gpiper

smartguy

mad_jock is not old fashioned, in fact he is speaking on behalf of the people who simply cannot afford the integrated or the do not wish to attend an integrated program, I my self come from the modular route, and honestly I can say that I finished my training earlier than any other integrated student, had the same opportunities as any other integrated student, and simply I cannot find any faults on the modular program.

However I would like to make a point, some airlines simply do not wish to hire modular student like easyjet, BA.. but then again, if one day you want to work at BA, you can no matter if you are modular or integrated, you just need hours, but if you want to work there as soon as you are done, then integrated is the way.

That said, I am only trying to make some sense to the boy whose original question was if he should do a degree first or not, I am not trying to convince him to go modular, but I am surprised that there are still people who discuss the never ending modular vs integrated topic in an entirely different thread.

Theunderdog if you can afford to go integrated, then go for it, but for the degree matter, I gave you my opinion.

smartguy,
I'll say it once again and that will be the end of it, the government sponsorship is a form of a loan, at some point in your life you will need to pay back, so in other words price of integrated is not = to price of modular no matter how you do it, it's plain mathematics.

RichardH

Mad_jock I wouldn't waste your time engaging with smartguy (I think not) as he knows everything and doesn't want to listen.

Having actually instructed at both these establishments I could offer some insight into the 'employment stats', but I refuse to cast pearls to swine.

mad_jock

Same here, I haven't had a single days unemployment which wasn't planned by me. The day my license came through the flying school door was my first paid flight.

The large scale training industry and large airlines for that matter would like you all to believe that the modular way is dead. There simply is not enough students to go around. If you total up all the jobs that are actually out there currently in the UK there is enough for one big school. They are relying on the self financed to keep the training capacity in the system. If they do need to expand or get pilots in quick it takes years to increase capacity. If its not there they don't have any choice what they take in through the door.

Modular is a pain to them and they invent things like the MPL and lobby for legislation change to try and make modular uneconomic and die a death. Every time they try something it usually comes back and bites them in the backside just as with the cadetship thing. They only realise after they have it in full swing that there is no real point going for the premier priced course because all the jobs from said course are now tied up in cadetships. The students that might have gone for it because of the chance of getting an interview are staying away. And modular keeps ticking along just fine.

Every pilot that trains modular and then gets a job is taking 30k plus away from the integrated school system. And there are loads of them who are doing just that.

500 hours multicrew and nobody gives a toss how you trained be it BA or whoever.

I know what you are saying Richard the only problem is that he infects others with his marketing. Its a bit of a wizard of OZ type affair with if he says it often enough it will become true.

I wonder how many times the same thing has been said on here that modular is dead. I can remember it being said when I joined PPrune as a wannabie before 9/11. I ignored it and went modular, 11 years on I am a Training Captain with over 5000 hours under my belt. Didn't have any debt's afterwards, have paid off the mortgage and the guys which took the advice will only now be paying there last payments on there loans.

smartguy

We should really continue with this conversation in the modular vs integrated thread, however I want to just point out some statements that you have made that I don't agree with

Look, if can afford a modular course, with the aid of a government loan you can afford an integrated course right? And you only pay the loan back once you have earned enough money so you practically only pay the price of a modular course.

Well you would have payed the same amount up front as a modular student, so your already in a better position because an integrated pilot with start on a flexicrew contract at a large airline on a salary of 35k a year. However, most modular pilots will have to start as an instructor on about 12k a year. So the integrated pilot is most certainly in a better position.

I'm sorry if my comments are annoying some of you but if I do a ctc wings cadet course I will pay the same amount up front as a modular pilot and I will get to have a gap-year in NZ, a degree and top class training with really good placement opportunities with a large number of partner airlines! - I find it tricky how some of you can come up with reasons why I shouldn't do this

Artie Fufkin

Oh, go on then, I'll bite.

Care you justify that statement with some factual stats, rather than your own general perception?

.

