I have no axe to grind here, but...
Sounds like a bit of Trolling here
Could be, but this Old Fogey chap at least puts forward an argument (debatable as it might be) in a syntactically and grammatically correct way, which is not typical of trolling.
So in that spirit, and purely out of curiosity, regarding this statement:
Yes, I know the airlines prefer 1500 hours, and there's lots of those guys around, but if you can impress your training airline in those 300 hours, and you've obviously been trained of their SOP's so don't need to be retrained like the 1500 hour guy, then MAYBE they will offer a permanent job
I wonder if Mr. OF could explain why an airline would want to fill that position with an employee when that would mean one less slot available for them to fulfil their contractual obligations with the training provider, who keeps sending paying trainees to them (with both training provider and airline making a profit in the process). This point has been raised many times here and it'd be interesting to see a refutation from someone with a diverging opinion who at least can spell (which makes for a welcome change if nothing else
).
As I said, just curious.