Yet another reason I'm a proponent of airlines not doing their own in house cadet schemes. Everyone doing it the same way, and you wind up with a smaller bag of tricks. Inbreeding, if you will. Not a good thing.
By hiring pilots from a variety of backgrounds, you're less likely to be faced with the situation RAT5 mentioned.
There are a couple of questions raised there:
There is some sound merit, in quality, for having an external ATO doing the basic type rating introduction, even including engine failures etc. They would cover all basic handling and systems education in full. Then the company trainers takeover and add SOP's and use of company checklists onto the foundations built.
The last comment, about hiring experience from varied backgrounds to give variety of techniques, wouldn't work in the rigid SOP environment.
Since 60's there have been airlines that had their own training schools and took students from zero - frozen ATPL - line jet. They were groomed & steeped in company culture. They knew only the company way. I've been in >8 airlines in various countries, and been astonished how narrow those guys' thinking was about 'skinning the cat'. There was one way and, as they were the 'big boys on the block' with the biggest training dept', their way must be correct. Incestuousness in perfection. You'll find all the national majors are like that because once in no-one ever leaves. Some of them try to re-invent the wheel. (Prune readers will be familiar.) However, that is not to say it doesn't work. They have more resources and so their pilots have solid in-depth training on whatever type. The training dept' dictates the standards, and pays for it.
However, in the outside 'commercial' world of self-funding pilots the thinking is different. Incestuous cloning is on display, but sometimes the in-depth (time consuming more expensive) training of a/c handling & systems knowledge is missing. Rigid SOP's plus a rudimentary knowledge are deemed satisfactory.
In these days of improved reliability & infrastructure the statistics are what count. The romantic arguments by 'old school' are dismissed. I think the recruiters should be more honest with the dreamers. Today flying is all about a life style. Who you work for, what type you fly, what other types does the company offer, what progressions are available and even if it is an operator for a whole career.
Unless you are 'taken under the wing' from the beginning, cadets start on an expensive adventure to an unknown destination. Some are disappointed in the early years, but most adapt; they have to. It's good money at an early age, compared to other professions, but it can become mundane for some and not so glamorous or wiz-bang as expected. Zipping over the countryside VFR without a care was fun; even aerobatics. Then the world of automation and sitting up in the wild blue yonder for hours staring at little changing TV screens becomes your life.
I met many plots whose real enjoyment was not the work, but the time off and the money to use on leisure. Think how much emphasis is placed, by some pilots of limited experience in airlines, on a fixed roster pattern so they can plan their time off. The joy of going to work is less than the joy of days off. Then you hear of those who are so knackered that the days off are not so much for leisure and balance as for recovery.
I also have LH mates who play more golf down route than at home. The wife sees to that. There are those who have more adventures down route than on days off. They look forward to the work to bring them to their adventure playground.
Then there are the multi-sector days on end grind with only 1/2 a nights sleep each day. Chalk & cheese.
It's all about the life style on offer.