There is another issue which is very prevalent and maybe you don't see as much as we do.
That alot of the fallout from both sets of training should never have started training in the first place due to being completely unsuited to being a professional pilot. These types the go modular recommendation is more of a damage limitation exercise than anything else.
Yes you're right, we don't see it. Why? Because the methodology of this type of cadet course screens out most of that type of applicant at the selection stage. The few remaining would be eliminated during the course (hopefully at an early stage.) The nature of these integrated training courses means that a candidates progress and their entire training history can be both monitored and mentored. There are certainly failures, but they are relatively few. Some schools operate a partial guarantee policy whereby somebody who is failing to make satisfactory progress can recover a significant proportion of their fees. The partner airlines are looking for the best candidates, not those who "drop out of the bottom" with whom you appear to be more familiar.
looking back 15-20 years when direct recruitment was almost completely ex-military and self improvers (at the 2000-3000 hour entry level,) the later group had a much higher attrition (failure) rate during training than seen today with
ab-initio cadets. These programmes take what are very obviously very inexperienced pilots and put them on an extremely steep learning curve. Having seen the results of that for the last 15-20 years, it has produced some very fine captains, training captains, and management pilots. This isn't an experiment, it is an established route.
Let the airlines pay for there own training system if that's what they want.
They already do in most cases. We certainly do. However, the cadets pay for the training that puts them in a position to be cadets. If they are successful there are schemes agreed with HMRC that enable their training bonds to be repaid to them as a salary sacrifice. This (albeit after the fact) enables the majority part of their training costs to be paid mostly free of income tax. These schemes last for up to 7 years. Different airlines have their own arrangements, but we (and we always have) pay for the cadets type rating and
all of their advanced training. If they fail to complete that training (which would be very rare) or we couldn't offer them employment at the end of their placement period, we would eat those training costs. Likewise we pay for uniforms, car parking, training living costs, hotels, flight and duty pay, medicals, insurances, etc. Once an employment contract is offered the cadet moves on to a "cadet salary" for the first two years or (more likely) until they have 1000 hours. At this point they join the normal salary ladder at whatever would have been the normal point based on their length of service. (year 1 or 2.) The point being, that we do pay for our own training system. That is quite distinct from paying for the cadets pre-placement
ab-initio training. That is their responsibility.
Our cadets (post probation) are earning a basic salary of £1000 per
week. Plus flight pay, duty pay and all the normal allowances and enhancements. Of those that took out loans to fund their training (of up to 10 years) most are (quite sensibly) repaying them over a 5-7 year period.
Now before you exude your usual chant about how these are the lucky few for whom so many have to throw themselves on the bonfire to keep the schools in business, let me say that yes they are the lucky few. However other airlines (with their own terms & conditions) also take their own "lucky few". In fact most of the graduates of the schools we utilize, do find airline placements within 0-18 months of graduation. Applicants to those schools who are not selected for the
fast track courses, may be offered a similar course whereby their actual performance during the course overrides the initial selection criteria, and they can qualify for airline placements on conclusion. The risk is greater (as you might expect) but the opportunity is there.
I am afraid that it is simply a fact of life that most businesses rely on turnover, volume, and profit, in order to stay in business. If you go and speak to somebody in your head office, you will almost certainly find that this applies to your company as well. Take any flying school, anywhere in the world, and you will find that those who succeed are in some part being funded by those who don't. That success is largely dependent on the luck, ability and resource of the candidate.