I agree, there seems to be a pretty poor standard or interpretation on this thread!

oh my goodness!
 

hahahaha! skyhighbird that quote of corsairs di make laugh a big one! I suppose that ba have told hem they dont want him. hahahaha laugh a big one i did. I think he is very angry TOO! Poor for him. My mather always told me, to open to everytime a bigness of SPIRIT, and oh it is my life prayer now! I hope he can get a job sometime. it is HARD to live with no money. I know.....

The only experience I have of BA is that a good friend of mine started as a FO on the A320 with them back in July last year. 21 years old, Integrated from FTE. Was the only one to get an interview along with another candidate- who was 34 and had been in a previous career somewhere.

Both had the required first time passes in exams, CPL/IR and were near enough identical, apart from age.

My friend got the job, JOC paid for and TR paid for. I think this should answer the question of what kind of person BA are looking for, young and willing to be moulded into what BA want you to be, whatever that is?

The only reason BA takes integrated is because they (int grads) all have a verified training record from day1, with a known provider (from TEP days).

Actually 152queenoftheskies, Laugh away but I never applied to BA nor indeed do I have any interest in applying. I do have a job, but as it's a flying job, the pay is rubbish.

What has drawn my ire is not really the fact that BA or any airline have hiring preferences but the apparent attitude of some posters that the reason for it is something to do with the fact that pilots who come down the modular route are somehow substandard, poorly trained and 'starry eyed' gamblers.

The reality is that BA's recruitment policy is as much for historical reasons as anything else. That's simply their traditional method of hiring low timers. Either their own cadets or people using a similar route. Aer Lingus is similar. As sevenmilesup pointed out there are admin reasons too.

As it happens, if I was starting again. My preference would be to do an integrated course. I mean who wouldn't? It's the most convenient way of training. Full time and nothing else to do but fly and study. Failing that or more likely failing to obtain the ridiculous money to pay for it my second preference would be a full time modular course at a school with a good reputation. I fail to see how that could be considered lesser training than integrated. Yet apparently some people consider pilots coming down that route as second raters. Apparently, according to them so does BA.

That is ridiculous no matter which way you look at it.

Corsair,

Your 2nd paragraph summarises exactly why I am annoyed. I have no intention for BA. I can afford an integrated but choose not to do so.

Unless anyone can correct me, the BA careers website does NOT write some of the stuff that has been written here by the likes of Re-heat et al.

If there are any BA pilots who managed to get in as low hour cadets, can you verify that your congratulations letter did not say "as you are integrated, hence better trained, well planned, better discipline...you have been offered employment.."

the point is the likes of re-heat et al really do believe the stuff they wrote. And that is why I have been annoyed at the posts.

Corsair,
[Really!] Hear hear. An excellent post, I agree with wholeheartedly on all points. And no, I'm not being sarcastic. The only things I would add would be that you mention yourself - I think unfortunately there are also a lot of mod schools with bad reps out there - and these can potentially tar all "modular" students with the same brush (my bad meal in restaurant analogy)

Also, I don't think anyone has MEANT to imply that modular training is second rate - I think the intent was to show that there is PERHAPS a persistent (but inaccurate) feeling that this WAS the case [and hence a reason to not change]. However, this intent was missed in the hurry to jump on a statement that at first glance boils the blood...

I fail to see, from the multitude of venomous posts on this thread from a variety of people, where the problem is.

The only reason BA stipulate 'integrated' is because they can. I have flown with many pilots both modular and integrated and, to be honest, I don't feel the need to ask 'so, what form of training did you undertake?' at the brief and then expansively suck teeth if it was modular. There is NO difference once you have the green, foul smelling, plastic ATPL folder. Everyone is qualified to the same level, irrespective of how they got there the only difference being that the LHS has completed a command course with the company and the RHS has not and, possibly, needs to build experience.

BA use the integrated as a way to cut their apparent costs. That's up to the recruiters. If they want to stipulate 'only to have flown Cessna Citations with a purple stripe down the side and a leather interior' then good luck to them. They can. The 'stipulation' disappears as soon as you become DEP and then you can join the company on the DEP payscale.

