afford a course it's a fairly good bet you can afford to scrape by for that time somehow, the gear is brand new and the guys who have gone there have very, very few complaints. What we usually hear is very different from what goes on, it seems.

modern monkey 14th Jun 2008 19:27

Cfwake, as usual this thread has reached no conclusion whatsoever, I think we are both right in some ways. I accept that OAAs traning is probably very good and that you do have a certain advantage in getting a job when leaving, however I maintain that they exploit their own reputation and people's fears of not being able to get a job to charge their students over the odds for their courses.

I'd say they are as good at pulling the wool over the airline recruitment departments they deal with as they are at pulling the wool over the eyes of their students.

If your happy with them however, then who am I to criticise. Good luck with the course and I hope you get a decent job at the end of it, ie one that does not cost you an extra 25grand!:ok:

cfwake 15th Jun 2008 00:49

What a pleasant way to resolve the issue! I concur - I wish you all the best - even with dwindling job ops out there, people with balls - who stand their ground and argue their corner - have a damn good shot at getting the pick of the bunch!

Happy landings buddy!


All times are GMT. The time now is 23:55.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.