planeshipcar,
Q1) There has to be medium somewhere. I think it would be unreasonable to ask a company to pay for your complete training costs due to the huge risk and huge cost. I equally think that a pilot shouldnt have to carry the burden of the entire training cost. I think paying up to £30,000 for an FATPL represents a good amount for the pilot to carry (whoever pays more than that is not doing their homework on FTOs properly) while the cost of type rating represents a good amount for the company to carry. As the company carries the cost for the TR, it would seem reasonably fair to give them a reasonable return of service. It is all about being fair, you cant "have your cake and eat it too" just as the companies shouldnt be able to have "their cake...." Its not rocket science but some people here think it is!
Q2) "We" is not me! People pay for a type rating because they see no other way of entering the aviation game due to their lack of skills (which would be why they have not got a job in a smaller operator) or lack of patience and ultimately because they have made an error with regards to thinking that the industry will acutlaly employ people with below 300 hours. These people have just failed to read the market correctly. As for the company, of course they can pay. It is a business cost that is tax deductable. The company just has to plan to incorporate a pilots TR, adjusts their prices appropriately and make whatever profit they can. Many airlines are their own TRTOs so its not hard for others to do it.
Carbheaton,
You dont get it my friend! The SSTR I am talking about requires you to pay, upfront, for a TR. When I talk about bonding, a bond, as most people know it, is where you dont pay a cent, you get trained and employed by the company and you serve out a period of time which allows the company to get value for money. IT IS FAIR FOR BOTH PARTIES INVOLVED! Pilot Pete summed it up well.
OSOP