Hi Scroggs
I understand the idea of sponsorship in the old sense of what BA offered no longer exists but even when it did there was no guarantee of a job and failing the course was still possible, albeit with no financial risks (no semantics I promise!).
As you rightly pointed out the idea of sponsorship has become diluted since those days, and the training/employment risks are now also on the wannabe. I completely agree there are financial ramifications involved with CTC. But, they are not as bleak as you make out, and certainly not on a par with OAT as your post suggested. With CTC you are not liable for the first 30k spent on training should you fail, and Im sure you would have a good idea of how you were getting on by the time that much has been spent. I agree its no BA, but to say it is not at all sponsorship is surely slightly fallacious.
Believe me, when I say sponsorship I fully understand it in its modern form. Nonetheless I stand by the the fact that CTC should be the first port of call due to its financial connections with the airlines.
As for HSBC I still believe it to be at least an indication of the difference in job prospects between OAT and CTC. However I fully apologise for my assumptions in research undertaken by banks. I just really fail to see why anyone would not attempt CTC first as it offers vastly greater job prospects (statistically). This thread is called 'Oxford or CTC' afterall.
I completely agree with what you said at the end of your post, and I did not mean to sound brash; I just see OAT and CTC not as two different training schools (like the orginal poster suggests) but as two very different methods into the aviation industry.