Firstly, let's differentiate between the good and the bad:
Line training is in itself absolutely nescessary. The structured move from out-of-the-sim-ready, to being line qualified, to being an experienced FO allowing pairing with fresh skippers should IMHO be a systematic process. Who are we kidding when we think that 50-odd hours of a flight simulator will prepare an FO for everyday operations?
Then there's "line training". I see an ad about 10cm above what I'm writing, where Eagle Jet offers "300 and 500 hour options avaliable". What the ****? What determines the length of the line training? If you're not ready to be released to any line captain in 300 hours, what difference will another 200 make? This to me has nothing to do with line training, and everything to do with exploitation of those willing to pay to "skip the queue".
We see that the common denominator in most (recent) accidents and incidents is pilot error, in some form or another. We're talking about a lack of proficiency is a lot of relatively basic flying skills - and I'm not surprised! 8 hours in the simulators every year? That's just barely enough to run through each required maneuver one or two times; as far as I can see not even close to enough required to practice and become proficient and confident. The harsh reality in a competitive market is that the regulations will be the lowest common denominator. No company can simply afford to surpass the standards to any great extent for a lengthy period of time. This didn't use to be the case pre-deregulation (from what I've heard from my superiors).
To me, the answer is simple: we need better regulation. And I'm not talking about minor adjustments; not tinkering with doing 3 V1-cuts instead of 2, not raising the min.required hours for CPL issue from 190 (or whatever it is for an integrated program) to 200. I'm talking about a major restructuring of the way we think about training. Sim twice a year? How about 4 times, 6 times a year? Or how about doing 2-3-4 training passes before every (O)PC? A combination? How about getting regulators with enough balls to tell shoddy companies with a large pilot turnover (read: paying for line training) that not keeping experience in the airline is a safety issue? Outlawing paying for flying?
Oh, but the airlines will cry and say it's not economically viable, and everyone will go bust. Well - as long as it applies to everyone, no one is unfairly disadvantaged, except the £10 holidaymakers which now will have to pay perhaps £12. Remember that the crew cost only makes up for about 20% of the airfare.
Oh, but the higher prices will deter the public from flying, and jobs will be lost, the pilots cry. Yes, basic economic theory says that when the price increase, the volume will reduce. Perhaps a slight overall price increase will stop "one or two" members of the public from flying. Remember however, two points: firstly, travel is not necessarily a luxury commodity. I agree it's not like food, water or energy, but air travel is necessary in today's society. Just like people won't stop driving their cars just because the gas price goes up (they say they will, but no one does), people won't stop flying alltogether. Secondly, if pilot jobs will be lost, this may be an acceptable price to pay. Having a pilot job is not a human right. Every organised pilot knows that it's not worth doing if the price isn't right. What the right price is is a whole different story, but it surely as hell isn't negative.
You can't really blame the airlines. It's a competitive market, and every sensible manager will do the best to balance employee interest with shareholder interest, while staying legal. While we pilots are quick to judge our superiors for being in the pockets of the shareholders, we need to remember that without shareholders there would be no airline -- go ahead and try to privately fund a startup and see how it goes. We are working for the shareholders, ultimately, but as I said -- we shouldn't do it if the price isn't right. It's the regulator we need to push, not the companies.