Oxford Air Training
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At what point has anyone suggested that one is better than the other? In any case, as the majority of UK participants in Wannabes are hoping for a 'jet job', as you put it, topics discussing the issue are very much more than 'small talk'. The fact that you are unlikely to enjoy the same opportunities in NZ or Australia is unfortunate, but irrelevant to the discussion.
Scroggs
Scroggs
Guest
Posts: n/a
Scroggs.
The very fact I said OAT is full of CTC rejects pretty much stated that I thought CTC was better than OAT. SO it was me who suggested one was better than the other!
What Cparker was saying is that OAT and CTC have similar results - a jet job. I think though that OAT is full of people that wanted CTC but did not get it. Cant you understand this or does it need more explanation Scroggs?
Andy
The very fact I said OAT is full of CTC rejects pretty much stated that I thought CTC was better than OAT. SO it was me who suggested one was better than the other!
What Cparker was saying is that OAT and CTC have similar results - a jet job. I think though that OAT is full of people that wanted CTC but did not get it. Cant you understand this or does it need more explanation Scroggs?
Andy
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Surrey
Age: 43
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMiller, can you say why CTC is so much better then OAT? Personally I don't think theres much in it and it certainly doesn't make much difference to the rest of your career. The only thing thats so different about CTC is their tougher entry requirements. altho its clear that you have a very unbiased view 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would say that this is really an open ended questios with know answer. You are better looking at the thread "oxford or OAT?" for the pros and cons.
Both schools offer high quality training, some people may have had problems with the schools but you cant please everyone. IN terms of training it is difficult to compare without going to both schools. The key difference is in how much risk OAT and CTC are willing to take. Someone said rightly CTC customers are the airlines and not the cadet. If CTC takes anyone on the course who fails they will have lost a heck of a lot of time and money. Also if CTC does not deliever good cadets to the partner airlines the airline will pull out and they would lose EVEN MORE MONEY! OAT does not have this risk although they do have a reputation to maintain (espically if theur guys/girls do go to airlines) hence the selection process on the APP scheme.
The only difference to the cadets is job prospects and finance. The job propests are very high with CTC. Oxford also have a good repuatioon for graduates but cannot claim 100% of cadets have been placed. I think because of this more people will be tempted to get a place on the CTC wings scheme before considering other options. Those who dont make it will have to go somewhere and I dont see why OAT is not a bad choice. I think rejects is a much to strong a word when only 2% of applicants get on the CTC scheme does that mean the other 98% are idots - i dont think so. Im sure most of the ones who are didicated enough will make it whichever way they go!
Chris
Both schools offer high quality training, some people may have had problems with the schools but you cant please everyone. IN terms of training it is difficult to compare without going to both schools. The key difference is in how much risk OAT and CTC are willing to take. Someone said rightly CTC customers are the airlines and not the cadet. If CTC takes anyone on the course who fails they will have lost a heck of a lot of time and money. Also if CTC does not deliever good cadets to the partner airlines the airline will pull out and they would lose EVEN MORE MONEY! OAT does not have this risk although they do have a reputation to maintain (espically if theur guys/girls do go to airlines) hence the selection process on the APP scheme.
The only difference to the cadets is job prospects and finance. The job propests are very high with CTC. Oxford also have a good repuatioon for graduates but cannot claim 100% of cadets have been placed. I think because of this more people will be tempted to get a place on the CTC wings scheme before considering other options. Those who dont make it will have to go somewhere and I dont see why OAT is not a bad choice. I think rejects is a much to strong a word when only 2% of applicants get on the CTC scheme does that mean the other 98% are idots - i dont think so. Im sure most of the ones who are didicated enough will make it whichever way they go!
Chris
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chris2005, music to my ears! the other 98% are certainly not idoits. The key issue or difference I can work out over and above what you have stated re risk between the two is that CTC deliver a type rated cadet. This is something that the OAT student might have to pay for.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oxford is full of CTC rejects....ummmmm NO!!
I and many other people on my course didnt even look at CTC
In fact I dont know anyone in OAT who even went for selection at CTC....
Its modular anyway and most people I know went integrated at OAT (APP).
OAT is undoubtedly a quality school, always has been. The vast majority of people i know at Oxford said it was an easy decision, OXFORD.
Very few people ever even mentioned CTC at OAT
I and many other people on my course didnt even look at CTC
In fact I dont know anyone in OAT who even went for selection at CTC....
Its modular anyway and most people I know went integrated at OAT (APP).
OAT is undoubtedly a quality school, always has been. The vast majority of people i know at Oxford said it was an easy decision, OXFORD.
