Integrated vs Modular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'They simply believed that doing an integrated course gave them their best chance of a job immediately after they'd qualified (which has indeed proved to be case!)'
Surely thats a bit of a sweeping statement.
For all the extra cost involved it had better give them something.
I would suggest the only fair comparison is between two routes that have cost somewhere near the same amount of money. I'd be seriously interested to know what makes you more employable between Integrated and modular with SSTR.
(This then takes us to another well argued subject
)
Surely thats a bit of a sweeping statement.
For all the extra cost involved it had better give them something.
I would suggest the only fair comparison is between two routes that have cost somewhere near the same amount of money. I'd be seriously interested to know what makes you more employable between Integrated and modular with SSTR.
(This then takes us to another well argued subject
)
But when there is a job famine the Modular guy and the Integrated guy are in the same boat but one of them owe's £40k to the bank and the other one £70k. They're both flippin burgers.
My advice would be to train cheaply then pay for a SSTR. It seems to have been the most dead cert way of getting quickly into the airlines. Sad but true.
A Modular course followed by a £20k SSTR has worked in 9 out of 10 cases in my exerience of the last couple of years.
WWW
My advice would be to train cheaply then pay for a SSTR. It seems to have been the most dead cert way of getting quickly into the airlines. Sad but true.
A Modular course followed by a £20k SSTR has worked in 9 out of 10 cases in my exerience of the last couple of years.
WWW
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'They simply believed that doing an integrated course gave them their best chance of a job immediately after they'd qualified (which has indeed proved to be case!)'
Surely thats a bit of a sweeping statement.
Surely thats a bit of a sweeping statement.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Guildford
Age: 49
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't really want to comment on the actual integrated Vs Mod discussion, it's too deeply polarised. The only thing I would say on this (actually by way of example of the polarisation than anything else) is that Ryanair, long the bastion of the Modular route declared recently that Oxford grads were "training at the best school in the world". Assuming the recruitment gentlemen who said this wasn't just playing some spin - which we have no reason to believe - then who will they go for in a dry climate? The surfeit of Oxford students who can't get jobs elsewhere, or continue hiring modular? I have plenty of experience recruiting people (tho' not in aviation) and the truth is you alwayshire the person you believe will be best for the job, whether they are or not.
I would look at this and say that in a bad climate, integrated offers you some slight advantage for the few jobs that are on offer, WWW [who, btw I would suggest people listen to more than me - he's doing the job I'm training for...] would say train more cheaply, your chances are even....and therein lies the polarisation...no-one who believes one route will ever change their perception of the other route.
Anyway, I digress, what I really wanted to bring up is the subject of finances. I fail to understand why people are so incapable of saving for their training. A couple of people on this thread have implied or directly stated that integrated students are from Rich backgrounds, or mummy and daddy have paid. This is pure ignorance of the truth...many are from very poor backgrounds and this is WHY they've taken such huge risks. To say "I'm happy just flying a putt putt aeroplane around" is [generally] naievity (how the hell do you spell that!) personified. It's great on a "perfect world" level, but it isn't a perfect world and money is a big factor. THAT is why a LOT of people want to go straight to the jets, because that's where the big pay is. It may not be the "pure" route, but it is, unfortunately necessary as people need to live and most don't want to live in a shoebox whilst they're getting their hours of FI work in.
I would look at this and say that in a bad climate, integrated offers you some slight advantage for the few jobs that are on offer, WWW [who, btw I would suggest people listen to more than me - he's doing the job I'm training for...] would say train more cheaply, your chances are even....and therein lies the polarisation...no-one who believes one route will ever change their perception of the other route.
Anyway, I digress, what I really wanted to bring up is the subject of finances. I fail to understand why people are so incapable of saving for their training. A couple of people on this thread have implied or directly stated that integrated students are from Rich backgrounds, or mummy and daddy have paid. This is pure ignorance of the truth...many are from very poor backgrounds and this is WHY they've taken such huge risks. To say "I'm happy just flying a putt putt aeroplane around" is [generally] naievity (how the hell do you spell that!) personified. It's great on a "perfect world" level, but it isn't a perfect world and money is a big factor. THAT is why a LOT of people want to go straight to the jets, because that's where the big pay is. It may not be the "pure" route, but it is, unfortunately necessary as people need to live and most don't want to live in a shoebox whilst they're getting their hours of FI work in.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: N/E England
Age: 47
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WWW - Fully concur, I have regurgitated the same rhetoric over the last month or so, on most occasions I have quickly been criticised and categorised as the reason why airlines put undue expectations on individual to pay for their own TR, ‘People like me, create problems for newbie’s’ – Unfortunately, that’s life, and life is not always fair. One does as one sees fit in order to attain their final objective, and if that requires fulfilling the criteria of self financing the SSTR, then surely that’s what one must do.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
then who will they go for in a dry climate? The surfeit of Oxford students who can't get jobs elsewhere, or continue hiring modular?
