Flybe MPL at Oxford (commences 1 September 2009)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Earth
Age: 33
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you all for your words of encouragement 
The 'what if' question always plagues my mind and i've just got in touch with OAA. Apparentley 5 applicants have still not paid for the 15/16th assessment dates, hence if one or more do not decide to pay they will get in touch with me this Monday to see if im still up for it (which I now am!) and for me to pay my fee. Hopefully I should be sorted then!
In regard to the funding (should I make it) I'll have to sit down with my Mum and have a good chat. She worked so hard paying off the mortgage early after both she and my Dad split up and I feel im in debt to her after putting up with me and my brother and always making sure our beds are made or there is food on the table!
Does anyone reckon If you do well in the COMPASS tests, interviews etc, would they accept you for something like the APPFO course instead should you not make it to Flybe?
The 'what if' question always plagues my mind and i've just got in touch with OAA. Apparentley 5 applicants have still not paid for the 15/16th assessment dates, hence if one or more do not decide to pay they will get in touch with me this Monday to see if im still up for it (which I now am!) and for me to pay my fee. Hopefully I should be sorted then!In regard to the funding (should I make it) I'll have to sit down with my Mum and have a good chat. She worked so hard paying off the mortgage early after both she and my Dad split up and I feel im in debt to her after putting up with me and my brother and always making sure our beds are made or there is food on the table!
Does anyone reckon If you do well in the COMPASS tests, interviews etc, would they accept you for something like the APPFO course instead should you not make it to Flybe?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airlines don't and never have needed to sponsor pilots through their training.
In the UK, BOAC/BEA later to become British airways had a sponsorship ab-initio programme through their own in house training school at Hamble. Later this proved uneconomic and the infrastructure was closed down, with similar progammes contracted out to commercial flying schools in Perth and Oxford.
There were also a limited number of sponsorship and part sponsorship programmes offered in conjunction with selected training schools by a few other airlines. These programmes were relatively small and measured, and tended to arise during periods of high demand and limited supply, although the timing often proved to be erroneous. Nevertheless it was a very small part of the airlines overall recuitment intake from year to year.
The First Officers job was a that of a relatively experienced professional rewarded in accordance with the normal laws of pricing based on supply and demand. For the salaries paid, airlines generally sought the best experienced and most suitable candidates they could source from the military leavers or career improvers from other commercial companies. Low houred pilots may be sourced from specific integrated routes, but this avenue of supply was often expensive and not particularly desirable given the additional investment required and the lack of cost saving.
Then the market changed. A few airlines realised that whatever premium they could collect from economy/ premium economy/ club or even First. One of the most profitable seats in the house was right up front right. Instead of paying a cost to operate, this seat was actually a revenue earner. Such is the demand from the "instant airline pilot" wannabe, that this seat could be sold as part of a training programme integrated with partner flying schools.
The "dream" has a value, and it can be sold. The insurance industry didn't seem to care as long as the risk proved negligable. The regulator wasn't bothered as long as the minimum qualification was satisfied, and there was experience in the left seat. That is what has happened and it is a growing industry. Partial sponsorship is a good marketing tool. Many of those who don't "win" will still be invited to sign up albeit at their own risk. The partial sponsorship is recovered later as part of a reduced salary employment contract. All good marketing.
The dream may have a value, but the realization is likely to be much more mundane. Those aspirational jobs, notwithstanding the overall economy, are likely to much harder to come by, when they are not jobs any more, but a part of the "pay to fly" training establishment. This is a market that will probably only be brought to heel, when the public perception is alerted and brought to the fore. To some extent that is already starting. It is then that the regulator will be forced to act. If the public perception isn't wrong the insurance industry will have already put a price penalty into the mix.
Some people have always been able to find a way into flying as a career and the cost of it has been just another obstacle to overcome. It takes time, perseverance, luck and setting realistic goals as well as seeking out the opportunities as they arise. This concept of the "200 hour airline pilot" has got out of hand. It is a market and like all markets I suspect it will correct itself.
In the UK, BOAC/BEA later to become British airways had a sponsorship ab-initio programme through their own in house training school at Hamble. Later this proved uneconomic and the infrastructure was closed down, with similar progammes contracted out to commercial flying schools in Perth and Oxford.
There were also a limited number of sponsorship and part sponsorship programmes offered in conjunction with selected training schools by a few other airlines. These programmes were relatively small and measured, and tended to arise during periods of high demand and limited supply, although the timing often proved to be erroneous. Nevertheless it was a very small part of the airlines overall recuitment intake from year to year.
