angelorange - You said
Code:
A low houred BA cadet (full sponsorship and payback £25k over 5 years) is a very different kettle of fish to todays £120k in debt CTC counterpart. The former were supported every step of the way, the latter were promised much and given the minimum by the likes of EZY.
I have to disagree with your analysis of the differences between the BA & CTC cadet. First of all, a significant number of BA cadets were never 'full sponsorship' - they were picked up at the end of their self-funded training at Jerez, Prestwick, Oxford or wherever was in vogue at the time. Those that were 'full sponsorship' were exactly the same sort of people who won their way onto CTC schemes. Indeed in better times they would have been on those courses at BA rather than CTC, but such options were not available to them when they started training. So even if a few, but by no means all, were 'supported all the way', I do not see how that makes the final product a 'very different kettle of fish'. They were low-houred pilots being given access to big money jets at a very young age. They were by definition 'high risk' and BA are no different from easyJet in accepting that risk. Once again, I need to emphasise that the reason I am questioning this line of argument is that to protest against p2f as it has been called, the argument must be cogent and clear. The awful truth is that there are great similarities between the 2 companies - what is not similar is the transfer of the burden of risk to the aspiring pilot rather than the company.