What I am stating is that a study should be done about all accidents in the last 20 years in which pilot error was a factor and look at what kind of experience those pilots had, and by "experience" I do not mean hours. Looking at recent random accidents and incidents (the last three LionAir, the AirAsia, the last RyanAir, AF447 and the Toronto AF crash, all involved pilot error (or so it seems so far for AirAsia) and all involved P2F or Cadets.
In light of this, I think a study should be done to look into the matter........
I just looked at your Australian study. This study compared lower time and higher time pilots in flight during the course of 287 flight sectors.
First officers were grouped into those with more, or less, than 1500 hours. For captains the divide between experienced and less experienced was set at 5000 hours. The study resembled a line-oriented safety audit (LOSA), where trained observers in the jump seat record the actions of the flight crew.
The study assessed pilots in technical skills, involving stabilized approach criteria, and non-technical skills, such as communication, situational awareness, task management and decision making.
This study does not touch at all at what why I am stating. What I am stating is that a pilot who spent 4000 hours flying several smaller/medium types including some as PIC, will generally turn into a better B737 or A320 pilot and will generally be able to make captain before another 4000 pilot who got hired at 200 hours straight into an A320 or the B737.
Why name and shame P2F airlines ? Because except for maybe a person or two whose motives we can only guess, I haven't found anyone that thinks this system is good and ought to be pursued. This practice is a threat to the pilot profession as I see it and needs to be stopped before it spreads to other airlines.