If memory serves, the CTC deal at that time was a 7 year repayment, with £1,000 taken out of your salary pre tax, each month for that period. The loan would have been paid off over 5years, with the cadet probably now on an Easy £130k captains salary, with the difference between their salary and your TP training salary paying for the "premium" they paid several times over.

mad_jock

That was the period that Ezy were giving proper contracts and also were taking modular. And it was the start of the cadetship method. Whole different game these days with flexi screw. Which is the period that we are discussing. And how long now is it for command?

And Art you know fine there is no statistics, even the CAA refuse to issue meaning full statistics because its "commercially sensitive" In my side of things I see a steady flow of modular guys coming in then moving on or going to LHS. We aren't talking single figures either between 30-50 a year that I know about. Not all of them UK trained. Why is it commercially sensitive? Because everyone knows the whole system will fall on its backside if the truth was out there.

Nope you have 2-3 years out of work and you don't get your grant money as a lump sum. You get a bit of it every year. And if you have enough to afford modular it is very unlikely you will get a maintenance grant because your combined income for your household has to be in the 16k a year region to be able to get it. Modular you can stay earning. And you can get career progression loans in modular from the government. Or at least you used to be able to which most used to get the IR if they bothered with them.

All I can say is go for it. The wings scheme has a huge failure rate at selection. You will of course be offered the none wings course. Then you will have to find bridging cash to cover the periods between the student loans getting paid every year. Then you can go a sit in a hold pool for 12-24 months until someone wants you. Then you can start flying and paying your debts off and hope you are flying enough hours to be able to eat. And then keep your fingers crossed that they renew your contract.

But if you think its a great deal you go for it, just don't try and sell it to everyone else. I suspect you are going to be like the previous heralds for the death of modular. You will disappear in 6 months to a year when you finally work out that what we are saying is correct or you end up unemployed and can't face telling the world that you were wrong.

Bealzebub

No, you distort the jigsaw puzzle pieces in order to fit your picture, as usual!

No first tier airline ever historically had a general requirement for 200 hour wanabees. The only exceptions were specific approved cadet programmes through a handful of airline sponsorship schemes. These programmes utilized an apprenticeship based approach to training, whereby the selected candidate followed an approved full time course of training leading to advanced mentored training with the airline concerned. A couple of these programmes were in-house the rest were through third party integrated training providers. The most well known was perhaps the BEA/BOAC/British airways cadet programme through Hamble, later AST Perth, and CSE Oxford. Other airlines also operated a handful of similar apprentice schemes through a limited range of approved integrated training schools.

The majority of recruitment was sourced from the experienced pilot market (read 2500-3000 hrs, 500 turbine minimum.) This included a large contingent of military leavers. Many of these experienced civilian pilots had cut their teeth by obtaining a 700 hour CPL and IR, and then working their way up through the stepping stone jobs. Those jobs were aerial work, air taxi, small turboprop operators, third and second tier airline operators. Obtaining the experience for that basic 700 hour CPL, was often achieved by obtaining an AFI (Assistant Flying Instructors) rating on a PPL and then a working up through QFI etc. The derogation that permitted a PPL flying instructor to work for remuneration was parochial and not consistent with the requirements of most other ICAO member states.

The advent of JAR and the "harmonisation" of European licensing requirements saw the UK adopt a two thirds reduction in the hours requirement for a basic CPL licence (non-approved.) This brought the UK into line with most of the rest of the world and reflected the "aerial work" nature of the basic licence, which henceforth (and in common with most other ICAO states) would also be a requirement for remunerated flight instructor employment.

The popular misconception (and it was fuelled by at least one Lo-co CEO) was that this 250 hour basic licence was the new standard for first tier airline employment. It wasn't! At broadly the same time as these changes were occurring, there was a rapid expansion in the latest evolution of the integrated (airline apprenticeship) training market. This was the old 200 hour approved route. Traditional providers and new entrant schools formed partnerships with a number of first tier operators to provide what (broadly speaking) they had always provided, albeit in smaller volume. That is a selected, monitored full time course of tailored training, leading to that customer airlines ab-initio apprentice cadet. These programmes proved successful for the airline partners. They were successful in respect of the quality of the cadet, the ability to monitor and influence the training that cadet would receive, and the ability to achieve cost savings and increased flexibility by transferring much of the input risk from their balance sheet to that of the supplier and the candidate themselves.

