That leaves only the simulator. Again, time and costs limits its use for other than regulatory requirements unless the operator takes the enlightened view that there is a cost benefit to scheduling regular pure flying practice because there is a flight safety spin-off in the long run.
Are you suggesting 6 monthly base training. Unnecessary & impractical. From diverse experience of multiple employers, and reading comments on Prune during the numerous discussions about this problem, there is no doubt a huge variety in operators' philosophies. Until 10 years ago all my operators, including B732733/737/757/767 either encouraged manual flight = approaches, or did not discourage it and left it to crews' own choice. More recently the opposite was true, aggressively. It was claimed to be a safety consideration. The observation was that the better the weather the more GA's were made due 'unstable at landing gate'. What a surprise as on line practice was not encouraged.
We hear there are airlines who encourage basic piloting skills and allow their use daily on line. Is their safety record any worse than the straight-jacket operators? I don't think so. It has become so bad that some operators, while allowing visual approaches, insist on an LNAV/VNAV construction and prefer use of automatics to guide the a/c to a medium finals. OMG! These airlines should not be allowed to advertise for 'pilots wanted'; rather wealthy trained monkeys. It is contrary to correct advertising practices and not in the interest of pilot welfare. It is an abuse to our profession.