Hi there
I do believe that EZY said in their communication to him that he was in a "holding pool" and would contact him if and when there was a placement, my biggest concern is that his accreditation that he has so far ie...ground school / pheonix flying / IR / and Gatwick simulator on AIRBUS will expire before any job offer comes his way (there are seven other students in his group that are all in the same predicament).

I feel for this situation. It's certainly a difficult place to be in, but, being put across that way, it sounds like there's still some hope. Being put in a holding pool is somewhat better than being dumped altogether, as was the case with other carriers. easyJet didn't let go of your son completely, they just postponed his final bit of training and employment till better days, as I understood.

What I would suggest for now is wait for the dust to settle. In the next months we'll have a far clearer picture of what we're dealing with - hence, both the company and the flight school will know better what to plan on. Do maintain some communication with whomever is listed as your point of contact - that's what will help you decide whether you should keep that licence and wait it out or convert it to an ATPL and try to find luck elsewhere. Perhaps either of these is not going to be a quick fix, but for now we know too little to decide firmly on anything.

Holding pools are better than nothing and I hope that works out sooner rather than later, my concern is however for those individuals that decided to take out loans or secure training costs against a house. Training and jobs may be able to wait but the banks won't wait and I really fear in some cases the worse is yet to come for those in debt. MPL has on multiple occasions now shown a fundamental flaw there seems to be little rectification for, how many more MPL cadets must suffer before regulators will notice?

And why would the regulators show any interest? Did they ever step in to do anything pay to fly schemes or self sponsored type ratings in the past?

No MPL was forced kicking and screaming into the scheme, it was all voluntary.

Tempted to say that it should be more of a concern to insurance providers rather than regulators. An MPL scheme works out fab as long as there's a job in the end of it. However, when said job becomes non-existent by the time of graduation, there should be a clause in the mandatory training expenses insurance allowing the costs of conversion to ATPL to be claimed from the insurance since graduation with a non-transferable qualification and no job is more or less equal to loss of training expenses.

Sterling Airlines were one of the first MPL schemes and when they went bankrupt the fairly fresh 737 MPLS were taken on by another 737 operator. So to say the MPL isn't transferable isn't strictly true. While the essence of the above post is largely correct low time/fresh MPLs have been reemployed by operators of the same type in the past. Likewise Monarchs MPLs were taken on by Easyjet. However for Flybe's MPLS the issue is of course there are no other Dash 8 operators in the UK and very few in Europe.

There is nothing in the easy access rules that directly states a second MPA type can't be added to a MPL prior to achieving a full ATPL, but I suspect the necessary amendments to the Part B and Part D is what stops most operators considering other MPLs with minimal to no line experience from defunct airlines.

As has been alluded to, the MPL scheme is all about the trainee being ‘attached’ to an airline, and uses the airlines SOPs ( to the full extent possible*) during phase 2 &3, followed by the type rating.

The licence is issued once base training (circuits) is successfully completed.

An expensive option if this is the only outstanding item to secure the MPL issue.
Clearly an Airbus type is more useful than the Dash (Flybe).

There is no doubt that the MPL route should produce a superior product for the RHS, as the training is tailored for that sole purpose.

[Off topic slightly: the MCC/APS course is also capable of producing a good product]

The other route is to ‘revert’ to the (f)ATPL for CPL/IR issue. Here there is a shortfall in SP flying which needs to be completed together with the standard flight tests.

Note 1* Flybe trainees would complete the 120 hours of phases 2 & 3 on the B.737-800w at Jerez, using the Flybe briefing style, but flying the simulator as a Boeing not a DASH.

Their initial MPL courses in 2010 did require a “leap of faith” as we tried to fly the simulator as a DASH.
Very interesting going directly F5 to F-UP (no F1 selection).
Very light weights were used. And of course the issue of auto feather ‘armed’ !

What I forgot to mention in my previous post;

For those with the MPL issued and completed the Easy Access rules details the required additional training to obtain a conventional CPL and IR, it effectively amounts to doing 50% of the Integrated course content (which is pretty much what Parkfell has stated above).

However the issue for some of the recent MPLs is the MPL wasn't completed, there appears to be no formal guidance at the moment on how an incomplete MPL can be cross credited to a Integrated or Modular and again it depends on the what stage in the training was reached.

Sterling's collapse precipitated the more flexible MPL we have under EASA - it was not always transferrable.

I would say the only similarity between MPL, P2F and Self-sponsored type training is that each was a creation of the training industry - P2F and SSTR's are not regulated activities in the same way as an MPL, however they are social issues for which, in the EU, the European Commission is the arbiter.

