There is nothing wrong with either an integrated route to training or a modular route to training. In most cases the latter should prove cheaper as a route to licence aquisition because it can be done in broken stages and with the flexibility and pace that suits the student. In addition the modular route allows the applicant to pick and choose where they want to purchase the modular components. By and large the applicant has control over the training suppliers and their own progression.
With integrated training in the better recognised schools, there is a seamless continuation of training over a period of 15-22 months that involves an approved and recognised syllabus that in some cases uses teaching methods and operations that merge with those to be found in airline operations. This is something that many airline companies find particularly desirable in cadet pilots. They (the airlines) understand the syllabus and find it relatively easy to integrate cadets from these schools into their own training and operating regime. This is the reason that many of the airlines with low hour cadet schemes, affiliate themselves to one designated training provider and usually have little or no interest in applicants whose training background is undefined, patchy, incomplete, and not easily verifiable within their own requirements.
To understand this better, you need to take a journey back in history.
Airlines always sought the best applicants for their First Officer positions. The source of this supply was often a combination of ex- (and very well selected and trained) military pilots. In addition there were experienced general / commercial aviation pilots who had worked their own way up through the system. That system comprised pilots from approved courses and what were termed "self improvers". Sometimes airlines would approach the better and recognised training schools with a view to recruiting a limited number of direct entry "apprenticeships." However the majority of applicants would present with a few thousand hours aquired through aerial work (instructing, glider towing, photography, parachute dropping, banner towing etc.) Then on through air taxi work, or small turboprop operations.
Airlines never had a need or particular want for low houred inexperienced applicants. That was reflected in the standards they set for applicants and the remuneration they offered to successful applicants. Apart from a few lucky individuals, the competition took place between self improvers who had worked their way through the system to eventually arrive at this plateau.
So what changed?
Well quite a few things did over the next 10 years. Firstly legislative harmonisation meant that individuals who (in the UK) could instruct on a PPL with 150 hours experience and requisite ratings, could no longer do that. They now needed a commercial pilots licence, much in line with the requirements of other countries. In the USA the commercial "ticket" had never been viewed as an airline qualification. That requirement was (in it's most basic form) the ATP. However unlike the UK, the commercial could be aquired with just a couple of hundred hours rather than the 700+ hours required in the UK. In other words the US "commercial" licence was in essence an "aerial work" licence, and the experience levels reflected that. In the UK the commercial licence had a higher base hour requirement (save for a very limited number of approved training schools) and was indeed regarded more as a basic airline requirement.
The legislative changes however brought the UK system more into line with that in the USA and the rest of the world. In other words an ATPL with 1500 hours as a base requirement would likely reflect the normal basic and minimal entry requirement for most companies. The CPL would become the "aerial work" licence required for such jobs as "flight instructing" and the like.
There seems to be a problem of perception, in that many of these new 250 hour pilots see themselves as prime recruitment material for airlines, when that has never been the case.
What has happened in the last ten to 15 years is that a growing number of companies have expanded their recruitment portfolios to take on more cadet entry pilots. There is a cost advantage in doing this as the remuneration offered to these applicants is significantly reduced in the early years. These schemes are nearly all tied to a handful of integrated training providers, with the airlines themselves providing most of the "type" related training. The airlines are provided with significant benefits and safeguards with these schemes. In some cases applicants transfer sizeable bonds that are repaid to the recruit over a period of years. Applicants may be required to pay for part or all of their type training. The airline will have knowledge of the applicants training backround, profile and assesments.
Very few of these schemes are offered to low hour modular candidates The few that are, tend to be of the pay as you go variety, where the applicant assumes full risk for every aspect of their progression, and in the very few cases where employment may be offered, it is of the "self employed" variety with little or no security of tenure and none of the normal employee benefits.
Airlines seeking good First Officer material have a sizeable experience pool from which to draw from. They always have, and that is even more so in time of recession and consolidation, such as we are experiencing now. However a few companies have made cost cutting not only an art form, but in one or two cases pure entertainment. It doesn't take a leap of faith to understand that seeing profit in making passengers stand like half fallen dominoes, or paying to use the toilet, makes the prospect of doing away with one of the pilots completely, something to positively salivate at! Unfortunetaly (for them) that isn't a practical proposition. So they have utilised the next best course of action, that being to make the hopefuls pay to be there. As long as that situation persists it puts pressure on competitors to also reduce their similar costs. Ultimately the job ceases to be a job of employment, but simply a part of the customer experience.
The idea that most or indeed many 250 hour pilots are suitable material as airline first officers is simply a delusion. For those cadet programmes that introduce a limited number of applicants to a properly structured training programme, that is probably the best way to go. These programmes are expensive because they are through integrated schools with afflilations to the customer airline. For those individuals who cannot proceed through this route, modular is the other option. This route is likely to be much longer, difficult, and involve a greater degree of disappointment if airline flying is simply seen as the only end goal.