Flight Training As It Should Be

1123heavy

http://corporate.airfrance.com/fr/etre-pilote-de-ligne-air-france

Heavily advise any French speakers among us to apply. Great that it doesn't involve the CTC/OAA/FTE mafia who have ruined flying for those without a mine of a wallet.

May there be many more like it. Hopefully IAG pull up their socks too and give Aer Lingus the green light next year, unlikely though with the future seemingly relying heavily on DE recruitment.

pepe the prawn

Probably a great scheme, but you don’t need to have wealthy parents or a huge loan to become a pilot, a few years working hard and saving can get you there. People seem to think these days that if you don’t go to CTC etc and give them €130-150k then you’ve no chance of becoming a pilot. There are much cheaper ways of getting to that coveted airline job, and they don’t involve spending the guts of €130-150k.

martinsvi

I'm not entirely sure that this is the way "it should be", I'm happy that these programmes exist among many other routes people can take and become successful pilots. Programmes like these typically open doors to academically gifted, young individuals with glowing school reports and, although I don't want to generalize, there is a strong correlation between academic success and wealthy background.

We should still leave a chance for those who didn't live in the posh part of the town, attending well funded school and who now want to achieve their dreams at their late twenties or thirties combining self funded training and 2 jobs..

smurfjed

I'm not entirely sure that this is the way "it should be"

So how would you like to see it done? A lottery?

martinsvi

smurfjed wrote: »

So how would you like to see it done? A lottery?

I don't think you read me right, the OP was suggesting that the airline sponsored schemes is the right way, I suggested that the way things are currently kind of work out for most of us..

lottery? no... multiple sources with various backgrounds? Yes...

martinsvi

just to re-emphasize (or simplify my glorious thought bubble) for those who don't like reading - scheme good - me like, not many people given chance though, me thinks it's a good way but not only way.. other ways shout co exist - as they do now

(insert caveman pic here)

1123heavy

martinsvi wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure that this is the way "it should be", I'm happy that these programmes exist among many other routes people can take and become successful pilots. Programmes like these typically open doors to academically gifted, young individuals with glowing school reports and, although I don't want to generalize, there is a strong correlation between academic success and wealthy background.

We should still leave a chance for those who didn't live in the posh part of the town, attending well funded school and who now want to achieve their dreams at their late twenties or thirties combining self funded training and 2 jobs..

It's training as it should be in that the airline are paying for the training of their future employees. I think I'd disagree with the posh part of town bit, in programmes such as the aer lingus and BA FPP there were numerous successful individuals who were neither rich nor had extravagant academic achievements. For those requiring self funding, well it's natural that those who can afford 100,000 won't be living in (I'll allow you to insert a not nice part of Dublin in case I offend someone).

Another reason why I think it's 'as it should be' is because spending the guts of 60,000+ (that's how much the modular route will cost nowadays in reality) with no preliminary offer of a job and likely spending years post training trying to find a job isn't really for everyone. For many people, we want to maximise the security on our investment, i.e. only pay with the job offer there. I accept many are happy to go modular with the benefits it offers, but it's not the safest from an investment perspective, cadet programmes offer far better security on seeing a return on your investment. I know too many people who were happy to go modular and never found jobs in the end, rendering the whole thing absolutely pointless. That's not an option for many people like myself.

martinsvi

alrighty then, I put a lot of effort to divide your post into small pieces not because I disagree with you, or I want to argue, but simply because it's 2am on a -day after- Stephens day and here I am trying to figure out how I got here..

1123heavy wrote: »

It's training as it should be in that the airline are paying for the training of their future employees.

I don't think any sane person would argue that as a principle, the unfortunate realities are that these schemes are pretty much a beauty contest where your actual ability to fly a plane, be a team player and demonstrate leadership and ownership is not really tested till very late, if not too late..

1123heavy wrote: »

I think I'd disagree with the posh part of town bit, in programmes such as the aer lingus and BA FPP there were numerous successful individuals who were neither rich nor had extravagant academic achievements.

EI cadet scheme and BA FPP have nothing in common.. there used to be the days when BA actually "helped" the candidates, but if I'm not mistaken, last subsidized programme finished in 2012? Ever since with BA it has always been either partly or fully self funded and with L3 for that matter.. in other words, 6 digit figures..

EI however did run very highly regarded fully paid-for schemes, but as it has been discussed in this forum - yes, it is a fact,that many cadets did indeed came from D2, D4 and D6 addresses.. I don't want to support the conspiracy that was floating around back then, just want to point out that the French will do very well if they can avoid the same "statistics".