Always remember, never recruit unlucky people by throwing the top half of the CV's in the bin!

Anyway, the whole point is moot as the entire airline industry is in a downward spiral and the chances of 'sponsorship' or 'cadets' being resurrected in the near future is about as slim as an apology from Gordon Brown for the state of the economy!

Good luck, chill out and welcome to the real world.

I fail to see, from the multitude of venomous posts on this thread from a variety of people, where the problem is
Wobble2plank,

the answer to your question is answered perfectly in Corsair's second paragraph.

"What has drawn my ire is NOT really the fact that BA or any airline have hiring preferences but the apparent attitude of some posters that the reason for it is something to do with the fact that pilots who come down the modular route are somehow substandard, poorly trained and 'starry eyed' gamblers"

I never quite undertood the last bit from re-heat or whoever said it-even though I did ask the person to explain the contradiction. Surely the least starry-eyed and the least gambling IS the person who went part time, hence having less debt and a secure job until they finished training. AND surely the starry-eyed wannabe IS the integrated cadet who put their parent's semi on the line?

i think modular is for people who have wanted to fly since being young and spend there weekends washing, refueling planes to earn some money to get there ppl quite young. Or people who want to do it in stages for any reason.

On the other hand Intergrated is either for people who decide on a new career and have saved up a lot of cash to get there licence quickly or people who wake up one day and say "i wanna be a pilot" and have the money or take out a big loan on daddys property.

Just my thoughts so feel free to disagree

Skyhighbird

We live in a democracy (well almost if you're in the UK) and people are posting on a public forum. Some people may para phrase certain policies of companies in many different ways. There is often a mis-conception of the reader as to the posters intent or phraseology. That's normal but then what else is normal is to concoct a well thought out missive as to the counter.

If it helps, I have never found any difference when flying with pilots who are integrated or modular. If I have to put my glove down on one side of the fence I would say that the modular pilots are often (not always) more down to earth and pragmatic as a result of their training. However, integrated, are more often a 'blank canvas', young, keen and willing to learn. In all honesty though any 'low hour' pilot can be an exceptional pain when they hit the magic 1000 hour 'know it all' barrier! Those who have seen it know what I mean.

Wait out. Enjoy the modular course as best you can. When the upturn swings in there is likely to be enough jobs for most.

Absolute bull. This is the other end, extreme stereotype put out there. Just as bad, just as dumb.

Why bother? These posts only reveal your own hang-ups.

Anyone has any sugar?might make myself some lemonade...there's a lot of lemons in here right?well at least it feels like,..alot of bitter people here,must be the lemons tho .....

lets add more bull then....

That is the exact traditional reason, as echoed time and time again in this thread. Noone is saying it is justified in todays system.

But I guess you'd prefer to speculate its for more sinister reasons of social hierachy, and that Mod students are the only real deserving pilots out there.

Just read back your statement and realise how bitter you sound.

Not really bitter to be honest. I'm not fussed i could go either way but i would never say one pilot is better than another because they went mod or they went int and i would never say they are a risk.

By the was it was an intergrated pilot that told me the possible reasons in my previous post.

Anyway what was the original post anyway because this has turned into a int v mod

Captain,

I must hold my hands up to the thread going off at a tangent.

But I am glad I did. It has been a real eye opener to the truth. I don't mean truth as in what has been said about mods compared to integrated is correct, I mean the truth that there are factions out there that really believe in what they said about mods - yet try to hide under the blanket that this is what BA think.

