A couple of observations from a quick skim - more about the spirit of the proposal than the detail:
1. You'd like people to get jobs on merit, but propose a system where the people who've been qualified the longest have to be hired first. Seems to contradict itself. If human and (corporate) nature were different then we could have this equitable environment where everyone was equal and had the same crack at it but a look around in any profession will show that it's basically the same anywhere in any industry.
2. Standard fees for atpl exams - I thought they were standard? £55 each. Doesn't get any more standard! For once I agree with the CAA on this - the last thing they need is an excuse to hire another person to make sure that exam costs are proportional to the number of questions and the length. We'd pay for it anyway.
3. Minimum educational quals - not sure who is this meant to help. If people genuinely need a degree/A-levels/GCSEs or whatever they wouldn't pass the ATPL course anyway - i.e a self enforcing system, but anecdotally that doesn't seem to be the case.
I'm coming round to thinking that in fact the best guarantee of transparency and quality in training is this website!
SS
4. Businesses Promise More Than They Can Deliver Shocker - that's the natural tendancy of any competitive organisation, and if people spend £50k after believing it without checking then very hard luck. If you notice the "promises" are carefully worded anyway.
Apart from the CAA exams, I think competition between the training providers is our only real guarantee of quality. There's enough info in the public domain about all these places for everyone to make their own mind up. I personally would hate to see some new regulatory body we have to pay more money to that restricts our choice.