Ok so candidate A has an average application with 1500 TT and candidate B has an average application with 250 TT, who will the airline employ? candidate A.

I'm not being naive, I know it's going to be difficult to get into this industry however I believe that putting all this money towards pilot training is worth it as it is an investment for the future, your career. And I know that if I spend the rest of my days in an office I will regret it massively if I didn't try to become a pilot.

so to do a PPL what is the best aircraft to do the training in single, multi engine etc?

If your doing ppl stick to a single engine aircraft as it is easier and cheaper. I'm doing mine in a robin hr200.

Im looking at a flight school now see how much it costs etc. It says a PPL course and also theres night ratings, IMC and all that stuff do you do that when you do the modualr ATPL course?

Cheers

Yes, you would do a ppl, night rating and a IMC in a modular course.

You don't do an IMC. You do an IR.

What's really so bad about integrated?!
 

Sorry but if I were to take money out of the equation I can't see what's so bad about an integrated course! I have seen many posts saying "be prepared to be in a holding pool for 6-12 months". If you do a modular course you will have to wait A LOT longer than 6-12 months!!! To me, if I can train for a shorter period of time and boost my employment chances I don't see why I shouldn't pay the extra money because in the long run it will pay of. There have been a lot of negative comments about integrated courses on this forum and I can only presume that all the integrated students are now flying for the airlines and therefore have no time to post on this forum and talk about their experiences with integrated courses. I know a lot of you are going to say that the integrated schools give you bull!!!! sales tactics but at the end of the day they will give you a much better chance of a job. In ten years time when you want to apply for big airlines like BA, what will it look like when you have some crappy, cheap modular school on your CV? when your looking for flights school sometimes cheapest isn't always the best! For example, a state school will give you the same qualifications as a private school but a private school will most likely give you better career opportunities.

Some people just don't agree with the way integrated courses are structured.

I personally think that aside from a couple of cases, MOST integrated courses are going to leave you in the same position job-wise as modular, with the same licence but maybe 2-3x more in debt/in expenses and less hours to show for it!

I am far far from the most experienced person on here, and am actually relatively new in the industry, but I spent a lot of time making contacts before/during/after my training, and I haven't spoken to any HR/recruitment in any airline (including legacy, regional jet and tprop stuff) that gives a stuff about where an EXPERIENCED pilot has trained. It can be different for the new guy with no experience and only a flight school record to show for himself but even then, apart from the airlines that have schemes with certain (integrated) FTOs most of them don't seem to differentiate between modular and integrated, at very most they seem to ask for one stop modular.

I don't think it can be compared to public/private schools, because as is often proven by league tables and the like, and also through general rumour and word of mouth, private schools are often deemed to provide a superior education to other schools. this does NOT translate into the modular/integrated debate (were most of the integrated superiority talk comes from the integrated FTOs themselves) because I have not seen much evidence which proves an integrated graduate to have superior training to a modular one, and in fact I have personally heard of some airlines (mostly smaller ones to be fair) preferring modular students due to what the perceive as a more rounded pilot with broader experience and some determination and wit about them.

I just don't think we can argue the fact that integrated will give you better employment chances, for example, will a modular student ever get employed by a big airline straight out of flight school? Never. However an integrated student may have a chance. I really don't fancy being a flight instructor for 3 years before I can get a job in a turboprop plane and work my way up from there which is what a modular student will have to do. And also it's not 2-3x the amount of modular, in fact, if you add it all up modular will probably end up costing 60k which is not a massive difference from integrated

You say that based on what experience? Took me 6 days to hear back from a company after sending a CV earlier this year, now flying modern jets.

Funny how I completed modular in the same time frame as an integrated, give or take a month.

They don't give 2 hoots as long as you have the experience, a good reference and you fly well in the sim.

Define big airline? You do realise that tonnes of Oxford integrated students end up at Ryanair, just like modular students.

Nothing wrong with integrated schools as long as they are part of an airline cadet scheme. Untagged integrated is a silly thing to do if you ask me, now that Ryanair are closing the doors.

The best course of training is a tagged integrated scheme, no doubt about that. But modular is nowhere near as bad as you're making out.

Regarding this:

Apart from quite a few in Ryanair which certainly has its fair share of integrated students too, I know a couple of guys that went straight into Jet2.com after modular training.

why? because your not guaranteed a job at the end? Well if I go modular my chances are smaller so surely it would be sillier to go modular!?

all three of these factors will be massively boosted if you go to a good integrated school will good airline contacts i.e ctc, oaa

Ok so what your basically saying is that only a small percentage of modular student make it into the airlines straight away!? that's a reason not to go modular

You are correct in the statement that only a small percentage go into airlines straight away, but you are missing the point I was trying to make.

I attended a predominately integrated FTO, although I did modular myself. I also know quite a lot of people from other schools doing both modular and integrated.