The First Officers job was a that of a relatively experienced professional rewarded in accordance with the normal laws of pricing based on supply and demand. For the salaries paid, airlines generally sought the best experienced and most suitable candidates they could source from the military leavers or career improvers from other commercial companies. Low houred pilots may be sourced from specific integrated routes, but this avenue of supply was often expensive and not particularly desirable given the additional investment required and the lack of cost saving.
Then the market changed. A few airlines realised that whatever premium they could collect from economy/ premium economy/ club or even First. One of the most profitable seats in the house was right up front right. Instead of paying a cost to operate, this seat was actually a revenue earner. Such is the demand from the "instant airline pilot" wannabe, that this seat could be sold as part of a training programme integrated with partner flying schools.
The "dream" has a value, and it can be sold. The insurance industry didn't seem to care as long as the risk proved negligable. The regulator wasn't bothered as long as the minimum qualification was satisfied, and there was experience in the left seat. That is what has happened and it is a growing industry. Partial sponsorship is a good marketing tool. Many of those who don't "win" will still be invited to sign up albeit at their own risk. The partial sponsorship is recovered later as part of a reduced salary employment contract. All good marketing.
The dream may have a value, but the realization is likely to be much more mundane. Those aspirational jobs, notwithstanding the overall economy, are likely to much harder to come by, when they are not jobs any more, but a part of the "pay to fly" training establishment. This is a market that will probably only be brought to heel, when the public perception is alerted and brought to the fore. To some extent that is already starting. It is then that the regulator will be forced to act. If the public perception isn't wrong the insurance industry will have already put a price penalty into the mix.
Some people have always been able to find a way into flying as a career and the cost of it has been just another obstacle to overcome. It takes time, perseverance, luck and setting realistic goals as well as seeking out the opportunities as they arise. This concept of the "200 hour airline pilot" has got out of hand. It is a market and like all markets I suspect it will correct itself.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: earth
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Markieboy, this sentence you wrote,
shows the level of arrogance and maturity you have.
Sorry but I am one of those inferior pilots you refer to, I currently drive a Boeing 737-400/800. I have flown the 300/400/600/700/800. I get paid a dammed good salary and like most of the pilots I know in the industry, went through the system Modular or the good old Self improver.
Your remarks are typical of the intergrated mentality I have seen and despise, I am not for one moment suggesting that all students are like this, just the majority I have come accross.
You're 18 and starting Oxford in September, if I were you I would wind my neck in a little bit sonny boy.
Enjoy your training and I hope you get though the mill in one piece.
All the best, I lookforward to hearing you in the air sometime.
FC
Airlines obviously don't want to sponsor cadets as they know that they are getting very high standard low hour pilots fresh out of these FTOs.
Sorry but I am one of those inferior pilots you refer to, I currently drive a Boeing 737-400/800. I have flown the 300/400/600/700/800. I get paid a dammed good salary and like most of the pilots I know in the industry, went through the system Modular or the good old Self improver.
Your remarks are typical of the intergrated mentality I have seen and despise, I am not for one moment suggesting that all students are like this, just the majority I have come accross.
You're 18 and starting Oxford in September, if I were you I would wind my neck in a little bit sonny boy.
Enjoy your training and I hope you get though the mill in one piece.
All the best, I lookforward to hearing you in the air sometime.
FC
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How am I saying that you are inferior? If you did the modular route then you have been instructed by the same standard instructor that would instruct integrated. Also, how is that quote at all derogatory to yourself? I am just saying that airlines have no need to sponsor cadets at the moment as they are getting a steady stream of already qualified pilots out of these FTOs. So why would they feel the need to sponsor cadets?
I am sorry if I have offended you in any way, it was not intentional at all. I am not in anyway claiming that I know everything about the airline industry, I am merely taking part in a discussion and givining my point of view.
I am sorry if I have offended you in any way, it was not intentional at all. I am not in anyway claiming that I know everything about the airline industry, I am merely taking part in a discussion and givining my point of view.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: everywhere
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think you were being an ars*hole and I don't think you impying what FC thought. So relax and discuss.
I do agree with FC though, integrated students/ 'cadets' can be incredibly unjustifiably arrogant and naive. They seem to think the industry owes them a living. They are next to communists. Getting the licence means you can apply for jobs and the difficult stuff can begin. It doesn't mean you have a right to fly jets for £80K a year.
I do agree with FC though, integrated students/ 'cadets' can be incredibly unjustifiably arrogant and naive. They seem to think the industry owes them a living. They are next to communists. Getting the licence means you can apply for jobs and the difficult stuff can begin. It doesn't mean you have a right to fly jets for £80K a year.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 961
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll have to sit down with my Mum and have a good chat. She worked so hard paying off the mortgage early after both she and my Dad split up and I feel im in debt to her after putting up with me and my brother and always making sure our beds are made or there is food on the table!
bealzebub is spot on!!!!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: zulu
Age: 38
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Consolidated training
If the MPL is implemented to its full potential it will provide a standardised, consilidated and uninterrupted training solution for pilots. It will allow instructor and trainee to orientate their goals and focus to an end; both know in that X number of days he or she will be flying in the right hand seat of a known type. With preknown requirements from the airline, there is opportunity to harmonise company SOPs and philosophies at an early stage, I believe there are benefits here.
