RAT 5 post 238 makes a very good point. specifically:
"but what is the cost, risk & time spent on getting them onto the line and up to speed as safe pilots? An experienced type rated F/O can be released on line with 4-6 weeks max. A cadet from start of TQ training will take over 6 months. Where is the common sense in that. If an accountant can show the cadet scheme makes more financial sense them I presume the board will buy it, but is it really true? It does seem a daft model where experience is a penalty"
However I cannot understand why a company would follow something not financially viable, and to such lengths?
Surely it must have a financial benefit otherwise it would not be considered, after all accountants job depends on them getting the best out of what money they have to play around with. Why would any accountant worth his/her salt recommend something to the company that wasnt financially viable? In this capitalistic world this isnt going to happen
I believe you are right, but I dont understand how you are right ... if that makes sense.
I personally dont sign up to the "good attitude" "one stop shop" and "known training background" now any of the other old pony originated from the ftos (nor either the best of the lot - the impending pilot shortage) you dont get anything different from cadets in comparison to experienced new hires apart from the same mix of personas with good/fine/bad/appalling attitude, the only difference is the lack of experience and background.
Cadets are essential but the ratio to experienced guys has to be correct.
I am actually also interested in whether 300 pilots have left RYR? it is an interesting development if this is actually true.