Curious that one answer to what ever problems happen to be flavour of the month is to insist on more hours in RHS of large a/c. Then why has the EU CPL syllabus been reduced from, in my day 250hrs, to the current 148? That's 40% less aviating, less scaring yourself getting lost of nav ex's, less cross wind landings, less single pilot IFR training, less handling, less decision making less..less..
Why, if the answer now seems to be more, have the authorities allowed less at the very foundation phase? Is that too simplistic? I think not.
I still think there has been a risk assessment process whereby the authorities, in cahoots with the airlines, have decided that the rise in reliability of ATC, airfield systems = more ILS & radar, a/c technology, robust SOP's etc. will allow 150hr cadets in RHS. Those airlines that choose this 'cheap route' to training its pilots, generally have such an intense flying roster that after 1 year the cadets have been blooded enough, and survived, and hopefully learnt enough. (yet still there is a 30% CU failure rate). The other airlines, with more extensive in-house training, can tailor their crews to fit their own model and feed them in gently.
Part of this risk assessment process did not allow for total cockpit experience levels. Yes there are restrictions on F/O's <500hrs being teamed with low hour captains. However, with captains at 3000hrs I would consider them low houred until, perhaps 1000hrs LHS. That would be 18 months, commonly.
What restriction does your airline employ? If the raw cadet is going to embark on a steep learning curve it should be only with sufficient experience in LHS that they can be mentored and learn as an apprentice. Just think about apprenticeship schemes in other industries; they sure don't put them with some newbie. Blind leading the blind is not ideal in this world.