By far the most common role I see BOTH sets of graduates working in is non industry jobs or unemployment, that is both modular AND integrated students. The next most common would be instruction, again - at my local airfield this is filled probably 60-40 modular-integrated trained instructors (discounting ex airline instructors etc here.). Then we have the Ryanair ones. I don't think it makes a blind bit of difference what way you trained here as long as you have a bit of luck, have a good interview/sim day and can afford it.

Way down the probability scale is the guys that have gone straight into airlines. I know 2 guys that went into jet2 after modular training. I know 1 guy that went into easyjet after CTC integrated. I know 1 guy that went into corporate stuff after untagged integrated.

Apart from the CTC guy (I believe CTC is/was about the best way to go jobs-wise if you can afford it and don't manage to get on a tagged scheme) everyone else had to make their own chances.

The only point I am trying to make here is that, setting aside part-sponsored/tagged schemes with integrated FTOs (which most people will agree give you the best prospects) - there is little to no evidence that in recent years you are at any advantage coming out of an integrated school with a "fATPL" than a modular school with the same thing.

I think that there is a bit more than a 'slight' advantage, if you employing pilots and you have hundreds of CV's in front of you, the employer will narrow them down to mostly integrated pilot and a small number of modular pilots. This is because most airlines like integrated pilot as they have been made into more of an airline package, call it a factory if you must but its a factory that works.

As for the airline tagged schemes, they only come once a year and only take a small number of cadets :20-30, so they are still going to want to employ pilots from intergrated schemes. and it is proven tht the airlines are still taking from the FTO's other wise ctc's 100% placement revord wouldnt stand (even with a bit of a wait). if you say that airline are only taking their own cadets what makes you think there going to take modular students.


There are many positives about integrated training an the only negative is money. However there are many negatives about modular training an the only positive the the cheap money, sometimes cheap money isn't always a good thing.

It would be sillier to pay tens of thousands of pounds/dollars/euros for same licenses.
And I completed modular few months faster than few guys I shared PPL-stage theories with (me being on a modular PPL-IR(A)-ATPL-CPL-ME/IR route and them on an integrated course). It all depends on everything.

Cambridge university will offer you the same law degree as Bolton university but which one do you think is more likely to get you a job. Also these integrated courses will give you more than just the bare licenses, the likes of oaa and ctc give you an extended MCC with a JOC and advanced jet handling and they will send you to either New Zealand or Arizona which is perfect as your paying for a gap year but doing pilot training at the same time!

There is not point in arguing about that, the instructors at the likes of ctc or oaa have many years experience flying as captains for major airlines however, instructors at modular school will be teenagers with less than 500 hours (they are instructing because they went modular and now can't find airline placement)!

They are far more likely to take integrated than modular students because they like the 'airline package' that the FTO can provide. The airlines also like the fact the ctc, oaa... are extremely specialised in what they deliver (training pilots for the airlines!). This specialised airline training does not exist in modular schools and, as I said, most modular instructors don't have airline experience.

Obviously you have made you're mind up about what you want to do and that is absolutely fine... but don't go into it blindly. Take as much information as you can, even if you don't agree with it, keep it in your mind before you make any final choice.

The Integrated schools spend a fortune in terms of time and money marketing their courses to make you believe that they are the ultimate in pilot training. People on here such as myself are giving our opinions based on personal experiences and we certainly won't be getting a 6 figure sum from you if you decide to go modular - unlike the integrated schools.

Just for some more information. I did a PPL, IMC rating and Night qualification. I then did ATPL theory, then went to continental Europe to do my hour building, my CPL and my ME-IR followed by a MCC and JOC. In total for this I paid around £43,000 this is including accomodation, test fees, living, travel, EVERYTHING. Post PPL (I did this partly while still in full time education and hadn't decided on whether to go to uni or not) it took me 7 months to do my ATPL thoery followed by another 7 months to do my hour building and the rest of my training. I was unlucky with weather even while abroad and I reckon I could have done the post theory bit in 5 months had it been a different year. Regardless this might give you some idea of time frame and costs.

I take particular issue with this because its stereotypical and not even true at that. At my FTO I had a <25 year old with no airline experience teaching me for part of the course. He was an integrated student who couldn't find work and he was a FANTASTIC instructor. I also had a >50 year old ex mil captain for other parts of training and he was equally fantastic. Most modular schools I know of in the UK have industry experienced instructors. Look up PAT in Bournemouth and Airways in Exeter and read their staff bios. The other thing I would like to bring to this is to defend both Integrated and Modular commercial flight instructors. There are 500 hour instructors who are amazing and 15000 hour instructors which are not so. It depends on the personality of the individual. Some airlines are now even starting to prefer younger instructors for the first parts of their cadet-ships because often when they have finished training more recently, they can relate to the student far better than some of the more experienced guys. Have a look at some of the instructors at FTE etc. I stress again its down to the instructor them-self, not their age or experiences in a lot of cases.