I'd rather not pay for a TR (but then who would??) but the sad reality is that if i felt it was the only way in then i'd do it, as i'm sure would many others given the means.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The following - http://www.oxfordaviation.net/employment_stats.htm would suggest that the vast majority of integrated peope this year are off to Ryanair. Thats 70 - 80k for fatpl and 25k for sstr, followed by nil pay for 3 months, half pay for 6 months and finally full pay for FO after 9 months. It would be interesting to know how many modular guys as opposed to integrated Ryanair have taken this year. You might find that the majority are modular, at a third of the price of their integrated colleague.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MIKECR,
Apparently it's not as Ryanair heavy as that due to a change in accounting [sic] procedures: http://ask.oxfordaviation.net/viewtopic.php?t=4353
Apparently it's not as Ryanair heavy as that due to a change in accounting [sic] procedures: http://ask.oxfordaviation.net/viewtopic.php?t=4353
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Guildford
Age: 49
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, early mornings don't agree...my previous post on re-reading not making for the clearest reading of anything I've ever written.
It is definitely fair to say that if Ryanair continue to recruit as many mod students as they ever did but add some int students, then those who have completed the int route will likely have paid more for the same job.
However, if there are fewer jobs around, it becomes an employers market. If the employer perceives that an int grad offers a lower risk and "better [more structured] product, (I believe the Ryanair chaps said that the average OAA grad completes line training something like 7 sectors sooner than mod) then the jobs they do have will go where they perceive the lower risk to be.
What I am therefore saying is that the logic only holds true that mod students are better off when the playing field remains level. If that playing field becomes massively in favour of the recruiters, as it will in a down turn, then the advantage is swiftly eroded if - IF - those recruiting perceive that the integrated grads offer a better solution.
It's a tough call when it's a tough market....less debt vs slightly better odds....
For what it's worth tho, I'd appreciate it if we can stop calling the OAA/FTE/Cabair integrated course fees £70-£80k....they're not. It's only that much if you include living costs....so unless you're planning on being dead for the duration of your mod course, those additional costs equally well apply there also...it's too often used as a lever that isn't applicable in actuality.
It is definitely fair to say that if Ryanair continue to recruit as many mod students as they ever did but add some int students, then those who have completed the int route will likely have paid more for the same job.
However, if there are fewer jobs around, it becomes an employers market. If the employer perceives that an int grad offers a lower risk and "better [more structured] product, (I believe the Ryanair chaps said that the average OAA grad completes line training something like 7 sectors sooner than mod) then the jobs they do have will go where they perceive the lower risk to be.
What I am therefore saying is that the logic only holds true that mod students are better off when the playing field remains level. If that playing field becomes massively in favour of the recruiters, as it will in a down turn, then the advantage is swiftly eroded if - IF - those recruiting perceive that the integrated grads offer a better solution.
It's a tough call when it's a tough market....less debt vs slightly better odds....
For what it's worth tho, I'd appreciate it if we can stop calling the OAA/FTE/Cabair integrated course fees £70-£80k....they're not. It's only that much if you include living costs....so unless you're planning on being dead for the duration of your mod course, those additional costs equally well apply there also...it's too often used as a lever that isn't applicable in actuality.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The current OAT basic integrated cost is 63k. The additional test/licence fee's are 4.5k. Thats pushing the best part of 70k, and thats assuming minimum hours and first time passes. The average student will require more than that, certainly pushing over 70k. Then the Ryanair sstr at 25k pushes you to nearly 100k!
I did the whole lot modular for lass than 30k. I was still offered the same interview with ryanair as the integrated boys and girls. You do the maths!
And most modular people are holding down full time jobs at the same time so the 'living costs' dont really count.
I did the whole lot modular for lass than 30k. I was still offered the same interview with ryanair as the integrated boys and girls. You do the maths!
And most modular people are holding down full time jobs at the same time so the 'living costs' dont really count.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So people are paying £100,000 ($197,961 US) of their own money to work for Ryanair!