Very few people ever even mentioned CTC at OAT
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The very fact I said OAT is full of CTC rejects pretty much stated that I thought CTC was better than OAT. SO it was me who suggested one was better than the other! What Cparker was saying is that OAT and CTC have similar results - a jet job. I think though that OAT is full of people that wanted CTC but did not get it. Cant you understand this or does it need more explanation Scroggs? Andy
I'm sorry, but this kind of inter-school points-scoring is a waste of my and the Wannabes readership's time.
Scroggs
Join Date: May 2005
Location: England
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seriously what is the point of this entire thread? It's really very simple to answer OAT or CTC...
Any wannabe without access to personal funds of £60,000+ would be pretty moronic to not first attempt gaining sponsorship (CTC). OAT IS NOT SPONSORSHIP.
Therefore, to me anyway, this entire thread has been 'self-sponsored versus sponsored'. Whatever route taken the wannabe always, and has always, eventually paid for/paid back their training, but the difference in job opportunities between sponsored and self-sponsored is only a dictionary read away.
To suggest OAT cadets are CTC rejects is the kind of elitest banter I'd expect to find between a couple of arrogant ivy league yanks arguing between Harvard and Yale because I don't think it should be forgotten just how prestigious both routes are. As for the quality of schooling who cares--any evidence other than employment statistics is anecdotal and should be saved for people who have an alternative deciding priority to employment prospects.
My proof of the hierarchy lies with HSBC's professional studies loan. For a long time this has been how quite a few wannabes have, at least partially, funded their training. However this has recently been taken away but for only two routes--OAT and CTC.
I detest banks but do have faith in their research when it comes to ensuring their profit. HSBC lend up to £50,000 on secured terms for those wishing to go to OAT and demand a viable business plan. However, with CTC they lend £60,000 unsecured and require no business plan. I think they'll have done more research than anyone on this thread when it comes to ensuring there'll be a job at the end to ensure monthly repayments. This is certainly not to say OAT doesn't ensure good job prospects--rememer this is the ONLY self-sponsored route the bank will lend for.
The only reasons I could ever see not to apply to CTC before OAT first is location of training or a desire to go into the air taxi side of aviation, piloting on smaller planes.
Frankly I wish the originator of this thread had read more on both routes before posting his question. He's either adorably naive, a lazy researcher, or a complete ****stirrer.
Any wannabe without access to personal funds of £60,000+ would be pretty moronic to not first attempt gaining sponsorship (CTC). OAT IS NOT SPONSORSHIP.
Therefore, to me anyway, this entire thread has been 'self-sponsored versus sponsored'. Whatever route taken the wannabe always, and has always, eventually paid for/paid back their training, but the difference in job opportunities between sponsored and self-sponsored is only a dictionary read away.
To suggest OAT cadets are CTC rejects is the kind of elitest banter I'd expect to find between a couple of arrogant ivy league yanks arguing between Harvard and Yale because I don't think it should be forgotten just how prestigious both routes are. As for the quality of schooling who cares--any evidence other than employment statistics is anecdotal and should be saved for people who have an alternative deciding priority to employment prospects.
My proof of the hierarchy lies with HSBC's professional studies loan. For a long time this has been how quite a few wannabes have, at least partially, funded their training. However this has recently been taken away but for only two routes--OAT and CTC.
I detest banks but do have faith in their research when it comes to ensuring their profit. HSBC lend up to £50,000 on secured terms for those wishing to go to OAT and demand a viable business plan. However, with CTC they lend £60,000 unsecured and require no business plan. I think they'll have done more research than anyone on this thread when it comes to ensuring there'll be a job at the end to ensure monthly repayments. This is certainly not to say OAT doesn't ensure good job prospects--rememer this is the ONLY self-sponsored route the bank will lend for.
The only reasons I could ever see not to apply to CTC before OAT first is location of training or a desire to go into the air taxi side of aviation, piloting on smaller planes.
Frankly I wish the originator of this thread had read more on both routes before posting his question. He's either adorably naive, a lazy researcher, or a complete ****stirrer.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would counter your suggestion that CTC's cadets are sponsored; they are not. The responsibility for the costs of training at CTC rests with the student, not with an airline. Successful students who achieve a position with some of the airlines CTC supply may find that some of their costs are covered (or at least deferred) by their employer, but that is not guaranteed - nor is any job at the end of training. Should a cadet fail the course, again, the financial responsibility rests with him, not with his target airline. That, to me, is not sponsorship.
Sponsorship is what the military does, and BA used to: accepting all of the costs and all of the risks of training, including failure, while paying the student (an employee throughout) a useful salary. Successful students are, at the end of training, then contracted to a minimum period of service, say 10 years.
As for having faith in the banks, I think you are dreaming in your suggestion that HSBC has researched the market more than wannabes! Banks just aren't like that, I'm afraid. CTC and OAT have access to HSBC funds because they have made their own business cases to the bank. OAT's students have a lower expectation of employment on graduation because that is the nature of the course, so it is not surprising that HSBC demands greater security than for CTC's cadets, of whom the majority have an airline place allocated (though not guaranteed) at the start of their training.