Didn't L3 offer some sort of guarantee that training costs would be refunded? Obv not on their website now but I'm sure it was a 'selling point' not so long ago.

There used to be a mandatory training expenses insurance on most cadet programmes in past years. Not sure if that's still the case and whether it would cover revocation of the job offer due to force majeure.

Is there any of that for standard integrated courses outside of CAE?

L3, Skyborne and CAE I believe offer this package. Though it's supposed to be for performance related reasons (hence their chargeable selection process). One would imagine FTE do too. However as others have said, Force Majure is almost certainly going to be claimed and I won't hold my breath that schools will move mountains, they are likely to be haemorrhaging cash also.

What insurer in the world is going to come up with a price for that premium?!? The premium would end up costing more than the cost of the retraining, except with the addition of their admin costs. They’ll be running their risk analysis as prudently as you should be; but I’m afraid their results should be broadly the same as yours, you don’t have a leg to stand on and if you want one, it’s going to cost the majority of the expected expenses occurred, to insure! You’re frankly deluded if you reckon that’s the kind of insurance proposition a provider is willing to present.

There are two, perhaps three aspects to consider:

1. Read your CONTRACT. Is there a clause which covers FORCE MAJEURE?
Your legal eagle needs to scrutinise the contract.

2. Insurance is, in essence, providing a measure of protection over future events outwith your control and not yet occurred, but possibly foreseeable.
If you had approached an Insurance Company 12 months ago and asked to take out insurance against a global pandemic event which covers the cost of your present situation, your training costs etc, then I suspect that you would have been able to obtain insurance.

A very long shot ~ check House insurance policy.

3. For those unfortunate customers who are at present in phases 2/3, a very generous ATO might, out of the goodness of their heart (not to mention excellent PR...cynical moi?) allow the trainee to complete the additional flying necessary for CPL/IR issue for the previous agreed MPL course price, i.e. switch across with no extra charges.
Individual circumstances would clearly dictate the generosity. Ideally just started phase 2.

MCC certification an additional matter requiring Regulatory discussion depending how far into phase 2/3.

This unfolding situation should be part of the flashy advertising blurb that airlines/flight schools spew out when launching these schemes. It is profoundly wrong that people aren’t fully aware of what they are risking by getting into bed with often shady airlines and their fast track shiny jet schemes.

Like many, I hate the way they exploit young impressionable people with their glossy illustration of airline life whilst trousering vast amounts of money at little risk to themselves. Ridiculous sums of money charged for type ratings that help subsidise their wafer thin balance sheets.

I wouldn’t even buy a new car from anyone in senior airline management. I certainly wouldn’t trust them or any of their associated “training providers” with £130k of my money.

For the avoidance of doubt, a contract will always be in their favour and worthless when they run out of money. Remember CABAIR?

Not just CABAIR, Four Forces, Southern Flight Training (incidentally the director of this set up EPTA under a Cabair franchise literally on the other side of the road). In all cases students lost varying sums of money.

Add Trent, Cranfield to the list of owners who did a runner causing a number of customers to loose money.
Was there a Secoats at Lydd that folded as well?
A few of their customers completed at BAe, PIK at ‘cost price’.

A very small crumb of comfort for future trainees ~ your superior negotiating skills will always secure an improved deal. Never take the first offer. Always be prepared to walk away.

Retired / ex BALPA reps would be well suited to this rôle.

Take a leaf out of my brother’s book. He always buys his fairly new (second hand) car on Christmas Eve afternoon, or New Year’s Eve. As he says NO to their final offer on the deal, having haggled for a good 20 minutes, he walks to the showroom door, only to be called back......need I say more.....

For anyone considering the MPL, or any flight training ask how many of the flight instructors are full time salaried employees and how many are contractors.

This will give a very good indication of the type of organisation.

Patience!
 

After big crisis come big opportunities, just need to WAIT, this is not gonna be the end of the world, it is just the end of chances to find a job within this and next year, take this time to study or work in something else and save money, after one covid treatment or vaccine is found(it's said to be 6-9months) there will be a better perspective on how situation is( airlines, flight schools, economy), 2021 and 2022 will be 2 years for current working pilots recover their jobs, so there will be no MPL programmes in at least 1 year. For those intended to do integrated or modular ATPL, no point to finish before second half of 2022 or even a bit later.

But don't believe those dramatic and apocalytic guys who tell this is the end of the world, it never is, I've seen several reports from touroperators and airlines that the pace of reservations for the next year is good, imagine after treatment for Covid is found...