MIKECR
How does it feel to know people have paid £70k more than you for the same licence and still regard themselves as 'The better solution'
'I believe the Ryanair chaps said that the average OAA grad completes line training something like 7 sectors sooner than mod'
How many hours + TR could £70k buy? (Thats $138,573 for any Americans who think they are hallucinating)
MIKECR
How does it feel to know people have paid £70k more than you for the same licence and still regard themselves as 'The better solution'
'I believe the Ryanair chaps said that the average OAA grad completes line training something like 7 sectors sooner than mod'
How many hours + TR could £70k buy? (Thats $138,573 for any Americans who think they are hallucinating)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Guildford
Age: 49
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gah. Well, I have to congratulate you for managing to complete the whole lot in under £30k, that's genuinely commendable. However, if you or anyone else can be bothered to trawl through the previous 90340987409809809834 pages of Int Vs Mod then it would seem that a more realistic cost for mod is in excess of £40k. Indeed I found several posts the other day from WWW [here: http://www.pprune.org/forums/archive...hp/t-7271.html] stating that back in 2002 he figured it would cost at least £37000. Further, if you believe the figures included in that post, we can see that Cabairs integrated offering has gone up by 27% - if we assume the same factor rise in cost of modular, then it's likely to cost (based on WWW figures) more like £47k these days.
If we stop the obsession with comparing the most expensive (or one of - depending on how the exchange rate makes FTEs offering look) integrated with the cheapest mod, then you can do integrated at Cabair for a touch under £60k. So, comparing that with the seemingly more normal £40-£45k mod costs, £15k or more saving is definitely not to be sniffed at, but it is a different picture than the commonly posted view that it's hugely (C.£40k) cheaper.
Indeed, when you say (and not trying to start an argument) that you completed the mod route for >£30k...almost everyone I've ever seen that claims this conveniently forgets to include the cost of their PPL or hour building in that. So one does have to ask, does that actually include the full cost of 0-fATPL?
Propheads comments about having paid more than £70k more for the privilege of working for Ryanair, again shows why this is so polarised....the answer is that the int chap or chapess HASN'T paid £70k more....again the fact that the mod guy has to pay the SSTR also has been missed off. Add that to the nominal but likely £47k and suddenly you've got our Cabair integrated guy who's paid £85k to work there, versus your mod student who's paid £72k to work there....suddenly it's not so very different...
One final thing to add into the mix....MikeCRs post indicates that he is qualified and working....which in turn implies that he DIDN'T try and get a job in the employers market to which my earlier post relates.
Overall, I'm not trying to defend integrated, or slate modular. It's just the whole thing is SO deeply polarised that it's impossible to get unbiased views. Modular is a great route that offers many benefits, but then...so is integrated.
If we stop the obsession with comparing the most expensive (or one of - depending on how the exchange rate makes FTEs offering look) integrated with the cheapest mod, then you can do integrated at Cabair for a touch under £60k. So, comparing that with the seemingly more normal £40-£45k mod costs, £15k or more saving is definitely not to be sniffed at, but it is a different picture than the commonly posted view that it's hugely (C.£40k) cheaper.
Indeed, when you say (and not trying to start an argument) that you completed the mod route for >£30k...almost everyone I've ever seen that claims this conveniently forgets to include the cost of their PPL or hour building in that. So one does have to ask, does that actually include the full cost of 0-fATPL?
Propheads comments about having paid more than £70k more for the privilege of working for Ryanair, again shows why this is so polarised....the answer is that the int chap or chapess HASN'T paid £70k more....again the fact that the mod guy has to pay the SSTR also has been missed off. Add that to the nominal but likely £47k and suddenly you've got our Cabair integrated guy who's paid £85k to work there, versus your mod student who's paid £72k to work there....suddenly it's not so very different...
One final thing to add into the mix....MikeCRs post indicates that he is qualified and working....which in turn implies that he DIDN'T try and get a job in the employers market to which my earlier post relates.
Overall, I'm not trying to defend integrated, or slate modular. It's just the whole thing is SO deeply polarised that it's impossible to get unbiased views. Modular is a great route that offers many benefits, but then...so is integrated.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Dry bar
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phew...! Im glad that's over with. Whatever it was you are saying clanger. Reality now, you will never be able to change the fact, that no matter how much you try and explain. The Ryans wont give a toss whether you have integrated or modular written all over you. I seem to remember stating this to you a few months back. Plenty a good pilot ended up there and they did not need the help nor the extra sectors (bollox in my opinion) that you may need by going integrated.
Save your cash, go on holiday, buy a new car.
Save your cash, go on holiday, buy a new car.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: CLM
Age: 47
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not the usual question - but the usual replies.