The attrition rate of cadets proved to be very low and certainly far lower than the historic attrition rate of even the previous "experienced" self improver with 2500-3000 hours minimum. The global recession and banking crisis that started at the tail end of the last decade, squeezed the rapid expansion of these integrated cadet programmes in much the same way as it squeezed the expansion of the entire industry. This (as in almost every other walk of life) choked off finance and placed an even greater burden of risk on the candidates themselves. The expansion of these programmes also served to reduce many of the opportunities for "self improvers" at the entry level for first tier airlines. Even further up the food chain at the intermediate level "self improver market" those looking to jump from their "stepping stone" jobs at the second and third tier airline jobs, found two very noticeable and real obstacles. Notwithstanding the economic malaise, the cadet programmes had blocked entry level progression into many of these airlines. Secondly, the 10 year regulatory extension of a pilots working life, choked off most of the retirement induced vacancies at the top end of the market. This allowed most airlines to consolidate their captain base and thereby flatten the internal experience curve. In other words having enough mid range experienced first officers suitable for promotion. Cadets (even in a lo-co environment) need at least 4-5 years experience before they can be considered for promotion. This regulatory age change simply served to take that requirement away, and give every airline an effective 10 year breathing space, to introduce these fundamental changes to their recruitment strategies.

This is the reality, and the history is there for anybody who wants to read it and learn from it. 250 hour modular pilots can be compared to the 700 hour pilots of 20 years ago (albeit they have only a third of that flying experience), they are the "self improvers," Of course the experience changes mean there are now exponentially more of them, chasing even fewer available jobs. The stepping stone jobs are still out there, but as the example above shows, it is often much harder to move from those stepping stones to the first tier jobs. Hence so much of the vitriol and frustration that is a hallmark of some contributors who find themselves stuck on those stones.

MPL isn't a marketing invention, it is an evolution of the "approved" cadet programmes. It is designed to refine the specific segment of this industry training to dovetail with the same training philosophies that are now embedded in the airlines own advanced and recurrent training programmes.

In summary, first tier airlines have no animosity to "modular training" per se. Many of their experienced captains and F/O's came through historical incarnations of the same thing. However at the 250 hour cadet level, it doesn't excite many of them any more than it used to when it was set at the 700 hour level. The integrated cadet programmes are the fast track route into this type of flying, but it is selective, expensive and intensive. For the modern day "self improver" the opportunities are becoming fewer and fewer even at the intermediate level, as the cadets continue to fill vacancies from below. The stepping stone turboprop jobs are scarcer and even more valuable to the aspiring wanabee. However those opportunities are themselves largely unattainable for the hugely expanded market of 250 hour wanabee's who are constantly led to believe that an aerial work 250 hour licence is a first class ticket to a first tier (or indeed any other) airline.

By all means choose not to believe me, but then read these forums. Read the T&E forum and see the realities that even experienced career change pilots are facing. Even look to this thread where "stepping stones" are occupied by 5000 hour pilots who in many cases may have nowhere to step to, thereby freeing up that valuable vacancy for the next aspiring wanabee.

This is simply a cyclical discussion and very few people see a viewpoint that is not blinkered by their own circumstance.

That said, and in order to pay the toll:

A surprising number (it surprises me) of cadets who are employed via the programme we (and others) utilize do have university degrees. Sometimes the trade off for those cadets without degree level education is the ability to join a seniority list at a younger age. I am sceptical (although happy to be proved wrong) that a degree helps in becoming an airline pilot via this route, although it can be argued that the improved level of education and perhaps "life experience" might well contribute to a better level of self discipline as a constituent part of the specific learning regime. It also may help with the interview process, both as regards the CV competitiveness and the perception of maturity in the individual.

Where I think it does come into its own, is in career progression within the industry. By that I am not referring to promotions from one seat to the other, but rather management and administrative opportunities that sometimes form part of a career pilots progression within a company.

contacttower118.2

This debate just gets rehashed again, again and again...