HSBC have withdrawn the individual prefessional studies loan for pilots precisely because they didn't research the market they were in, and lost a good deal of money as a result. The current situation saves them the bother of researching it; OAT and CTC do it for them. Incidentally, I wonder if CTC and OAT are risk- (and thus profit-) sharing partners with HSBC in this?
Anyway, the point of this thread is that wannabes have a choice, and are entitled to inform that choice. This thread - indeed, this entire forum - is intended to provide information to help with this and other choices that face wannabes.
Scroggs
Sponsorship is what the military does, and BA used to: accepting all of the costs and all of the risks of training, including failure, while paying the student (an employee throughout) a useful salary. Successful students are, at the end of training, then contracted to a minimum period of service, say 10 years.
As for having faith in the banks, I think you are dreaming in your suggestion that HSBC has researched the market more than wannabes! Banks just aren't like that, I'm afraid. CTC and OAT have access to HSBC funds because they have made their own business cases to the bank. OAT's students have a lower expectation of employment on graduation because that is the nature of the course, so it is not surprising that HSBC demands greater security than for CTC's cadets, of whom the majority have an airline place allocated (though not guaranteed) at the start of their training.
HSBC have withdrawn the individual prefessional studies loan for pilots precisely because they didn't research the market they were in, and lost a good deal of money as a result. The current situation saves them the bother of researching it; OAT and CTC do it for them. Incidentally, I wonder if CTC and OAT are risk- (and thus profit-) sharing partners with HSBC in this?
Anyway, the point of this thread is that wannabes have a choice, and are entitled to inform that choice. This thread - indeed, this entire forum - is intended to provide information to help with this and other choices that face wannabes.
Scroggs
Join Date: May 2005
Location: England
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Scroggs
I understand the idea of sponsorship in the old sense of what BA offered no longer exists but even when it did there was no guarantee of a job and failing the course was still possible, albeit with no financial risks (no semantics I promise!).
As you rightly pointed out the idea of sponsorship has become diluted since those days, and the training/employment risks are now also on the wannabe. I completely agree there are financial ramifications involved with CTC. But, they are not as bleak as you make out, and certainly not on a par with OAT as your post suggested. With CTC you are not liable for the first 30k spent on training should you fail, and Im sure you would have a good idea of how you were getting on by the time that much has been spent. I agree its no BA, but to say it is not at all sponsorship is surely slightly fallacious.
Believe me, when I say sponsorship I fully understand it in its modern form. Nonetheless I stand by the the fact that CTC should be the first port of call due to its financial connections with the airlines.
As for HSBC I still believe it to be at least an indication of the difference in job prospects between OAT and CTC. However I fully apologise for my assumptions in research undertaken by banks. I just really fail to see why anyone would not attempt CTC first as it offers vastly greater job prospects (statistically). This thread is called 'Oxford or CTC' afterall.
I completely agree with what you said at the end of your post, and I did not mean to sound brash; I just see OAT and CTC not as two different training schools (like the orginal poster suggests) but as two very different methods into the aviation industry.
I understand the idea of sponsorship in the old sense of what BA offered no longer exists but even when it did there was no guarantee of a job and failing the course was still possible, albeit with no financial risks (no semantics I promise!).
As you rightly pointed out the idea of sponsorship has become diluted since those days, and the training/employment risks are now also on the wannabe. I completely agree there are financial ramifications involved with CTC. But, they are not as bleak as you make out, and certainly not on a par with OAT as your post suggested. With CTC you are not liable for the first 30k spent on training should you fail, and Im sure you would have a good idea of how you were getting on by the time that much has been spent. I agree its no BA, but to say it is not at all sponsorship is surely slightly fallacious.
Believe me, when I say sponsorship I fully understand it in its modern form. Nonetheless I stand by the the fact that CTC should be the first port of call due to its financial connections with the airlines.
As for HSBC I still believe it to be at least an indication of the difference in job prospects between OAT and CTC. However I fully apologise for my assumptions in research undertaken by banks. I just really fail to see why anyone would not attempt CTC first as it offers vastly greater job prospects (statistically). This thread is called 'Oxford or CTC' afterall.
I completely agree with what you said at the end of your post, and I did not mean to sound brash; I just see OAT and CTC not as two different training schools (like the orginal poster suggests) but as two very different methods into the aviation industry.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that the fact you fully understand the financial ramifications of the CTC deal, yet refer to it as sponsorship, is interesting. As long as CTC's potential applicants understand it, I guess it really doesn't matter what you call it! However, I have a worry that people expect 'sponsorship' to have the meaning I outlined, and are going to be somewhat disappointed by the reality. But as long as it's fully explained before anyone signs on any dotted line, hopefully my worries are unfounded.
