Are you honestly going to tell me that pilots under the CX C-scale are less able airman, display poorer airmanship, are less professional, and less capable of doing their job?
Are you honestly going to tell me that UA (presumably you mean United Airlines: you throw around a lot of acronyms and jargon, an unfortunate assumption on your part, but one of many) pilots are less able airman, display poorer airmanship, are less professional, and less capable of doing their job because of "dubious (unscrupulous) beancounters?"
If so, then you can't help but lie.
That is no lie and may indeed be happening though not by the mechanism to which you allude.
In Europe, a lot of wannabe pilots who have the financial resources are able to pay for an integrated course and then line training to move directly into the RHS of a jet.
These candidates may just think it’s cool to be a pilot and have no real passion for the profession and consider it a better alternative than going to university.
The airlines are exploiting this trend and the never ending supply of wannabe’s to lower T & C’s.
The FAA is effectively banning this practice by introducing the 1500 hour rule.
In Europe it is not only possible to purchase line training along with a subsequent job guarantee with some airlines but the competition for the RHS is forcing applicants to go this route or miss out and have wasted all the money they spent getting the ATPL.
This thread was initially asking whether these trends were resulting in a decline of airmanship.
It is a reasonable question but seems to have become a pissing contest.