I am not familiar with J*'s training system nor until this thread took much interest in the pay for training condition of their employment. But I am now a little stunned by the implication that this case displays. It would appear that J* has no training risk what so ever, if a trainee fails there is no financial loss to the company. How can they be a responsible partner in a pilot's training when they don't share the risk? Is there any incentive to provide extra training where it might be needed? And what of the added pressure on a checker if he/she knows that chopping a trainee will cost them big dollars. I know that you can't have poor performers flying the jets but it is another pressure on the checker none the less.
In my experience there are two main reasons people fail a course of training. One is the training provided to them was inadequate for the task and the second is they should not have been selected for the course in the first place. Both of these responsibilities rest with the company yet they would appear not to have any obligation attached. There will always be some people who fail a course despite the best selection process and the best training offered to them and that's a good sign that the required pass standard is set about right. But that is a risk attached to the training system, and should not be carried by the individual because it is then in direct conflict with that system.
Where is Australian aviation heading??