This is why I said this thread should be a sticky. Rather than the endless Int vs Mod ad nauseum thread with hundred odd posts, this particular thread tells everything a wannabee needs to know, not just the simple facts (integrated costs more) but how a mod student may be percieved by some people.

http://www.pprune.org/professional-p...d-nauseam.html

I think you'll find over 600 reasons for each and it really is never ending

Just been reading through this post with a smile on my face so thanks guys for the entertainment. With the flight school I went to, getting put forward to BA was the carrot on the end of the stick. When starting, most of the cadets pushed themselves harder to try and get recommended at the end of the course. We all accepted that if we did not make the grade or not "BA material" we would not get put forward as the flight school did not want to risk loosing their link to BA by sending anyone and everyone forward.
The integrated/modular debate regarding BA recruitment is fairly redundant; in my flight school at least you had to be put forward to have a chance at BA. The reason modular guys were not put forward was not just that they couldn't back up their complete training, but as part of the sales pitch for applicants to part with £50k+ for an integrated course was the promise of getting put forward to airlines if a certain standard was met.
Being put forward to BA has had a negative affect on many who went for the interview. It is pretty much an all your eggs in one basket choice, as BA did not want you being put forward to anyone else whilst waiting for an interview. In the time it took to get through and get turned down, many other doors had been closed due to not having 50 hours in the last 6 months.

I was having a tidy yesterday and came across a letter from Cabair about a reduction in costs due to a new scheme in the US, or something. It had this written;

Perhaps this is what my aunty had read about, as i alluded to at the start of this thread. Discuss!

P.S. I couldnt give two hoots about modular vs integrated debates, and give that i started this thread for a discussion of BA and Sponsorship, am perplexed how we've managed to get to the 6th page taking about mod vs int!

The two statements you pasted are at odds to each other. The headline states that BA are restarting a sponsored scheme, yet in the next sentence you quote "hoping to restart".

Don't be seduced by any marketing spin until:-

- there are cast iron agreements in place between BA and Cabair
- BA have publicly announced that it is restarting a sponsored scheme
- you have gone through the details of the scheme (if there is one) with a fine tooth comb and know what you are getting yourself in for

After all of that you then need to ask yourself if you are feeling lucky. A select few get put forward to BA and many fall by the wayside and aren't up to standard.

May also be worth noting, in answer to the OPs latest post, that I was recently informed [by someone, the opinion of whom I would consider to be pretty much gospel] that Oxford are not anticipating anything at all with BA this year, or at the very, very least until post Q3.

Contentious it may be, but historically I don't believe [although could well be wrong] Cabair's rep with BA is as strong as those of FTEs or OAAs, so would think it unlikely that Cabair would have the nod ahead of these two (or indeed CTC).

Sad truth is I highly doubt anyone low hours will even be joining the hold pool at BA, let alone starting JOC/TR for another 9 months absolute minimum.

LTS - quoted letter from just over a year ago perhaps, rather than recently?

This letter was recieved earlier this year, early feb if i remember right.

Yes, i realise its marketing spin, my point is more that this could tally with what i was first alluding to in the original post.

Anyway, im not overly looking at BA sponsorship/self-sponsorship, theres other ways of getting into an aircraft out there!

But i guess we will have to wait and see!

What route consolidation? London - Madrid and Barcelona are the only shared routes and these are already code shared with an equal number of BA and Iberia flights!

If only it were that easy.

Traffic can be consolidated on one route, say madrid to south america, with a couple of 'feeder' flights from london to madrid for the uk traffic. Then you chop the London to south america routes. Airlines cut costs, pax get better fares and crew loose jobs.

Just one hypothetical example but there are a lot of savings to be made during a merger which are not obvious at first glance. Not good for bus drivers.

Or, put it this way, there sure as hell will be no additional flights as a result.

All pretty acadimic with respect to the OP- BA will not be sponsoring any time soon is the sensible answer.

Pretty much all the savings are likely to be in procurement / distribution / IT. Consolidation of a couple of Latin American routes from London to being via Madrid is of little consequence to the workforce, and will possibly benefit consolidation of North American routes.

BA will definetly be re-introducing its sponsorship:


BA traffic falls 7% in March as 300 staff leave http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/nerd.gif

None of the 300 are pilots and March statistics are distorted by the fact that Easter fell in March last year and April this year. No one said BA were going to launch a sponsorship scheme during the downturn. However afterwards there MAY be expansion coupled with pilots retiring as they aproach 60, therefore a lot of recruitement may be needed and sponsorship could be considered as an option. My crystal ball is rather hazy right now so it is very difficult to speculate.