Disingenuous!!!
That's the funniest thing I've heard all week! Cheers for cheering me up at least. If you knew me, you'd know I'm anything but. In fact quite the opposite.
To be frank they weren't the only two options, but they were the two most people are familiar with.
If in your opinion, cadets must shoulder some portion of the blame, then what percentage do you think they're responsible for? I've given up my opinion. Don't just sit there pointing fingers!
Semantics are semantics. Your argument about turbo prop guys and multi engine piston guys are still moot as they do still get opportunities with the airlines. Your opinion that they are "consigned" to the scrap heap is simply uneducated and incorrect. I do agree they should be given more opportunity though if that's a common agreement?
In respect to cadets, is paying for a type rating up front even considered a pay-to-fly scheme? I'm genuinely interested to know peoples thoughts. When I paid for mine there were no hours connected to it. In fact had I spent the next 30 years at easyjet would people still be angry towards me? Even though that initial investment would have been paid for ten times over.
I think there needs to be a clearer distinction between true pay-to-fly schemes, whereby you're paying a fixed amount of hours at an airline, and cadets trying to help themselves get onto the ladder. I still don't agree with the latter even though I've done it myself!