The proof will be in the product...I am researching into how the MPL training provides preparadness for direct airline entry compared with the typical ATPL. Willing to collaborate efforts in working towards ICAO's "proof of concept" initiative, please feel free to contact me if you share my sentiments...
C
The proof will be in the product...I am researching into how the MPL training provides preparadness for direct airline entry compared with the typical ATPL. Willing to collaborate efforts in working towards ICAO's "proof of concept" initiative, please feel free to contact me if you share my sentiments...
C
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Six pages and 111 posts so far and all over a qualification that only lets you fly for one employer and wont even let you fly a C152 privately.
I have yet to see the cost or options if the employer goes out of business, perhaps someone could tell me what happens to the unsuspecting MPL wannabe in these circumstances?
I think it is time for a lot of the hopefuls on this forum to balance the cost and risk of MLP (a licence to work for one employer) vs a modular fATPL (a licence to work for any one with an aircraft).
It would seem to me after thirty years in the business, six airlines (4 that are not now in business) and 10,000 hours flying that the options vs cost falls to the modular route however the smiling faces of young wannabes climbing the steps of airliners in the slick publicity brochure may persuade those new to the airline business otherwise.
I have yet to see the cost or options if the employer goes out of business, perhaps someone could tell me what happens to the unsuspecting MPL wannabe in these circumstances?
I think it is time for a lot of the hopefuls on this forum to balance the cost and risk of MLP (a licence to work for one employer) vs a modular fATPL (a licence to work for any one with an aircraft).
It would seem to me after thirty years in the business, six airlines (4 that are not now in business) and 10,000 hours flying that the options vs cost falls to the modular route however the smiling faces of young wannabes climbing the steps of airliners in the slick publicity brochure may persuade those new to the airline business otherwise.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: VHHH Ocean 2D
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A thread such as this was always (unfortunately) going to take on the mod vs integrated debate but I honestly feel that this debate is more important now than it ever has been.
Back in 1999, my training was via the full-time mod route. Altogether my training cost me around the £38K mark. But even 10 years ago, the difference between integrated training and modular training was still significant.
Sometimes I am gobsmacked when I read posts from newbies who post threads such as “How can I pay for my training” or “Do banks still give out £60K loans” etc. Why the rush, especially in this day and age? Whilst I will not go as far as to agree with SHB’s comment that he(she) couldn’t trust the mental state of someone who risked their parents money on a dream, I think there is still a valid point to be made that you must be an olive short of a pizza to go integrated if you can’t afford it - especially now.
If I was to add my opinion on to this particular subject, I would weigh up the following:
On one hand, an MPL gives a ‘possibility’ of a job at the end of it. Although there are safeguards like a transfer to CPL/IR during training, there are no safeguards (from what I have read) once you are flying for FlyBe but have not reached the magic 1500 hours. All this risk for 80 grand.
On the other hand, for a significantly cheaper cost, you have the flexibility of the fATPL where you do not suffer the limitations of an MPL. Albeit without the 'possibilty' of an airline job straight away. But at least you have the large GA market available.
I agree with A&C, especially in this current climate. With the Oxford/MPL scheme, you are paying a hell of a lot of extra money for the possibility of an airline job. The difference in cost could be spent on 30 thousand lottery tickets or a Type rating…..
Back in 1999, my training was via the full-time mod route. Altogether my training cost me around the £38K mark. But even 10 years ago, the difference between integrated training and modular training was still significant.
Sometimes I am gobsmacked when I read posts from newbies who post threads such as “How can I pay for my training” or “Do banks still give out £60K loans” etc. Why the rush, especially in this day and age? Whilst I will not go as far as to agree with SHB’s comment that he(she) couldn’t trust the mental state of someone who risked their parents money on a dream, I think there is still a valid point to be made that you must be an olive short of a pizza to go integrated if you can’t afford it - especially now.
If I was to add my opinion on to this particular subject, I would weigh up the following:
On one hand, an MPL gives a ‘possibility’ of a job at the end of it. Although there are safeguards like a transfer to CPL/IR during training, there are no safeguards (from what I have read) once you are flying for FlyBe but have not reached the magic 1500 hours. All this risk for 80 grand.
On the other hand, for a significantly cheaper cost, you have the flexibility of the fATPL where you do not suffer the limitations of an MPL. Albeit without the 'possibilty' of an airline job straight away. But at least you have the large GA market available.
