It gets to the stage where the question amongst recruiters will be, " this guy is a far better candidate but cannot afford the endorsement but this guy wont make as good an employee and his Daddy is loaded......."
Which decision do you think the company will make?
By employing only those that can afford the endorsement does not put all pilots on an equal footing.
Just ask that individual that has a wife and kids, possibly a mortgage and no hope of an extra $25,000 loan.
What hope does he have?
In essence in this case that individual is effectively being discriminated against for commercial reasons and the fact that he/she cannot afford an endorsement.
I agree that if it is to be done that the bonding system is a better answer.
Leave within say 3-5 years and the company will zap you for an agreed amount (pro-rated of course).
Otherwise I believe the "pay for your own endorsement" to be a flawed system that discriminates against those that cannot for whatever reason afford it.
Imagine in Australia having to "pay" for a job in say the public service or the military?
What about having to pay a tradesman money to become an apprentice?
How long would that be tolerated by mainstream society.
Get real here guys.