Yes, but the first time one of these holes is cited as being crewed by what the public will believe is a 200 hour apprentice sitting in the right hand seat, there will be the inevitable clamour to stop putting the publics lives at risk. That is what has happened in the US, and inevitably it will eventually happen here.
If it is all about the quality of training, then why is it not as an adjunct to the experience requirement, rather than a complete substitute for it? Sorry rhetorical question, it is so that airlines can increase supply and thereby reduce costs in order to give themselves a commercial advantage. If they could register themselves in the Democratic Republic of Congo in order to take advantage of less stringent maintenance requirements and still operate in Europe, I don't doubt that one of the usual culprits would already have taken the lead.
What is so special about 200 hour pilots other than the fact they are desperate, cheap and readily available, that requires them to be flying in the right seat of a commercial airliner? It is not as if there is any shortage of experience in the marketplace. It is simply that if you eliminate this source of airline First Officers, that excess becomes significantly reduced as does the practice of diluting salaries to reflect the use of inexperience.
You are right, in that eliminating anyone with less than 1500 hours (in whatever type of aircraft) will not improve safety or stop accidents happening. However that won't matter in the publics or the legislators perception. Sky News and the Daily mail will be screaming from their pulpits "why are inexperienced pilots paying to sit in the right seat, or being utilized as cheap or contractual labour?"
I am not criticising whatever your airline does. It does this because it is allowed to do this, and therefore the fault rests squarely with the regulator. As this practice has spread throughout the industry so the terms and conditions for career pilots has been reduced. Your company is not valiantly trying to create jobs "for pilots who would otherwise be unemployed" it is doing what all companies do, that being to grow and maximize profits. It is fighting in a predatory and highly competitive marketplace. It is doing what it feels it needs to do, and can get away with to give itself a competitive edge. No, of course that isn't evil, that is simply business. Nevertheless busineses need regulation, and the use of practices that undermine the livelihood of people who do regard this as a full time career isn't going to meet with much support.
It is all probably academic in any event. I doubt Mr O'Leary painted "Say yes to the Lisbon treaty" on some of his 737's recently because of his love for the European Union.