As usual the same old arguments come up time and time again anytime anyone mentions 'integrated' and modular' in the same sentence.
And why not? it's just about the biggest decision to be made by anyone considering taking the plunge into the murky world of flight training. I think it's good to have a fresh discussion about the relative merits of each in the current climate instead of sending newbies to the 'search' function to look at threads from years ago.
However, one thing really does pi$$ me off.
Where do people get off thinking the can make comments like 'mommy and daddy paid for their integrated training so they're not really dedicated and only want to fly big shiney jets'.
The arrogance it must take to come out witha statement like that is bloody astounding!! Who the hell do these people think they are.
The most hard working, dedicated person, who has dreamed of flying all their lives may well have millionaire parents. Are they somehow less dedicated, less mature, less willing to fly a light twin to keep their hand in if recruitment drys up??
I went integrated - paid for with a loan in my name but secured by my parents. I spent about three years looking at the merits of both integrated and modular, trawling through this forum and other sources of information. I didn't sleep a wink the night before loading up the car and heading off to oxford to hand them £60k. When i got there i worked my balls off for 15 months. And in the end through hard work, stress like i've never known, dedication and a sh1t load of luck - i got a job flying a not so shiney jet.
Had I not had parents wealthy enough/willing to secure my loan would I have gone integrated? I'm not sure. Perhaps I would have worked for longer to build my savings or maybe i would have gone modular and worked during my training. I was in the privledged position that they were options I didn't have to take. Either way, I'm not going to have some arrogant ittle pi$$ ant tell me I (or any of my many friends from oxford) aren't as dedicated or hardworking as modular students.
For 99% of the punters in oxford flight training is a MAJOR risk. no one takes it lightly. we were all willing to flight instruct in Timbuktu if that's what it took to stay current.
Quote Prophead:
'If i am ever involved in pilot recruitment ill be looking for the modular student who has worked his a*@e off in some other job to pay his way through training.
Some people really want to fly for a living and will be more than happy flying a battered old twin around, others just want to pose in a pilots uniform and nothing but a jet is good enough.
It takes hard work, determination, good time/financial management skills and a very strong desire to fly to go the modular route.
The integrated route takes rich/mortgaged up parents or a an individual gullable enough to massively over pay for their training and borrow huge amounts of money to do it, thus paying a load of interest as well.'
This is exactly the kind of crap i'm talking about. What is your issue Prophead? where does your incessant need to insult 'gullable' integrated students come from??
I was about to type out a list of arguments pro-integrated - but that's really not rellevant. the point is don't make stupid inslulting comments about integrated students just because one way or another they can raise the funds to take that route. You don't have a clue how much risk/dedication is involved for any given individual.
Quote Alex Whittingham:
'There is a flip side to the coin, modular students are likely to be older, more mature, probably more motivated and are likely to stay with the employer for longer.'
Alex, by and large i respect your reasoned arguments but this is complete crap. It's possible (maybe probable) that statistics would prove that the average mod student is older (i don't know). As for maturity and motivation - what evidence do you have that modular students are more motivated than integrated? People talk about how they 'held down 2 jobs and supported a family' while doing their modular training. All credit to these people - a bloody hard slog i'm sure - but don't dare assume that 'joe integrated student' wouldn't have done the same if different circumstances had forced them to take that route.
In terms of maturity, there were a bunch of 18 year olds on my course. Having gone through uni the stark difference between these guys and your average uni student is unbeleivable. They took there enormous debt very seriously worked just as hard as the thirty-somethings on the course.
Regarding staying with your employer for longer - you really would have to be quite old starting your first flying job to not consider leaving for ba/virgin/easy at the first available opportunity (presuming that is what you wanted).
In summary, debate about integrated v modular is important and should be encouraged, but all to often that debate descends into a people slating integrated students as a bunch of spoilt little brats. Trust me, nothing could be further from the truth.
Some people consider training and decide on integrated. they believe that although more expensive, the opportunities are likely to be better at the end and time to the rhs of a jet (what many people are looking for) will be less.
Some airlines -e.g. BA, only take integrates low hour pilots, FACT. If you think thats unfair and that many modular students are more than capable of passing a BA selection and fulfilling that role thats fair enough. I'd probably agree with you. However, there's nothin you or i can do about it. The FACT remains that if you want a shot a BA mainline straight out of flight school you have to do integrated. If, for what ever reason, integrated isn't an option for you and this type of thinking from airlines pisses you off, again fair enough.
But don't come on to pprune and bitch about integrated students who may be trying to take advantage of the situation laid out in fron of them.