For those that just finished MPL, it is cheaper for easyJet to hire a second officer than one experienced first officer, so, you will be hired once this is all gone, in the meantime, you will need to work in something else to pay your loans, thst's hard but not a disaster(the other day I saw one 747 captain of BA working with a van for a supermarket, he did it just entertainment and also helping others, but it is an example that it is possible to work in something else).

So, cheer up, be patient and don't give away your money to some hungry flight school, forget studying this year!
Good luck!!

Broadlands

Do you mean that companies with a lot of full time salaried employees are more likely to go bankrupt?

As a guess, perhaps he means that FTOs with mainly contractor TKIs are excessively penny pinching, profit obsessed, greedy companies who prioritise revenue above customer service and training output standards?

Again these posts just show how poor this forum is at objective discussion.

From my viewpoint comparing the number of contract vs salaried staff for a school seems to be a pointless metric to consider. Firstly most of the schools (CAE and FTE being the main two) that do MPL are the same schools that provide the Integrated fATPL courses.
The integrated schools do tend to be the only schools that offer full time salaried instructor positions.

Most schools that provide modular training only (not the subject of the post concerning this), will tend to have flight pay only or small retainer with flight pay contracts for the "line" instructors, this is a generalisation so it wont hold for all cases. If you look at adverts in the last 18 months (pre Covid) then all both L3 and CAE were all offering salaried positions with the usual range of benefits for even the single engine instructors (which traditionally only paid flight pay per hour), so all the large schools have recognised the need to pay proper salaries to attract and retain instructors.
The other point to consider is the advanced stage of the MPL requires the instructors (MPL K2 previoulsy J2) to have 1500 hours of multi crew experience, so the instructors conducing this phase of the training are either retired Airline Pilots or current Airline Pilots working part time; both of those groups will tend therefore to be working on "freelance" contract arrangements.
So by default any school running the MPL scheme will have a number of contractors.

If you are concerned about selecting a school on the basis of which school offers the best terms and conditions for the instructors then you should all opt to train at CAE and L3 and not consider modular.


Another point is all MPL courses have a rigid selection criteria, it is only a small percentage of applicants that get accepted, so if you are offered a place on a MPL course you won't really have a choice at where you do the MPL course. The only choice you have as a MPL is to accept or not accept the place on the course.

Broadlands, will be happy to hear an explanation of your rationale?

Given the tsunami which has hit aviation, the last type of training course to recover will probably be the MPL.

Airlines will only consider it again when fully back on an even keel, and prospective junior birdmen will be somewhat wary given the fact that how these current MPL trainees are likely to be even worse off than those on the (f)ATPL route. The contract doesn’t to date provided any safeguards should training cease. In FLYBE case this would have been difficult as they ceased trading and the contract would become null and void.

MPL: no licence issued until base training successfully completed.
Without a licence, there is additional training due to a shortfall in light aircraft flying/tests for licence issue ~ CPL/IR route.

There is no doubt that the MPL route prepares the junior birdman far better for the RHS: “purpose built”
That is not to say the MCC/APS doesn’t achieve a quality product as well: “generically built”

Final thought: CAVEAT EMPTOR before entering any contractual agreement

Parkfell, agree on all your points there. There is just one correction to your post, the MPL to conventional CPL/IR conversion as detailed in the easy access rules is based on the MPL being fully issued.

At the moment the EASA easy access rules do not clearly detail how an incomplete MPL is converted to a conventional CPL IR. I assume the regulators will permit some degree of cross credit for training completed to date, and realistically the extra training for someone with an issued MPL and one that is unfinished but reached at least the intermediate phase is probably about the same. The difference is with an issued MPL the conversion route is laid down in the regulations but for those that are incomplete I would assume (note I say assume because this is just my judgement based on the content of the course, which may not be correct) additional exemptions and approvals would need to be sought from the NAA to agree the conversions process.

Since writing the post this morning there has been news in the public to domain to say MPL courses are getting cancelled.

Portsharbourflyer, please could you clarify what you mean by this? Cheers.

It is hard to image that any sensible NAA would not agree to a large measure of common sense, take a very understanding pragmatic view, and simply require the shortfall to be completed to a satisfactory standard for these very unfortunate trainees.
The construction of the MPL syllabus, with I hope natural ‘break points’ smooth the whole process.

Let us hope that the “Campaign Against Aviation” is but a distant memory.

If MPL courses are getting cancelled, where does this leave students like my son who has done all his MPL apart from the base training which was stopped by easyjet

In an extremely unfortunate position, as base training requires 12 T/O & landings which is undoubtedly expensive.
The previous posts today discusses other possible options which might emerge.