I agree that CTC and OAT are very different animals. I'm less convinced that one is better than the other; it seems to me more a case that one will be more appropriate than the other for each individual - and that other solutions may be more appropriate still. For example, there are many, many wannabes who could never qualify for CTC's scheme simply through age. It is no good telling these guys how wonderful the CTC scheme is when they can't do it!
There's a place for all of the various routes into professional aviation, and none can claim to be better than the others for all wannabes.
Scroggs
I agree that CTC and OAT are very different animals. I'm less convinced that one is better than the other; it seems to me more a case that one will be more appropriate than the other for each individual - and that other solutions may be more appropriate still. For example, there are many, many wannabes who could never qualify for CTC's scheme simply through age. It is no good telling these guys how wonderful the CTC scheme is when they can't do it!
There's a place for all of the various routes into professional aviation, and none can claim to be better than the others for all wannabes.
Scroggs
Join Date: May 2005
Location: England
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You make some good points and I thoroughly agree that there is a danger in some people's idea of modern sponsorship. I still respectfully disagree that CTC does not at least partially qualify as sponsorship. Anyway if you truely feel CTC is not sponsorship in any form perhaps a revision of the forum title 'Interviews, jobs & sponsorships' is necessary.
I'm not being obtuse; and I don't know if this title was conceived at a time when schemes run by BA were in operation, but unless you can think of any schemes that fit the bill in commercial aviation today more so that CTC, Flybe, BAX etc, I would suggest at least a permanent thread explaining exactly what sponsorship in the commercial sector means these days, because as you rightly point out, to a first time pprune reader this is rather misleading--conjuring up the image of BA/RAF style sponsorship.
I'm not being obtuse; and I don't know if this title was conceived at a time when schemes run by BA were in operation, but unless you can think of any schemes that fit the bill in commercial aviation today more so that CTC, Flybe, BAX etc, I would suggest at least a permanent thread explaining exactly what sponsorship in the commercial sector means these days, because as you rightly point out, to a first time pprune reader this is rather misleading--conjuring up the image of BA/RAF style sponsorship.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I suppose we live in hope that proper sponsorships will return at some stage. Actually, strictly speaking this thread should be on the other forum, as it's really about training choices, not sponsorship. I may well move it!
Scroggs
Scroggs
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Bristol
Age: 43
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "is CTC sponsorship" question raises a lot of interest - it should also raise some speculation - of course it is not truly sponsorship, moreover I think the differences perceived between CTC and OAT are not as vast as many people would think.... CTC cadets are constantly told that they are NOT customers, however I'm sure many of them certainly feel like customers with all the invoices that appear in the cadet post boxes!!!!!
"We provide accomodation"
- Yes, but if you want to move into a clean room then you have to pay for it to be cleaned.
"We provide all equipment"
- Yes, but if you want laminated maps so they actually last then you have to pay for that"
"We provided training geared towards preparing you to be a professional airline pilot"
- Yes, but if your family/partner/friends pay £800+ to come and visit, then you now have to pay for a private hire flight to show them what you've been training towards. If you can't take passengers from A-B in your training, what exactly are you training for?!
"The 60k is not paying for your training, it is just a security bond - the airline pay for your training"
- Interesting - funny how the CTC cadet salary for easyJet almost exactly equals a direct entry salary minus the bond repayments they make, once to take into account tax. And I'm sure the CTC cadets who are on their way to BA (hopefully) will feel like they've paid for their training when they are getting the same salary as an OAT cadet and NO bond repayments.
And so on...
As far as I can tell, the 2 most important distinctions are:
CTC get paid when they place a cadet, so they have a huge incentive to place you, as mentioned before.
The tough selection means they can cover you for the first half of the training costs if you don't meet the standard.
"We provide accomodation"
- Yes, but if you want to move into a clean room then you have to pay for it to be cleaned.
"We provide all equipment"
- Yes, but if you want laminated maps so they actually last then you have to pay for that"
"We provided training geared towards preparing you to be a professional airline pilot"
- Yes, but if your family/partner/friends pay £800+ to come and visit, then you now have to pay for a private hire flight to show them what you've been training towards. If you can't take passengers from A-B in your training, what exactly are you training for?!
"The 60k is not paying for your training, it is just a security bond - the airline pay for your training"
- Interesting - funny how the CTC cadet salary for easyJet almost exactly equals a direct entry salary minus the bond repayments they make, once to take into account tax. And I'm sure the CTC cadets who are on their way to BA (hopefully) will feel like they've paid for their training when they are getting the same salary as an OAT cadet and NO bond repayments.
And so on...
As far as I can tell, the 2 most important distinctions are:
CTC get paid when they place a cadet, so they have a huge incentive to place you, as mentioned before.
The tough selection means they can cover you for the first half of the training costs if you don't meet the standard.