1123heavy wrote: »

Another reason why I think it's 'as it should be' is because spending the guts of 60,000+ (that's how much the modular route will cost nowadays in reality) with no preliminary offer of a job and likely spending years post training trying to find a job isn't really for everyone.

yet this is the reality for many.. I'm not even going to mention the likes of architects and structural engineers, but tell me, do you know and have you spoken to any nurses lately?

1123heavy wrote: »

For many people, we want to maximise the security on our investment, i.e. only pay with the job offer there. I accept many are happy to go modular with the benefits it offers, but it's not the safest from an investment perspective, cadet programmes offer far better security on seeing a return on your investment. I know too many people who were happy to go modular and never found jobs in the end, rendering the whole thing absolutely pointless. That's not an option for many people like myself.

your experience is valid, yet it doesn't paint the full picture.. as a modular student I've met many, many washed out broken integrated students who were chewed up and spit out by the system.. if you are looking at this as an investment, never ever assume there is any security ..

1123heavy

martinsvi wrote: »

alrighty then, I put a lot of effort to divide your post into small pieces not because I disagree with you, or I want to argue, but simply because it's 2am on a -day after- Stephens day and here I am trying to figure out how I got here..

1123heavy wrote: »

It's training as it should be in that the airline are paying for the training of their future employees.

I don't think any sane person would argue that as a principle, the unfortunate realities are that these schemes are pretty much a beauty contest where your actual ability to fly a plane, be a team player and demonstrate leadership and ownership is not really tested till very late, if not too late..

1123heavy wrote: »

I think I'd disagree with the posh part of town bit, in programmes such as the aer lingus and BA FPP there were numerous successful individuals who were neither rich nor had extravagant academic achievements.

EI cadet scheme and BA FPP have nothing in common.. there used to be the days when BA actually "helped" the candidates, but if I'm not mistaken, last subsidized programme finished in 2012? Ever since with BA it has always been either partly or fully self funded and with L3 for that matter.. in other words, 6 digit figures..

EI however did run very highly regarded fully paid-for schemes, but as it has been discussed in this forum - yes, it is a fact,that many cadets did indeed came from D2, D4 and D6 addresses.. I don't want to support the conspiracy that was floating around back then, just want to point out that the French will do very well if they can avoid the same "statistics".

1123heavy wrote: »

Another reason why I think it's 'as it should be' is because spending the guts of 60,000+ (that's how much the modular route will cost nowadays in reality) with no preliminary offer of a job and likely spending years post training trying to find a job isn't really for everyone.

yet this is the reality for many.. I'm not even going to mention the likes of architects and structural engineers, but tell me, do you know and have you spoken to any nurses lately?

1123heavy wrote: »

For many people, we want to maximise the security on our investment, i.e. only pay with the job offer there. I accept many are happy to go modular with the benefits it offers, but it's not the safest from an investment perspective, cadet programmes offer far better security on seeing a return on your investment. I know too many people who were happy to go modular and never found jobs in the end, rendering the whole thing absolutely pointless. That's not an option for many people like myself.

your experience is valid, yet it doesn't paint the full picture.. as a modular student I've met many, many washed out broken integrated students who were chewed up and spit out by the system.. if you are looking at this as an investment, never ever assume there is any security ..

I think those who either couldn't get a place or didn't have the funds to secure a place on a cadet programme are naturally going to knock them or refer to them in a derogatory manner. A beauty contest? I'm really not sure about that. I fully agree HR can have too much of an involvement, but as a whole, the worst of tend not to get picked. Dismissing them as beauty contests doesn't do much to the stereotypical attitude towards cadet programmes and a few of the larger schools that prevails among instructors and students alike at the smaller schools, the opinion that they're the real aviators and everyone else are just posh snowflakes ... it's not true really.


You are going to contribute however many years of your life to that company, it is not beyond reason to expect them to fund the qualifications you will require to serve said company. Aviation is way behind in this area, we've just come to accept it as the norm when it shouldn't be this way really. 


The BA FPP and Aer Lingus cadet programme had a lot in common, bar the technicalities of the financial arrangements they were the exact same in that anyone of any financial background was able to apply to both and the airline either paid and then took deductions from salary (Aer Lingus) or secured the loan for the cadet and then gave them extra monthly payments when they started working in order to service the loan (BA). The FPP last ran in 2015 and has since closed. The current BA scheme you're referring to is not called the FPP and is a totally new animal that requires the cadet to fund it all. I was referring to the FPP which was fully funded by BA, and yes, people of poorer backgrounds became pilots thanks to it.


I don't know any nurses who have spent 60,000+ on their training with all due respect. Friends of mine pursuing engineering are in university studying with government funds. I don't see the connection. 


You have likely met integrated students who were not on cadet programmes, I never said anything about integrated as self sponsored untagged, I specifically refer to cadet programmes where the offers are on the table as being the safest. It isn't 100% secure of course, but it's absolutely the safest route.