To quote Will Smith; 'Don't hate the player, hate the game'
And why not? it's just about the biggest decision to be made by anyone considering taking the plunge into the murky world of flight training. I think it's good to have a fresh discussion about the relative merits of each in the current climate instead of sending newbies to the 'search' function to look at threads from years ago.
However, one thing really does pi$$ me off.
Where do people get off thinking the can make comments like 'mommy and daddy paid for their integrated training so they're not really dedicated and only want to fly big shiney jets'.
The arrogance it must take to come out witha statement like that is bloody astounding!! Who the hell do these people think they are.
The most hard working, dedicated person, who has dreamed of flying all their lives may well have millionaire parents. Are they somehow less dedicated, less mature, less willing to fly a light twin to keep their hand in if recruitment drys up??
I went integrated - paid for with a loan in my name but secured by my parents. I spent about three years looking at the merits of both integrated and modular, trawling through this forum and other sources of information. I didn't sleep a wink the night before loading up the car and heading off to oxford to hand them £60k. When i got there i worked my balls off for 15 months. And in the end through hard work, stress like i've never known, dedication and a sh1t load of luck - i got a job flying a not so shiney jet.
Had I not had parents wealthy enough/willing to secure my loan would I have gone integrated? I'm not sure. Perhaps I would have worked for longer to build my savings or maybe i would have gone modular and worked during my training. I was in the privledged position that they were options I didn't have to take. Either way, I'm not going to have some arrogant ittle pi$$ ant tell me I (or any of my many friends from oxford) aren't as dedicated or hardworking as modular students.
For 99% of the punters in oxford flight training is a MAJOR risk. no one takes it lightly. we were all willing to flight instruct in Timbuktu if that's what it took to stay current.
Quote Prophead:
'If i am ever involved in pilot recruitment ill be looking for the modular student who has worked his a*@e off in some other job to pay his way through training.
Some people really want to fly for a living and will be more than happy flying a battered old twin around, others just want to pose in a pilots uniform and nothing but a jet is good enough.
It takes hard work, determination, good time/financial management skills and a very strong desire to fly to go the modular route.
The integrated route takes rich/mortgaged up parents or a an individual gullable enough to massively over pay for their training and borrow huge amounts of money to do it, thus paying a load of interest as well.'
This is exactly the kind of crap i'm talking about. What is your issue Prophead? where does your incessant need to insult 'gullable' integrated students come from??
I was about to type out a list of arguments pro-integrated - but that's really not rellevant. the point is don't make stupid inslulting comments about integrated students just because one way or another they can raise the funds to take that route. You don't have a clue how much risk/dedication is involved for any given individual.
Quote Alex Whittingham:
'There is a flip side to the coin, modular students are likely to be older, more mature, probably more motivated and are likely to stay with the employer for longer.'
Alex, by and large i respect your reasoned arguments but this is complete crap. It's possible (maybe probable) that statistics would prove that the average mod student is older (i don't know). As for maturity and motivation - what evidence do you have that modular students are more motivated than integrated? People talk about how they 'held down 2 jobs and supported a family' while doing their modular training. All credit to these people - a bloody hard slog i'm sure - but don't dare assume that 'joe integrated student' wouldn't have done the same if different circumstances had forced them to take that route.
In terms of maturity, there were a bunch of 18 year olds on my course. Having gone through uni the stark difference between these guys and your average uni student is unbeleivable. They took there enormous debt very seriously worked just as hard as the thirty-somethings on the course.
Regarding staying with your employer for longer - you really would have to be quite old starting your first flying job to not consider leaving for ba/virgin/easy at the first available opportunity (presuming that is what you wanted).
In summary, debate about integrated v modular is important and should be encouraged, but all to often that debate descends into a people slating integrated students as a bunch of spoilt little brats. Trust me, nothing could be further from the truth.
Some people consider training and decide on integrated. they believe that although more expensive, the opportunities are likely to be better at the end and time to the rhs of a jet (what many people are looking for) will be less.
Some airlines -e.g. BA, only take integrates low hour pilots, FACT. If you think thats unfair and that many modular students are more than capable of passing a BA selection and fulfilling that role thats fair enough. I'd probably agree with you. However, there's nothin you or i can do about it. The FACT remains that if you want a shot a BA mainline straight out of flight school you have to do integrated. If, for what ever reason, integrated isn't an option for you and this type of thinking from airlines pisses you off, again fair enough.
But don't come on to pprune and bitch about integrated students who may be trying to take advantage of the situation laid out in fron of them.
