Talk:Pay to fly

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2015
There is another pay to fly provider:

http://www.intex-aero.de/line-training-new/

The broker behind is Sky4u Aviation in Germany, they are selling Type Rating A320 plus line training for 85.000 EUR plus screening fee of 595 EUR.

Flyer2006 (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Nthep (talk) 11:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Accept.svg Thank you Flyer2006. Intex-Aero/Sky4u has an entry in the p2f table by now. Should you find reference of their "Type Rating A320 plus line training for 85.000 EUR plus screening fee of 595 EUR", make sure to add it in the article and transmit your elements to the people behind cockpitseeker.com.CockpitSeeker (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Clarification needed over revision dated May 1st 2016‎
Ninetyone, your time on Pay to fly is appreciated. Your revision stated :

In good faith, instead of undoing it, these are my respective remarks :
 * Removal of my opinion (CockpitSeeker) on Pay to fly is what got the article approved in the first place by Aerospeed after one rejection. As a result, article currently displays structured referenced material only : quoted pros and cons from a diversified range of stakeholders, statistics, news reports etc... which are exempt from my feelings/opinion by nature. Besides, "on the issue of « pay-to-fly » [...] the European Commission met ECA and Cockpitseeker on 18 June to collect their views and evidence", which ranks de facto the opinion of the cockpitseeker.com as expert in my books, among other sources.
 * The Pay to fly topic is not exotic, on TV alone, France covered it 4 times  , Belgium twice  , the Netherlands once , Portugal once . What might appear original research is in fact largely disclosed and exploited in the mainstream media, including the press, and I am willing to elaborate.
 * Of current 125 references, it is my belief secondary sources are largely present (need I mention them all ?), even tertiary sources (e.g. French Senate report, I forgot to add the Ghent University study by the way).

These reasons are why I tend to not comprehend the aforementioned revision and request clarification. Thank you in advance !

What is "it"?
The referent of the word "it" is not clear at the end of the 1st paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.165.22 (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)