GNADENBURG :
I quite agree, in times of rapid expansion/promotion a "Cadet entry point" scheme will not be suitable, and an airline will need either a mix of entrants or direct entry commands on short term contracts - this is not uncommon throughout the Pac/Asia region. However, my comments were all about the pro's/cons of a "cadet entry point" v the "2000hr" entry point, and one case requires initial training, the other, in many instances, retraining, esp if the 2000hrs has been in a SPIFR operation, there is not a lot to choose one way or the other - if the need for rapid promtion was not a factor, I would tend to hire pre-screened cadets with the right attitudes.
I also agree that here in NZ at least (and despite our trans tasman spats, I think NZ and Aust aviation have a lot in common) we have an adequate pool of regional pilots and a (smaller) pool of ex military pilots from which to draw, and the additional costs associated with cadet schemes are not justified.
SONNY HAMMOND :
In my experience, any pilot placed in new environment (SPIFR B58 to two pilot T/Prop, two pilot T/Prop to jet, smaller/domestic jet to longhaul hvy jet ops, you name it) goes through a period in which he/she is "nursed" - and the Captain has an extra workload to monitoir the new pilot, regardless of # of hours, so I have to say using that particular argument against cadet entrants is a bit lame.