When it comes to the airlines, there shouldn't be an "industry" taking huge sums from trainees (or their parents) and putting them in the right-hand seat of an airliner after a couple of hundred hours of training. In my opinion, it should either be like the CTC of old with it's 3% acceptance rate, very high placement rate and available funding, or CAP 509-style with full airline funding. I think the demise of CAP 509 and the arrival of a 200 hour "aerial work" CPL replacing the old 700 hour one has dented T&Cs massively by flooding the supply side of the market, strengthening the demand side's hand massively.
As I've said on here many a time, I work on the railway. A few train train operating companies here in the UK have agreed to pay their off-the-street trainees the same (or nearly the same) salary as fully qualified drivers part-way through training. Why? There's a shortage of perennial shortage of drivers driven by the fact that all training must be done in-house, it gives the union a bit more bargaining power. A similar thing happened with newly qualified drivers at another place, shortage of instructors meaning training took longer, the union said, "well, you should be giving them back-pay once they qualify" and the company indeed did that. People were getting £30k payslips the month they got their key.
That's what you pilots could do if the supply/demand situation was in your favour. A lot of people have mentioned supply/demand situation in the US airline market context but wherever it favours the supply (employee) side, you're onto a winner!
Last edited by Chris the Robot; 17th Jan 2020 at 18:08.