Larki,

Remember this is an internet forum, so please do note what I write in my post is my interpretation based on what I know about the MPL training system and the easy access rules, further it is my interpretation of them. So your best course of action is to contact the ATO concerned (assume it would be CAE) to clarify what the options are.

Anyway the link to the Easy Access rules, you will see there are sections discussing MPL to CPL/IR, PAge 823 and 824.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/def...or_Aircrew.pdf

Might be unrelated but there is this article https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKBN22D4PU

Warrenflight, I tried to reply to your PM but it wouldn't let me send, it gave a mailbox is full message.

Planesandthings, that is indeed the article I am referring to. While it doesn't mention MPL directly , I would assume that an Easyjet backed course is an MPL course.
There is a possibility that it could have been a tagged integrated that it is referring to, but as far as I know all recent Easyjet "backed" courses are MPL courses.

Has anything else been said about the situation for MPL cadets? I know it is not looking great at the moment (With up to 30% of jobs to be lost in the airline). I think this thread has been dead for a couple of weeks now and I would find it interesting if anyone else could shed some light on the situation from either of the two schools offering the MPL.

• Programme is closed indefinitely to new entrants.
• Those who completed their training at the end of MPL have been put into hold pool with no certainty of job ever coming available, that includes those who started their TR pre-covid.
• UK training is not fully up and running for most L3/CAE cadets in the pipeline so training is paused indefinitely other than theoretical knowledge via webinar (all in addition to the major non covid delays), there has been talk that severance clauses in the training contract might be used to end EasyJet's involvement with those at an early stage of MPL training and revert them on whitetail ATPL courses. Those at a later stage will likely follow point two and end up in a holding pool for an undetermined time unless another Airbus operator can pick them up. Those I've spoken to in the pools are not expecting jobs before 2022 and are seeking employment (mostly outside aviation) elsewhere to bridge the financial shortfalls.
  
  All in all, the worst has not yet come. The training bills will still need paying with no income, I'd go as far to say there hasn't been a worse time in the industries' history to finish training to be a pilot, at least for then short-medium term.

Thanks for the reply. I thought this is the sort of response I might receive. It is a real shame that it has come to this.

Unfortunately once the airline calls STOP, the MPL course prior to licence issue is simply dead in the water.

The options are either to stop training completely, and forgot being a professional pilot;
or ‘convert’/‘transfer’ to the (f)ATPL route.

There are some natural break points but not always. Possible duplication & additional costs unfortunately.

Any change of course will require specific agreement for you, between the school (ATO) and the regulator as to what is exactly required to ‘bridge the gap’ for CPL/IR issue; shortfall in hours & requirements.
The ATO is best place to advise you. Get it in writing.

With regards to an MPL license, can other type ratings be added before the 1500 hour mark? Or is it stuck to the same aircraft until unfrozen. Cheers!

I would have thought that you would firstly need to get accepted on Airlines scheme, and take the intermediate and advanced parts of the training again.
I have no doubt, it is not as easy as it seems. If I was you, HEJT2015, I would contact the authority you obtained your License with.

It appears you have an Airbus rating, judging by your past comments on here, so I would take a guess that you're looking at a 737 rating, I cannot seem to imagine there being many jobs on 737's in the next few years for a low hour pilot.
Best of luck

Once you have been issued with the MPL, you have a licence to operate in the RHS multi crew aircraft.

Unlike a CPL/IR holder, you are restricted to multi crew flying as a professional pilot, unless / until additional light aircraft training takes place. This would also be true when a MPL holder upgrades to ATPL.

Depending upon who conducted the various MPL progress tests in the SE phase, you have might to eligible for a PPL issue. The examiner would need to be approved to conduct PPL tests as well. At FTEJEREZ, the flying syllabus up to what would have been PT 1, when you went through basic training, was common for all professional courses. The MPL SE/ME divergence occurred after this point. Probably an academic point as the intention was to spend the next 40 years airline flying. Although it was not uncommon for customers to have acquired a PPL prior to the MPL course.

If you change operator and MP type, you are in the same position as a CPL/IR. Pass the new type rating course (MPL phase 4 as was) and get it issued on the licence. Line training will then follow.

Just to add, while it is not just having a Progress Test being done by an appropriate examiner but the core phase also needs to cover the all the content as a PPL; as all MPL courses are different then the content of the core phase varies , however the common shortfall is on solo time and the 150 NM cross country qualifier. So in most cases the "gap" in training content needs to be filled before the PPL/SEP skills test can be conducted.