Kag,
If you read the second line to the reply you will see that I said:
Here is a reply that really doesn't answer your question, but it does highlight the point.
That point being, that it really is important to understand how to achieve the result that you want by the method you employ. I am no more concerned how "angry" it makes you feel, than the original poster "could care" less.
Clearly the jobs market is every bit as weak as you might expect it to be, and indeed it has been reported as being so for many years now. Aerial work type employment is out there (instructing, bush flying, etc.) but the competition is very intense as the lack of responses unscientifically bears out.
At airline recruitment level, the only real low hour openings are at cadet level, and by no means is that only restricted by pre-selection, however it is largely restricted to specific training programmes and methodology. It is a point that a lot of people clearly choose to ignore, nevertheless it is a counterpoint that deserves to made even if it is not invited to the party.
In summary, I did make it clear that the answer was a counterpoint to the question, and I didn't expect it to be a popular answer for that reason. The section concerning retirement attrition was also in direct response to the posters final comment. In point or counterpoint, the information is factual and might be useful to somebody reading the thread subject. If you don't like it, feel it is irrelevant, or wish it were something else, then simply ignore it. The trouble is of course, that it niggles for a reason.