Perhaps you've missed my point, or I've failed to communicate it - an employer charging employees over the odds for a course or equipment in order to make a profit from them is not 'retail markup'. (Unless you're one of the management team responsible for these schemes, in which case you probably would call it 'retail markup' so you can sleep better )
Perhaps we need to rewind slightly?
Employees are not employees until they are
employed. If it is conditional that the
potential employee qualifies themselves (with whatever qualifications are necessary) before they can be employed, then whoever sells them that qualification and at what profit margin (if any) is entirely different. I am not part of the management team responsible for these matters. In the case of
our cadet pilots, we provide them with all of their training,
gratis! That includes the full type rating, allowances for the training course, hotel accommodation, uniforms, line training, etc. I think they may be expected to bring their own
Biro, but if they forget I am sure we would happy to provide that as well. I am also reasonably sure the management team have few problems sleeping at night, and if perchance they do, I doubt it is over the provisions we make for cadets.
Other companies may require that cadets or employees do satisfy specific criteria such as type ratings before they can be admitted or employed. They may well offer such qualification at cost, subsidized, or at full retail pricing. That is a matter for them, but it is only "P2F" in so much as any other part of the training that places the candidate in a position to carry out a job, as opposed to being incurred as a part of that employment, is. It is an important distinction and one that the Inland revenue (by way of further example) is also quite adamant about.
No, the difference in most other industries ('professions' is probably a better word) is that the priority is to get (and keep) the right people, not the cheapest people (or the people who can afford to buy their way in, which I think is more along the subject of this thread).
That isn't what happens. The fact that a candidate has fiscally resourced themselves through a very expensive course of training, most certainly does not obligate or commit the potential employer in any way to them. Unless they are also "the right people" and demonstrate the standards expected of them, they are simply let go. It is a very steep learning curve at this level, and the commitment and performance expected of the candidates is high. Nobody (on either side) wants failures, and the input control (selection, training, monitoring, mentoring) is extremely important. "Buying your way in" is irrelevant to the potential employer unless those other criteria are satisfied.
if we assume that the OP is not referring specifically to 'pay for hours' schemes, and is referring to the increasing practice of hiring 19yr old 200hr cadets to fly jets, then your observations would seem to support his original post - i.e. everyone should stop bashing it, because the practice works.
Yes. It does work. Again, and in our specific case, we balance recruitment across three sources. Those are: Cadet pilots from a recognised FTO; Experienced
type rated pilots looking for career advancement; and experienced
non-type rated pilots (including military leavers) looking for career advancement. Other companies will balance their own recruitment portfolios to suit their own individual requirements.
In the case of cadets, they are typically mid twenty year olds. Either university graduates, or (in some cases)
in-lieu of university trainees. A few are in their late teens, and a few in their Thirties and older. Referring to my reply in post number 74 again, I would agree that in essence the Original poster was right. That has certainly been our experience for a decade and a half, and continues to be.