Tallbloke
6th Aug 2005, 12:13
Following on from a discussion elsewhere, what are members thoughts on the use of the word sponsorship when describing self funded training schemes which are linked to airlines? While full and part time sponsorships (where all or part of the cost is met by someone other than the student) still exist, should FTOs be using part of their marketing intellect to present self funded schemes in a manner which seperates them from sponsorship that includes funding.
I am fully aware that post 9/11, the rise in fuel prices and the emergence of low cost carriers, airlines have had to trim their overheads in order to survive. This has neccasarily meant that training has been reduced to what is legally required and there is no longer any budget for cadet schemes (at least not in the UK, I believe both Air France and Lufthansa both still run cadet schemes in Europe). I am also aware that for the most part airline recruiters believe their will never be a return to traditional "old" sponsorship schemes" and that "new" sponsorship schemes are the best we are likely to see, at least in the short to medium term.
On the other hand, some people still find the use of the word sponsorship disingenuous when refering to "new" sponsorship and that perhaps FTOs should consider describing these schemes in a way which makes some clear differentiation between the old and the new.
From what I have read elsewhere, the argument of the FTOs is that the meaning of the word has changed and it is peoples perception that must change, not the product description, which sounds like marketing speak to me.
Personally I am well aware of the state of the world and how the training market has changed, and I take everything I see in an advert with a pinch of salt anyway. I am not trying to knock these schemes nor am I criticising those who are involved with them, in fact I can only admire the commitment of someone prepared to take on the debt required to embark on such a scheme. Furthermore I think that contact with an airline before the commencement of training is to be encouraged and that FTOs have had to work hard to get this. I would be interested to know the thoughts of others though.
I am fully aware that post 9/11, the rise in fuel prices and the emergence of low cost carriers, airlines have had to trim their overheads in order to survive. This has neccasarily meant that training has been reduced to what is legally required and there is no longer any budget for cadet schemes (at least not in the UK, I believe both Air France and Lufthansa both still run cadet schemes in Europe). I am also aware that for the most part airline recruiters believe their will never be a return to traditional "old" sponsorship schemes" and that "new" sponsorship schemes are the best we are likely to see, at least in the short to medium term.
On the other hand, some people still find the use of the word sponsorship disingenuous when refering to "new" sponsorship and that perhaps FTOs should consider describing these schemes in a way which makes some clear differentiation between the old and the new.
From what I have read elsewhere, the argument of the FTOs is that the meaning of the word has changed and it is peoples perception that must change, not the product description, which sounds like marketing speak to me.
Personally I am well aware of the state of the world and how the training market has changed, and I take everything I see in an advert with a pinch of salt anyway. I am not trying to knock these schemes nor am I criticising those who are involved with them, in fact I can only admire the commitment of someone prepared to take on the debt required to embark on such a scheme. Furthermore I think that contact with an airline before the commencement of training is to be encouraged and that FTOs have had to work hard to get this. I would be interested to know the thoughts of others though.