KRUSTY, an interesting post much of which I agree with, especially in regard to the destruction of terms and conditions which is destroying the profession of airline pilot.
The US experience is very informative in this regard as their environment is very similar to Australia; a large GA sector feeding into the airlines. However, following deregulation and the rapid expansion of regional carriers and cutback of legacy airlines there was a demand for pilots which could not be met through the traditional means and this led to the growth of airline schools where training was to a price and not necessarily a standard. At the same time terms and conditions were drastically eroded in the legacy carriers and regionals paid a pittance. This set the scene for a number of crashes and incidents in the US which can be attributed to a lack of professionalism for want of a better word.
In contrast Europe has followed the school path of training airline pilots for a long time. By that I mean all of their training has been directed at the single purpose of flying multi-crew transport category aircraft. Many of those cadets who started in the right hand seat of single aisle jets and turbo-props with hours that cause heart palpitations in Australia have now progressed successfully to commands and this is in an environment that is far harsher than Australia. I suggest that this is because their training is more rigorous than either similar schools in the US or Australia.
I believe the approach that Jetstar have embarked upon is wrong. Not that a cadetship won't work but the training regime they want for their cadets is the same that would be applied for a pilot coming out of GA. It is the lowest cost approach and it won't work with ab-initio cadets. It only works where the candidates have a generous background experience level. Incidentally, I don't think Jetstar will attract masses of Gen Y candidates as the lure of being an "Airline Pilot" is much tarnished these days and not desirable in the way it was for past generations.
The US 1,500 hour minimum is a very broad approach (incidentally I believe the legislation also contains provisions to reduce that minimum where training has been conducted at approved schools). It might, as you suggest, make pilots with the required experience levels more valuable and raise salary levels but I expect that it will only make certain schools far more attractive for students.
I believe that there is going to be a shortage of suitable pilots in Australia in the not too distant future. I know this is contentious but for those who argue that there will always be a surplus I suggest that they are looking at their own experience in the past rather than the present day situation.
In the light of a future shortage the airlines are going to require some way of gaining their numbers more quickly than the traditional GA route and they will increasingly turn to cadetships. I suggest that the Australian Senate inquiry could do far worse than to mandate more rigorous training standards rather than the blunt axe approach of minimum hours which is still no guarantee of adequate skill.