I'm sorry flower, but I have to disagree. On nearly all counts. I doubt very much that college candidates are remotely as mercenarily money-driven as you seem to be suggesting.
It is made clear at the college that a "marked differential in pay" already exists between Approach/Airports and Area. However, many ab-initio trainees WANT to do Approach but are unable because courses are so small. I would have done Approach myself had the opportunity arisen, but it did not and I was packed off to LACC as an Area student. Sure, the money is nice now I'm there, but I'm not money-motivated to such a degree.
Do you remember the term "mobile grade"? The contract that you sign before they even let you set foot in the college. It means, "You will go where NATS tells you to go". Most students don't get a chance to "aim" for anywhere. They get what they are given. If that means a future earning a "pittance" at a Band 1 unit, then so be it. They can always hand in their notice.
I say "pittance" because that's just what it ISN'T. We are ALL paid well for what we do. We have ALL been offered an above-inflation pay rise. It seems that some of the more experienced ATCOs need to remove their heads from dark orifices and look around. Because they're becoming far too greedy.
Oh, and one other thing:
We haven't got a a hope in hells chance now of getting the right calibre into Airports have we, we will end up getting the also rans out of the college who couldn't make it on the area side not the high standard of trainees we actually require.
Where have you been? This has been happening for years already. If the trainees weren't of a high enough standard, they wouldn't make it out of the college full stop. The fact that some area failures are given the opportunity to do Approach is merely NATS trying to reduce the attrition rate and give promising trainees another shot.
LTP