"...but a cadet with 400 hours in a A320!?!??"
um? Don't all cadets and other "learner drivers" start off in single engine light aircraft and work their way up? Get their hours and THEN go on and get the type rating afterwards?
Whether the "cadet" is civilian or military and then graduates onto jets; the "experience" they have hour-wise is pretty much the same.
I think there might be a bit of jealousy out there among some of those who aren't happy about newbies graduating straight into the front end of a jet after training (military or civilian). Either you're good enough to get a military "scholarship" or else you fork out the $ and pay your own way; you have a choice.
The erosion of Terms and Conditions that might result from "cadets" paying for jobs is the real problem. Not the perceived lack of "experience" of the low-hour jet pilot (is there any difference between the newly graduated military cadet in the F18 or the newly graduated cadet in the A320?). If a percieved lack of experience was really the problem, I would think there would be massive insurance type issues to be considered by the employers of "cadet scheme" pilots. (Oops, he crashed the F18 because he lacked experience; he should have gone the GA route before he flew a jet......?????). If the military think it is ok for a raw "cadet" to do the training and graduate onto a jet; it is probably ok. I expect the training a cadet (for an airline) would be similarly intensive and by the time the cadet graduates; he/she would ready to fly that particular aeroplane. I can't imagine a major company taking what would be an enormous risk otherwise; perhaps I'm wrong?
If the erosion of Terms and Conditions isn't being addressed by those affected, then that would be your own fault wouldn't it? I don't advocate "cadet schemes" but I would think that if it was wrong, it would be a matter for a "union" of pilots to take up. Is anyone out there doing that?
It is the "paying for a job" that is the problem (not the percieved lack of experience). If the authorities (CASA etc) don't have a problem with "cadets" as pilots in RPT aircraft; then maybe there needs to be a lobby group (union) that puts a GOOD argument forward to prevent these schemes going ahead and therefore, ultimately destroying Terms and Conditions for everyone else?