Bealzebub makes good arguments in favour of the system but that is because he is part of the system and therefore objectivity is difficult.
I don't think objectivity is difficult at all. Objectivity is defined as
a state or situation where something is based on facts and evidence and the ability to make decisions based on those facts and evidence rather than (your) own feelings or beliefs. I have presented only that evidence that I have factually observed by virtue of my own
experience going back at least a decade and a half. I have tried to avoid any feelings or beliefs and rely on what I would consider fact and evidence. That contention is supported by your own statement that the presentation amounts to "good arguments."
If I were going to move away from facts and evidence, I might opine that an
Airline Transport Pilots Licence should be the baseline qualification for an
Airline transport pilot. Given that this qualification (in the UK, USA, and most other countries) has
always had a 1500 hour minimum tariff, that might be regarded as reasonable. The trouble is that it is simply meaningless to the argument. In both of the cited accidents (AF447 & CO3407) not a single one of the crewmembers had less than 1500 hours. The Colgan captain had around 3,300 hours and the first officer 2,200 hours. On Air France the captain had 11,000 hours and the two f/o's 6,600 and 3,000 hours respectively. Not a single one of these pilots would have been precluded by a 1500 hour minimum tariff. The Colgan captain had a history of numerous failed check rides during his training and was regularly commuting some 1200 miles from his home in Florida. The first officer was also regularly commuting 3000 miles from her home in Seattle. Fatigue was cited as a likely contributory factor.
I suppose you could
whack up the requirements in the UK to a full ATPL and 1500 hours as a statutory minimum. That would add £70,000 to the
ab-initio training bill as you send them off to flog up and down the Florida coastline filling up a logbook. Would that experience make those "cadets" even safer pilots? You might think so, I have doubts that the experience gained would be relevant in most cases. Of course one resultant effect would be to eliminate a huge swathe of hopefuls who would now simply be priced out of the game. £50K plus £70K as against £80K plus £70K.
Experience didn't prevent either of these two exemplar accidents, nor has it prevented hundreds and hundreds of others over the previous eleven decades. On the other hand quality of training /examination and far more relevant training may well have done so. This is what we aim for with our cadet programmes and I am not sure we need to look West for leadership on that score. This is a training regime that has a 50 year pedigree in the UK.
Experience is one of those words rather like
discrimination. It comes in good and bad forms but is often mis-used to support a weak argument. Some of the examples given here simply don't provide evidence for the conjecture.