To quote Will Smith; 'Don't hate the player, hate the game'
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
clanger,
to answer your question, 'yes', under 30k all in, including ppl and hour building. Did my ppl in the states for less than 3k, then towed gliders for over 150 hours(all free flying). Joined a local cessna syndicate as well, and flew for just over 50 quid an hour. The whole lot, including test/licence fee's, atpl exam fee's...etc etc came to 28k, give or take a pound. If id trained for the cpl/ir/mcc abroad I could have probably saved more. I opted for UK training however. The 2 jobs I am sitting in hold pool's for will be bonded TR's as well. No self funding.
If id had the money, i would have probably taken the integrated route. but ONLY if i'd had the money. I certainly wasnt going to borrow 70 odd grand. The modular route has worked fine for me though, got the ticks in the boxes, first time passes in cpl and ir and all my groundschool, all in min time. I even averaged 94% with my exams. I dont really care if Ryanair see me as a training risk(the extra sectors you refer to)as i wouldnt contemplate working for that shower of s**t.
Im not poo pooing any route that people go down. As i said earlier, its all horses for courses. People should do whats best for THEM, and do what they can afford. The integrated route at this moment in time looks dodgy to me though, with the recession upon us and jobs drying up. Given the employment stats for OAT this year, its obvious that the likely result of your cash will end you up at Ryanair. Thats a serious amount of cash that people could save and go modular. They'll get the same interview at the end.
to answer your question, 'yes', under 30k all in, including ppl and hour building. Did my ppl in the states for less than 3k, then towed gliders for over 150 hours(all free flying). Joined a local cessna syndicate as well, and flew for just over 50 quid an hour. The whole lot, including test/licence fee's, atpl exam fee's...etc etc came to 28k, give or take a pound. If id trained for the cpl/ir/mcc abroad I could have probably saved more. I opted for UK training however. The 2 jobs I am sitting in hold pool's for will be bonded TR's as well. No self funding.
If id had the money, i would have probably taken the integrated route. but ONLY if i'd had the money. I certainly wasnt going to borrow 70 odd grand. The modular route has worked fine for me though, got the ticks in the boxes, first time passes in cpl and ir and all my groundschool, all in min time. I even averaged 94% with my exams. I dont really care if Ryanair see me as a training risk(the extra sectors you refer to)as i wouldnt contemplate working for that shower of s**t.
Im not poo pooing any route that people go down. As i said earlier, its all horses for courses. People should do whats best for THEM, and do what they can afford. The integrated route at this moment in time looks dodgy to me though, with the recession upon us and jobs drying up. Given the employment stats for OAT this year, its obvious that the likely result of your cash will end you up at Ryanair. Thats a serious amount of cash that people could save and go modular. They'll get the same interview at the end.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clanger32
You are not taking into account the fact that whilst doing integrated you also need money to live on as well as the extra you will pay in interest on the loan.
Modular when done alongside a job and paid for as you go will not bring these extra costs.
I added the TR+Hours to the modular to show what you could get for the same/less money
Colomiers
I am not trying to take away anything from the integrated guys, any CPL/IR takes hard work and motivation. I do however believe that IN GENERAL people who do it whilst working full time to pay for it all, will in alot of cases had to work harder out of necessity and as has been said before tend to be more mature. If you dont believe me on the last point then read the posts on the 'Question Re: CTC' thread. This is my opinion based on the integrated guys ive met so far and you are entitled to yours.
I was saying the qualities i would be looking for were i involved in recruitment for and airline, but im not. I DO NOT think integrated pilots are inferior at all but i also do not think it creates a superior pilot as the schools would have you believe. Certainly not enough to justify the differnece in cost. As for the schools statements that it proves you will be able to pass the line training and be more employable, would not your existing employment history tell them more?
I agree that the majority of integrated graduates are no different to the modular guys, however if you have never come across the kind of people i was referring to then you have been lucky.
Im sure integrated made sense a few years ago but in the current financial climate borrowing £70-100k for a CPL/IR just doesn't make sense to me. And if people are attending shows put on by the training providers and being told by Ryaniar that they should spend £100,000 of their own money for the privelidge of working for them then yes i do believe they are being gullable. This doesn't apply to all integrated students though and i know that.
Your comment:
Some people consider training and decide on integrated. they believe that although more expensive, the opportunities are likely to be better at the end and time to the rhs of a jet (what many people are looking for) will be less.