I agree with A&C, especially in this current climate. With the Oxford/MPL scheme, you are paying a hell of a lot of extra money for the possibility of an airline job. The difference in cost could be spent on 30 thousand lottery tickets or a Type rating…..
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A&C and Betpump5,
The requirements for an MPL to switch airlines, both before and after 1500 hours are identical to those required for a CPL/IR holder. If moving to the same type, they need the new airline's conversion course to learn the SOPs. If moving to a different type, they need a new type rating. The only problem the MPL holders will have is the widespread ignorance of the above, but hopefully the airline recruiters are better informed.
There are many people skeptical about MPL, many who wouldn't hire them if they were the recruiters, etc. But the arguments behind these opinions have nothing to do with the regulations.
Your arguments on the regulatory side make about as much sense as if to say that a circa 9/11 Aer Lingus, BA or BMI cadet couldn't move on to a different airline because they were trained for a specific company. Plenty of them were dropped by those companies immediately after 9/11 and went on to get other jobs.
I think the debate about the merits of MPL are healthy and needful. Wannabes considering undertaking it will benefit from reading a large variety if viewpoints. They need everyone's opinions to properly assess the risk, but they won't benefit from muddling of the regulations and training requirements.
The requirements for an MPL to switch airlines, both before and after 1500 hours are identical to those required for a CPL/IR holder. If moving to the same type, they need the new airline's conversion course to learn the SOPs. If moving to a different type, they need a new type rating. The only problem the MPL holders will have is the widespread ignorance of the above, but hopefully the airline recruiters are better informed.
There are many people skeptical about MPL, many who wouldn't hire them if they were the recruiters, etc. But the arguments behind these opinions have nothing to do with the regulations.
Your arguments on the regulatory side make about as much sense as if to say that a circa 9/11 Aer Lingus, BA or BMI cadet couldn't move on to a different airline because they were trained for a specific company. Plenty of them were dropped by those companies immediately after 9/11 and went on to get other jobs.
I think the debate about the merits of MPL are healthy and needful. Wannabes considering undertaking it will benefit from reading a large variety if viewpoints. They need everyone's opinions to properly assess the risk, but they won't benefit from muddling of the regulations and training requirements.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London, UK
Age: 34
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How are those few people who were selected for the assessment doing? Any news of whether they got through, or not? I was scheduled for the assessment on the 10th June [today], but pulled out. I decided that spending £200 + extras for an assessment wasn't worth it; I've made my decision to train at Stapleford. However I'm not here to be berated, as it was after MUCH consideration that I made the decision to decline the assessment day offer, I would just like to know how people got on.
rriisshhii
rriisshhii
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Guildford
Age: 49
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am absolutely agnostic on the subject of the MPL - I think there are valid concerns around it, but I also think (particularly at this time and particularly with FlyBe) there are few better chances of getting a career going.
I do agree with BetPumps main point about the rush to get to the airlines....I have consistently said that if my daughter (or any offspring) chooses to train to be a pilot at age 18...I will encourage her to go and gain a strong backup career and experience in it first and also to save as much money as possible toward her training. There are two major reasons here.
1/ Having done a.n. other career helps gain perspective....a crap day in the air sure as hell beats a crap day (any day?) in the office. Many people are shocked when flying becomes "just a job"....knowing how bad a 9-5 can be is a great provider of perspective.
2/ Something I really don't think people realise [or certainly not enough], but every single penny you can put to your training yourself is probably worth 2p of borrowed money. It also sharpens your sense of the cost and how prepared you are to spend that cash when you know what it takes to earn it!
FC, I think Markieboy defended his position very well - but I think you perhaps overreacted to it....I didn't see any implication of any route being better than any other...simply a statement that there's a hell of a lot of choice for airlines out there right now.
I do agree with BetPumps main point about the rush to get to the airlines....I have consistently said that if my daughter (or any offspring) chooses to train to be a pilot at age 18...I will encourage her to go and gain a strong backup career and experience in it first and also to save as much money as possible toward her training. There are two major reasons here.
1/ Having done a.n. other career helps gain perspective....a crap day in the air sure as hell beats a crap day (any day?) in the office. Many people are shocked when flying becomes "just a job"....knowing how bad a 9-5 can be is a great provider of perspective.
2/ Something I really don't think people realise [or certainly not enough], but every single penny you can put to your training yourself is probably worth 2p of borrowed money. It also sharpens your sense of the cost and how prepared you are to spend that cash when you know what it takes to earn it!
FC, I think Markieboy defended his position very well - but I think you perhaps overreacted to it....I didn't see any implication of any route being better than any other...simply a statement that there's a hell of a lot of choice for airlines out there right now.
