Peeps,
Let me try to explain a few things very quickly.
1. The Pilot selection process for the US military (as if for most armed services in the world) is such that even before applicants start their flight training, they have gone through an aptitude of various tests. And once they commence with flight training they are held to VERY high standards and their progress is monitored VERY closely. And a LOT is expected of them. And the washout rate is high. Much different standards then for a person walking into a flight school who just starts taking flying lessons and gets his CPL
2. I am a Yank, but I am assuming the Lufthansa scheme you are talking about is similarly fashioned like that of military flight training. Lufti pays for the students training. The student undergoes a battery of different tests before he/she is accepted into the program, and once in the program their progress is monitored very closely.
Let me use an analogy to try to explain why P2F is wrong.
If you graduated with a degree in aeronautical engineering and Boeing offered you a job to work for them, would you take it? Absolutely you would.
Now imagine you graduated with a degree in aeronautical engineering and for you to get that job with Boeing you have to shell out $50,000 and they only guarantee employment for 6 - 12 months? Would you take it? I know what my answer would be. I am assuming yours would also be no.
So my question is why then would P2F be acceptable, while the above would be considered reprehensible of the employer?
Last edited by TheBigD; 27th Jun 2013 at 14:14.