As some have brought this up:
Having flown with MPL and straight from school sub 200hr fATPL pilots, in my experiance there is little too choose betwean them so long as the selection and training have been done to a high standard. The MPL pilots had been selected by the airline, who then kept a very close eye on the training.
When the training is not of a high enough standard then the end product suffers as a result. In both schemes the actual flying is so low and in particular the solo flying, that it is almost irrelevant. This is where the MPL scheme scores because the sim training is directly aimed at the next step ie line operations, decision making, failure management etc etc.
This is a completely different subject to p2f.
Giles has raised career progression and as a refute has shown us how many turboprop aircraft there are in the uk.
However until recently no one was moving from dash8 to uk jet employment. The airlines almost all preferred low hour cadets. Therefore as a career move, joining a turboprop airline was a dead end. The only way out for many was a move to the sandpit. It is cheaper and more cost effective for the airlines.
Is it any wonder that wannabees go p2f?
There used to be bonding, no cost to candidate so long as they met their commitments.
Then pay up front but reimbursed over time so after 3 years no cost if you stayed.
Now in many different disguises candidate pays for all training, including TR and either pays or has a reduced salary during line training, reduced cost for airline or in some cases profit.
Decision making ability is meant to be a pilot skill yet there are guys out there with over €130, 000 debt and no realistic employment opportunities! Good decision
So back to topic.
Do we include 50% salary during training as p2f?