Well, that’s a point of view James.
In this case, the training is partially secured by way of a bond which is fully refundable to the cadet throughout the term of their employment.
The bond does not cover the full costs of the training; the sponsoring airline is paying directly for the latter portion.
What you are obviously objecting to is the fact that the salary of the cadet entrant will be lower than that a qualified and experienced pilot could expect from the same airline, and that the airline is using this ‘saving’ to partially offset its training costs.
However, take a step back. Would you describe, for example, the old (pre-11th Sep 2001) BA cadet programme as a ‘sponsored’ programme?
Most would answer ‘yes’.
However, in that case, BA paid a reduced salary for 5 years to cadet entry pilots to offset some of their training costs. Using your critique this was therefore not a sponsored programme at all, but called that only to “attract the naïve”. The only real difference with, for example, our programme or CTC’s, is that BA did not require a bond to secure the training costs (and therefore were exposed to the risk of a sponsored cadet leaving before their training costs were amortised).
What about the ‘old’ Aer Lingus cadet programme? Was that sponsored?
Again, most would answer ‘yes’.
However, in this case the cadet paid for the first part of their training themselves (£31,000 from memory), and the costs of the ‘sponsored element’ were offset by the airline by paying a lower ‘cadet entry pilot’ salary, when compared with experienced ‘Direct Entry’ pilots. Note: the only way into the airline for an inexperienced pilot was through the cadet programme, and therefore when comparing salaries one is comparing an experienced ‘DEP’ with an inexperienced ‘CEP’.
The fact is that 300hr pilots can generally command much lower salaries than experienced FOs, and this is the sort of rate paid by most airlines for cadet entrants. Plus, in some cases, the cadet’s training bond will be paid in addition, plus a contribution to interest on any loan they might have taken out to raise the bond. Plus the airline may be paying directly for the latter part of the training.
If you are a Wannabee struggling to find a job, I suggest that sounds like a pretty good deal.
Personally, what I do find objectionable is a ‘sponsored programme’ which has no sponsors in sight. Hence our policy that we will not accept applications to our sponsored programmes until and unless we have identified places with sponsors.
This is the definition of ‘Sponsor’ I got from
Dictionary.com
spon•sor (spŏn'sər) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. One who assumes responsibility for another person or a group during a period of instruction, apprenticeship, or probation.
2. One who vouches for the suitability of a candidate for admission.
3. A legislator who proposes and urges adoption of a bill.
4. One who presents a candidate for baptism or confirmation; a godparent.
5. One that finances a project or an event carried out by another person or group, especially a business enterprise that pays for radio or television programming in return for advertising time.
On that basis, and what I’ve said about how the programmes work, I feel fully justified in describing the Sponsored Pilot Programme and Sponsored Instructor Programme as such; what differentiates them from the self-funded courses is the involvement of a sponsor.
But I respect your right to disagree.