Some airlines -e.g. BA, only take integrates low hour pilots, FACT. If you think thats unfair and that many modular students are more than capable of passing a BA selection and fulfilling that role thats fair enough. I'd probably agree with you. However, there's nothin you or i can do about it. The FACT remains that if you want a shot a BA mainline straight out of flight school you have to do integrated. If, for what ever reason, integrated isn't an option for you and this type of thinking from airlines pisses you off, again fair enough.
But don't come on to pprune and bitch about integrated students who may be trying to take advantage of the situation laid out in fron of them.
shows kind of what i was getting at.
This is a way of thinking that is being exploited by the airlines and training providers to take more of their cash from them. A situation will may get worse. IMO
You are not taking into account the fact that whilst doing integrated you also need money to live on as well as the extra you will pay in interest on the loan.
Modular when done alongside a job and paid for as you go will not bring these extra costs.
I added the TR+Hours to the modular to show what you could get for the same/less money
Colomiers
I am not trying to take away anything from the integrated guys, any CPL/IR takes hard work and motivation. I do however believe that IN GENERAL people who do it whilst working full time to pay for it all, will in alot of cases had to work harder out of necessity and as has been said before tend to be more mature. If you dont believe me on the last point then read the posts on the 'Question Re: CTC' thread. This is my opinion based on the integrated guys ive met so far and you are entitled to yours.
I was saying the qualities i would be looking for were i involved in recruitment for and airline, but im not. I DO NOT think integrated pilots are inferior at all but i also do not think it creates a superior pilot as the schools would have you believe. Certainly not enough to justify the differnece in cost. As for the schools statements that it proves you will be able to pass the line training and be more employable, would not your existing employment history tell them more?
I agree that the majority of integrated graduates are no different to the modular guys, however if you have never come across the kind of people i was referring to then you have been lucky.
Im sure integrated made sense a few years ago but in the current financial climate borrowing £70-100k for a CPL/IR just doesn't make sense to me. And if people are attending shows put on by the training providers and being told by Ryaniar that they should spend £100,000 of their own money for the privelidge of working for them then yes i do believe they are being gullable. This doesn't apply to all integrated students though and i know that.
Your comment:
Some people consider training and decide on integrated. they believe that although more expensive, the opportunities are likely to be better at the end and time to the rhs of a jet (what many people are looking for) will be less.
Some airlines -e.g. BA, only take integrates low hour pilots, FACT. If you think thats unfair and that many modular students are more than capable of passing a BA selection and fulfilling that role thats fair enough. I'd probably agree with you. However, there's nothin you or i can do about it. The FACT remains that if you want a shot a BA mainline straight out of flight school you have to do integrated. If, for what ever reason, integrated isn't an option for you and this type of thinking from airlines pisses you off, again fair enough.
But don't come on to pprune and bitch about integrated students who may be trying to take advantage of the situation laid out in fron of them.
shows kind of what i was getting at.
This is a way of thinking that is being exploited by the airlines and training providers to take more of their cash from them. A situation will may get worse. IMO
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: CLM
Age: 47
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prophead,
as i see it there are three separate issues;
1. - Is it fair/reasonable that some airlines prefer integrated students to modular students?
No it's not fair. There are bound to be many many mod students who are just as capable as any integrated students these airlines take. However due to circumstances they cannot train integrated and miss out on some opportunities. I think we agree on this.
I can see where airlines are coming from though - you have an under resourced recruitment department that find an overnight need for pilots. In an ideal world they would interview every potential applicant, choosing the best. However, as has been mentioned before, one quick call to oxford/jerez and you have a number applicants with a proven training record at your door in as little as a couple of hours if necessary.
This is not fair but it's life so there's not point whinging about it.
2. - Are integrated students any less dedicated, more spoilt or generally more 'a$$hole like'?
Absolutely not!! I don't know what dealings with integrated students you have had but i couldn't disagree more with this. I know plenty of integrated students from both oxford and jerez and quite a few modular students as well. Each group has its fair share of twats. The only real discernable difference between mod and int students is their background before training.
3. - Should I do modular or integrated?
There is no right answer to this - it comes down to personal circumstances. People seem to debate whether int students are 'superior pilots' - this is pointless as it doesn't matter one iota. Once you've passed the exams all that matters is how easy you can get a job. Unless you get accurate statistics on this (which you won't) it's impossible to come to any real conclusion. The one thing that I would say when comparing costs it's important to consider the length of time in training and the potential job at the end. If you spend 5 years doing mod v 1.5 years doing int then the mod guy is loosing 3.5 years of seniority and salary inrcrements. when comparing £30k for mod and £70k for int this aspect is frequently left out.
p.s. - i know you can do mod as quick as integrated but generally the cost then increases coniderably.
as i see it there are three separate issues;
1. - Is it fair/reasonable that some airlines prefer integrated students to modular students?
