Peter,
For a bloke that is apparently as smart and widely experienced as you advertise yourself to be, why would you persist in such a ridiculaous comparison:
I take a 200 hour FO any day if he have received proper training, if he/she completed and AQP course with an airlines he is 1000 time better that a 1500 CFI.
Is anyone proposing that the "1500 CFI" would jump in the right seat with no training at all? Yet you insist on comparing him/her with a person who has "completed and AQP course with an airlines (sic)".
We are talking about prerequisite experience
at the entry point to airline training.
Notwithstanding personality and related suitability issues, would I rather have a candidate who has been trained in a rigorous integrated course or a person who has been essentially self-taught?
I'll take the former.
Would I rather have a candidate who has been trained in a rigorous integrated course and has been out in the real world for 1500 hours or one who did the same course but has no other experience?
I'll take the former.
What I really want is a candidate who has been trained in a rigorous integrated course and has been out in the real world for 3-4000 hours, who has flown in several different classes of operations and who has flown in pistons, turboprops and may be even a light jet, all with reputable operators who have provided solid training, good safety cultures and performance-based supervision.
Can we all just start comparing apples to apples in these debates, please?