I am mildly surprised, to put it lightly, at the defensive attitude being adopted by some here, which seems to centre on failure to accept one basic principle.
The basic requirement to crew your aircraft with the most suitable (generally speaking most experienced) crew available is being sacrificed at the altar of converting a cost into a revenue stream.
P2F P4TR ? ? Norm, it doesn't matter.
Ryanair would argue that it is easier to take a brand new guy and "educate" him in the ways of Ryanair than "uneducate" him out of his former ways, but they (and you & I ) know that this half fact is just so much BS to divert attention away from the plain fact that TR's are a nice little earner.
Is it safer to crew your aircraft with one of the many experienced F/O's on the market, or safer to have large swathes of the fleet running around with breathless line trainers accompanied by steely eyed youths several nautical miles behind the airframe ? It's a no brainer there, experienced TC's or not (and some of them in that "other" loco are anything BUT experienced, many of the LT's there are VERY new Capt's whilst many of the old hands can't be bothered with the aggro for the small amount of extra dosh on offer) the safer crew will be the one with the overall greater experience.
What makes Easy and some other companies actions so morally repugnant, is that they go one stage further than the Ryanair idea of turning a cost into a revenue stream. As far as I am aware all Ryanair cadets are offered a contract (albeit through an agency, and albeit with the distinct possibility to work less as they become more expensive with hours gained) after they complete, to the required standard, their training.
The easy system appears to thrive on flooding the market with 300/500 hr F/O'S to simply then replace them with another revenue generator.
Just as the guy actually gets some experience he is dumped, as he is no longer actually generating income (working for peanuts ain't enough these days
)
A useful by product of this morally bankrupt policy is that the market is becoming flooded with barely qualified guys, so they are certainly unlikely to be in a position to demand better terms anytime soon.
If it wasn't so disgusting on a human level you could almost admire the elegance of this "solution".
How anyone is able to even begin to see a defensible side to it is beyond me. It is totally and utterly immoral ,thieving from those who should (by virtue of their chosen career ) know better than to fall for it, and I include LTC's in this, because you, are being robbed of your experience and effort, not to build a better safer crew complement for your chosen employer, but to generate additional income.
And, most importantly, it puts revenue before safety, that is incontestable.
A hard working LTC constantly accompanied by some poor debt ridden sod, struggling to survive, unable to pay the rent , and unable to know when he will next be paid (or how much ) cannot in anyones mind be as safe as a properly rested complimentary (in experience) crew with a full time contract.
This other stuff sucks, and it is high time it was sensationalised (it doesn't need much mind you) and fed to the less scrupulous members of the press to regurgitate into something very damaging to the scumbag companies concerned.
