Transcendental,
You make a very well written advocacy of your argument, and it is clearly comprehensive, honest, and extremely valuable to the discussion. Although it is embedded in the post, you said:
So, if you bear all of the above in mind, you will see why I fundamentally disagree with the statement by a wannabe trainee that "Flexicrew was ideal" for cadets. It's not.
Which provided the context for what you have written in regards to this specific programme, and as it relates to this specific airline. The reason I mention that, is because I found myself reading the main body of your reply and frequently thinking to myself, "so what?"
I absolutely agree with you, and much of what you have written from your own experience and opinion as it relates to this particular programme, within the summary that it is significantly less than ideal for so many of the reasons you have eloquently highlighted. I don't want to do a
line by line discussion of what you have said, not least because it is unnecessary, and I wouldn't specifically disagree with your observations. However I would like to make a few points for general consideration.
The outsourcing of flight training by all airlines represents the major structural remodelling of pilot cost model.
That is most certainly not the case with most airlines, let alone "all airlines." Splitting this point into two parts.
Ab-initio pilot training is something that all but a handful of airlines have never had any "in house" involvement with. It has never been intrinsic to, or a part of their business. Most airlines have either recruited experienced pilots into vacant roles, or where the few that have had any
ab-initio or cadet programmes, nearly all have always sourced that side of the business to commercial flight training schools. In my lifetime I can only think of one UK airline that ever moved from an "in house" training school to an outsourcing of that business, and that was BOAC/BEA/BA Hamble, when it decided to close down that arm of the business. Beyond
ab-initio, most airlines do not outsource the vast majority of their flight training. It may well involve (and often does) the use of third party simulators etc. But the training is usually completely internal.
In the current model, of which CTC are a key part, airlines make near zero investment in pilots.
I would defer to your own experience in the specific example. However I would make the point that beyond that specific, most airlines often make a significant investment in both the pilots they employ and the cadets they may offer placements to. There are cost savings that negate the additional training burden, but if that were not the case, there really would be little incentive in such schemes.
Airlines do not spend anything up to the point that a CTC cadet sits in a flightdeck.
Again, outside of the specific example, I can tell you that many airlines do spend significant sums (simulator time, ground school, uniforms, induction and admin' fixed costs) before these cadets ever set foot in the flightdeck.
Prior to this point, almost every single cost is borne totally by the cadet, and all the risks attached to that cost are also borne by the cadet.
Yes! This is a
fast track route into an early airline pilot career apprenticeship. For the successful few it misses out many of the
stepping stone placements and jobs that other successful aspirants might spend many many years of equally if not greater risk, cost and hardship, in aquiring.
Under the current CTC TR arrangement, the TR funding is the only time "price" is shared between the cadet and CTC.
Again, and for clarity, in the specific example and not necessarily generally.
This specific arrangement is undoubtably "less than ideal" but as I have already pointed out (and you have to) it has pretty much been the only game in town for the last few years. Whatever its drawbacks and failings, and you highlight many, the reality is that without this "opportunity" there would have been almost nothing. Terms such as "holding pools" and all the problems that result from them, would have been replaced with "holding lakes...seas...and oceans" as "advanced training" came to an almost total grinding halt. That an outlet for such a large number of trainees was sourced at all had to have been a significant and positive thing, when other options and choices weren't there for the taking.
Nobody was or is forced into taking what you descibe as a "Flexislave" contract. Once their CPL/IR/AQC is complete, cadets can take the qualification into the public arena (good luck there,) or elect to take the placements that may exist and be offered at that point in time. They may not be ideal, but when they are offered, are usually a great deal more than is being offered to other 200 hour fATPL holders.
For anybody reading this thread and considering the career paths open to them, they should research, research and keep researching. No matter how many times so many of us say it, there are
no guarantees no matter how much you want them, wish there were, or consider it unfair that there aren't! There are significant (and for many people) enormous financial risks. It is an apprenticeship (at best) for the early years. The aquisition of a CPL/IR is not the golden ticket into the airlines historic and normal salary structure. Early success in obtaining an apprenticeship / placement, may very likely fail to cover your living/training/loan costs for some years subsequent to that placement.