A fool and his money are easily parted.... an old topic but with a new twist from OATS.
The marketing problem is product differentiation. Because the licence you obtain is the same, wherever you train, what might make you choose (and pay more at) A rather than B, C, or, in this case, O ?
Solutions seem to be:
Prospect of job- OATS are not the only culprits. No further comment other than you'll have to decide whether or not it's worth the extra, or anything, with no guarantee.
Superior student- This is the notion that you/their training are better, if you go there/pay more, which does raise the question of poorer commitment and attitude to students who are paying less. The alleged different treatment of sponsored and 'self-sponsored' students, sucking-up to airlines etc. are old complaints about many places.
In the case of OATS, isn't the fact that someone is paying significantly more, or less, than others a classic motive for better, or worse, treatment? If you were paying more, wouldn't you expect and insist on better? I would so you were warned !
It seems to me that OATS are simply marketing and attempting to increase profitability by means of another variant of that old pilot training trick -the more you pay the more likely you are to pass and, in this case, get a job. That is their business. Just as competent people do not need to spend over £7K for a PPL, you needn't waste over £70k on an ATPL with, merely, the prospect of a job. However, some people wouldn't pass either, even if they spent £700k !
A general observation is that the formerly cosy professional training market has become competitive and cut-throat and it seems that the old firms can't, or don't wish to, compete on price. They may still offer 'ordinary' courses, although even those are relatively expensive, but it seems that OATS now target those who could and might pay very much more than most. Whether any wery wich Wannabe who trains at OATS is sensible or stupid, in every sense, is a matter of opinion and individual ability.
BTW, am I the only one who finds the term 'self-sponsored' an insulting and laughable description of customers?
P.S. This is an interesting and useful topic for many, so don't be diverted by Moroner or the stooges.