MJ your views are well known on this subject but I don't see why smartguy is any more or less entitled to tell people that integrated is better than you are to argue with it. He may disappear in six months and realise he is wrong but just as likely he'll go along to CTC, get selected for the Wings course and two and half years later or whatever and he'll be at easy and making money...

You've been reading this forum for even longer than I have and I'm amazed you still bother to post in this section considering the repetitive nature of it. All credit I guess...

But seriously though the one thing that I keep coming back to is that there are very few true generalisations to be made about either mod or integrated or uni or not...

I've heard of people doing modular, failing to get a job and either whining about it on hear or just drifting out of flying, I've heard of people doing OAA or whatever and ending up the same, I've heard of people doing modular and walking into a jet job almost be accident the next day, I've heard of people being kicked off integrated mentored schemes, Wings cadets failing the EJ line training. In short the extremes of luck I have seen and heard are truly amazing.

The disparity of views between so many different posters on this subject is testament to the huge variation in fortunes from different backgrounds and how so many different people have achieved their goals via different routes.

In light of that I wish people, on both sides, would just stop trying to ram their own views down each other's throats and appreciate that different experiences bring different perspectives on the subject.

Artie Fufkin

Oh come on! Who, where when? Justify this! Name these airlines with current requirements for 50 TP cadet FOs per year?

We regularly hear about the glass ceiling on turboprops these days. Where are these people "moving on" to? The only UK jet operator I have heard expressing any interest in TP drivers in the last 12 months is Jet2. And they haven't taken on a single one in the last 12 months! Upgrades? Are retirements / expansion that strong in the TP world? Really?

Am I right in thinking that more than "30 to 50" untagged integrated cadets went to easy and Monarch over the last year?

Meikleour

smartguy: CTC and a "first class training" should never go in the same sentence!

contacttower118.2

OK apologies for wandering off topic but what makes you say that?

Meikleour

contacttower118.2: Constant exposure to the product! Seven years ago - good product................now,......................

contacttower118.2

Interesting, you aren't the first person I've heard say that and I'm not talking about on here...

Nelson15

Nice sweeping generalisation there!

mad_jock

I actually agree with that contact.

Which is why I do reply so there isn't a you might as well not bother if you can only do modular attitude ever present. Its the presentation of "this is fact"


Still doesn't change the fact that if your not on a tagged scheme or passed and paid for wings you in exactly the same boat as a modular trained pilot these days.

And to be honest I am not even posting for the benefit of wannabies. I know fine you will never change the mind of a 18-25 year old when they think they are right. Who I post for is the Capital providers who need to sign over there life savings on the hope that there child is one of the lucky ones and makes it.

Please all continue to post it keeps the thread at the top of the search engines. Hopefully giving an alternative view to the marketing for those about to put their life savings on the line.

If the untagged students stopped going to integrated schools the airlines wouldn't have choice where they got there cadets from. There isn't enough of them of them to keep the current system running.

And if Ryanair stop recruiting even for a year or two the whole thing will implode.

EMA747

@sm85 - Yeah looking at it again it is more like £90K!!! So even with a £27K loan it's still a stupidly high amount of money.

I also share all you concerns about the money.

The biggest problem in my mind is that if you failed to get a flying job, which is a distinct possibility, then the money invested in training is pretty much wasted money because the training is only useful for being a pilot. It would be less scary if there was another option open to you if you failed to find a flying job.

mad_jock

You won't get the student loan in a lump you get given it every year just after you matriculate for that year. The hardship loans have to be applied for separately usually about xmas time.

Bealzebub

Yes, it is an interesting perspective being a parent. Being a parent in an aspirational industry such as this one is even more interesting.

I know a number of parents who with the benefit of their own knowledge and positions within the industry have children of their own for whom they do act as either "capital providers" or guarantors. I am afraid that the majority of those parents do go with the major integrated cadet schools (Oxford, CTC and FTE) simply because these are the fast track routes into the best career opportunities these days.

Rather like socialist politicians preaching about the morality, benefits and cost savings of comprehensive schools, whilst at the same time ensuring their own sons and daughters attend expensive private schools. The philosophy is one thing, the reality is quite another. You pay your money and take your chances. There are no guarantees, and the risks are substantial.

