Interesting how the thread has drifted but still, I suggest, within the bounds of "Terms & Conditions:.
I sought, only, to point in the right direction and give accurate advice. Accused of all sorts but, largely, got from this forum what I sought.
One has to be careful with terminology. I appreciate that nothing compares with the schemes of the 60's. ""Fully sponsored"- really ? ""Partial sponsorship", "Fully funded"-Whaaat-? Absolute minefield and even wealthy Moms & Dads need awareness that the pockets need to be much deeper than what the initial quote suggested.
Even "Cadet"schemes make me chuckle. I think the current BA, Fully funded Cadet scheme allows max age at entry close to the retirement age of what was in place, er, in my day.
Another "Fully funded"scheme required the successful entrant to ,actually, ""|self fund"" about 100k in order to guard against subsequent course failure Pass the course, and the "bang guarantee"" was extinguished by the ""|sponsor". Oh dear.
Asking in my opener what Airlines were seeking at entry, I suggested info I got of one airline asking for 50 quid just to look over a CV. Got a biff in the face even at that suggestion. Good Lord indeed..
I do have severe problems in guiding youngsters accurately when,often accompanying the enquiry will be requests for information on how I achieved it.
At one point in my career (sorry) but I served on the Selection Board when we "Partially sponsored"". Good grief. We took CPL holders (however achieved) and fully sponsored the twin rating, IR course and all subsequent airline training to RHS B737.
It's ok Keyboard warriors. All in the past and the present looks very unappealing to me. A view I will pass on to the Wannabees at the Taverna.