No it's not fair. There are bound to be many many mod students who are just as capable as any integrated students these airlines take. However due to circumstances they cannot train integrated and miss out on some opportunities. I think we agree on this.
I can see where airlines are coming from though - you have an under resourced recruitment department that find an overnight need for pilots. In an ideal world they would interview every potential applicant, choosing the best. However, as has been mentioned before, one quick call to oxford/jerez and you have a number applicants with a proven training record at your door in as little as a couple of hours if necessary.
This is not fair but it's life so there's not point whinging about it.
2. - Are integrated students any less dedicated, more spoilt or generally more 'a$$hole like'?
Absolutely not!! I don't know what dealings with integrated students you have had but i couldn't disagree more with this. I know plenty of integrated students from both oxford and jerez and quite a few modular students as well. Each group has its fair share of twats. The only real discernable difference between mod and int students is their background before training.
3. - Should I do modular or integrated?
There is no right answer to this - it comes down to personal circumstances. People seem to debate whether int students are 'superior pilots' - this is pointless as it doesn't matter one iota. Once you've passed the exams all that matters is how easy you can get a job. Unless you get accurate statistics on this (which you won't) it's impossible to come to any real conclusion. The one thing that I would say when comparing costs it's important to consider the length of time in training and the potential job at the end. If you spend 5 years doing mod v 1.5 years doing int then the mod guy is loosing 3.5 years of seniority and salary inrcrements. when comparing £30k for mod and £70k for int this aspect is frequently left out.
p.s. - i know you can do mod as quick as integrated but generally the cost then increases coniderably.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. I agree with what you say, however i also think this point is used too much by the integrated schools in order to justify the increased price of the integrated course and attract students. Some are lucky enough to have access to the funds and good luck to them, but many are getting in massive debt because they believe integrated will get them something that modular will not. They may then find out they need to pay for a type rating as well just to be on an even keel with those same modular guys.
When these airlines call the integrated schools the reason they want people with a proven training record is because they are going to put them through the TR. How many airlines when requiring crews would pick up the phone and just call the TRTO's for their latest graduates, would they then care if they were integrated or modular if they had done well on their TR course? I suspect not.
2. I conceed here
I had been wound up by a certain individual and was having a rant. I certainly didnt mean to say Integrated students were any different to modular. I was struggling to understand why the schools could say integrated were better.
3. I would say, if the job market is good and the airlines (If thats what you want) are recruiting without a TR and you have the cash then it may be a good idea to go integrated so you dont miss the boat. This doesn't seem to be the case at the moment though and whilst i have nothing against that route, i wouldnt advise anyone to get a £70-100k loan to do it at this time. That kind of cash would be much better spent on modular training with a TR in my opinion.
As to the salary/seniority wasted whilst modular, it depends what type of flying you wish to do. I and many other modular students i know will probably take a substantial salary decrease when we get that first job and are already on the property ladder etc so that can work both ways.
Either way, its crazy were all going through this for the privelidge of getting a job, if were not all careful it will get alot worse.
Imagine PPrune in 2015
Is it better to pay for CPL/IR + 747 TR =10,000 hours or just set up my own airline?
When these airlines call the integrated schools the reason they want people with a proven training record is because they are going to put them through the TR. How many airlines when requiring crews would pick up the phone and just call the TRTO's for their latest graduates, would they then care if they were integrated or modular if they had done well on their TR course? I suspect not.
2. I conceed here
I had been wound up by a certain individual and was having a rant. I certainly didnt mean to say Integrated students were any different to modular. I was struggling to understand why the schools could say integrated were better.3. I would say, if the job market is good and the airlines (If thats what you want) are recruiting without a TR and you have the cash then it may be a good idea to go integrated so you dont miss the boat. This doesn't seem to be the case at the moment though and whilst i have nothing against that route, i wouldnt advise anyone to get a £70-100k loan to do it at this time. That kind of cash would be much better spent on modular training with a TR in my opinion.
As to the salary/seniority wasted whilst modular, it depends what type of flying you wish to do. I and many other modular students i know will probably take a substantial salary decrease when we get that first job and are already on the property ladder etc so that can work both ways.
Either way, its crazy were all going through this for the privelidge of getting a job, if were not all careful it will get alot worse.
Imagine PPrune in 2015
Is it better to pay for CPL/IR + 747 TR =10,000 hours or just set up my own airline?