If my son or daughter, with the necessary determination, ability and desire wanted me to guarantee a course of training leading to an airline career, I would only do so through one of these major schools. 90K and a reasonable prospect of subsequent employment would need to be balanced against 50K and the massively oversubscribed catalogue of similar individuals. On the prospect of cost recovery, and knowing what I know, it really is a no brainer once the point arrives when a decision has to be made.

Of course (and as with any expense in life) the choice is tempered by an ability to both raise and allocate this very high level of funding. The reality is that relatively few people will be able to either raise or risk this level of resource. I might risk 90K, but I am certainly not to going to throw 50K down the drain. Of those parents that I know in this position, that seems to be a common theme.

Perhaps interestingly, a comment I have sometimes heard is that when balanced against university fees, the difference is the approximate real world cost of a full time integrated cadet programme. Despite this, about half of those involved do have a university education.

mad_jock

Your still skirting round the fact that all the jet jobs apart from Ryanair which takes modular as well are sown up by cadetships or the wings program.

And if the self financed untagged weren't paying there wouldn't be enough job to keep the current situation. They need the fodder to keep the system going so that the cadetships can continue.

I more than likely have come into contact with just as many parents as yours self may be even more as we tended to get a lot with the young'un doing trial lessons. And post qualification we used to get them to put there SEP ratings on post finishing.

I have even had parents beg to pay TR's and induction training and the kid work for free for 500 hours just so they can get some multi crew time.

Yes you guys get to work with the lucky ones. The rest of us get to see what falls out the bottom that supports the cadet schemes.

Bealzebub

Really? I didn't think I could have been much clearer. The cadetships are generally tied to integrated training courses from the three principle training providers with perhaps a greater leaning towards to one of them at the present time. The wings programme is designed to supply a range of partner airlines. It is not tagged to any particular one. Graduates of this programme have been supplemented by other integrated cadets as and when there has been a need over the last 15 years. I know that we have taken a few as part of a much larger intake.

They are all self financed. By that, I mean all of them. The placement market for them is a function of the customer airlines requirement at the time of their graduation. A small number are on pre-selection or tied (MPL) courses, but the majority continue to be sourced from the holding pools or graduating courses.

These training schools supply courses geared to their partner airlines requirements. They also offer modular courses at significantly reduced cost. These schools are not solely reliant on the domestic UK market nor is their organisation (in each and every case) UK dependent.

Given your oft repeated statement of "go modular" and the reality of the "stepping stone" jobs that exist in the marketplace, I am not particularly surprised that:
Unfortunately what "falls out of the bottom" isn't really what these cadet schemes are looking for. They are geared to what climbs to the top!
I would agree that we do get to fly with the "lucky ones." I have always said that luck plays an integral part in this career, but not in isolation.

I have stated many, many times, the history of the evolution to the current marketplace. The "lucky ones" selected the routes that gave them the advantage. From pinnacles with excellent views and vantage points, it isn't difficult to point out where those routes are. Whether anyone can or wishes to follow those routes is a matter for themselves and their own particular circumstances. These fast track routes are a bridge over a raging river. The toll is expensive and is not necessarily suitable or available for other than the minority. The stepping stone jobs are out there and of course I hardly need to tell you that. However those stepping stones are slippery, few and far between and very crowded. They may well prove to be a route to the other side for some of the hoards of hopefuls waiting to cross, but it is also a frustrating route, a crowded route, and potentially just as expensive and fraught with an even greater proportional attrition rate.

A university degree may well prove more beneficial as a general insurance policy. I find it difficult to ever suggest that educational betterment is anything other than a positive attribute. If that is possible with the advantages of also getting on a cadet based training programme then it is certainly worth considering. If it means sacrificing that type of programme for the benefit of a degree, then again it is certainly worth considering. It all depends on your appetite for risk, and that is going to vary from person to person. I suspect that the combined degree/integrated course cadet market is not likely to prove a large one, unless the partner airlines themselves drive it that way.