I have no wish to get involved in the rights and wrongs of 'pay-to-fly- schemes. However, I can't help but feel that the safety concerns with regard to low-houred 'pay-to-fly cadets' is being exaggerated. Safety must be the number one priority of all airlines and I fail to understand why a low-houred 'pay-to-fly' cadet should not be safe. For many years airlines have employed low-houred cadets.
In 1987 British Airways introduced a sponsorship scheme for cadets age over 18 and under 24. A genuine interest in flying by applicants was considered more important than actual flying experience. The British Airways training involved CPL/IR and a 'frozen ATPL' followed by a Type Rating on a BAC 1-11 or Boeing 737. British Midland Airways and Britannia Airways also operated Bursary Sponsorship schemes for those age 18-26.
With the obvious difference of not having to pay for the sponsorship schemes, it seems to me that there is no difference between the trainig undertaken by sponsored cadets in the 1980s and 1009s and those who have embarked on the current 'pay-to-fly' schemes. Many of the cadets currently on 'pay-to-fly' schemes are surely of a standard that 10-20 years ago would have seen them accepted on a sponsored scheme.
There were well trained low-houred sponsored cadets in the 1980s and 1990s and there are well-trained 'pay-to-fly' cadets today. I fail to understand why the low-houred cadets of today are considered less safe.