I just don't see it, if you can't reach the required standard within the training environment at your particular airline then obviously there are consequences. With Air NZ desperate for A320 crew I can't see them going out of their way to 'fail' anyone.
The article to me seems to highlight a person who will not take responsibility for his/her own failings, instead looking for other reasons to blame. When I joined my first 'proper' airline the A320 rating had just been shortened from 14 sim sessions including check down to 10 sessions including check. The length of each session had also been reduced from 4 hours down to 3 hours, this was done as there was a massive training load on the A320 fleet. Most of us passed with a lot of hard work, a couple of guys failed and were offered some extra training that didn't go well and they were let go, age had nothing to do with it.
On the flip side of his/her argument, should the amount of training you get be reliant on your age or experience. O.K so he flew boeings his whole career, does that mean he gets special treatment when he converts to a non-boeing type, what about long haul to short haul, turbo-prop to jet. I assume when he accepted the transfer he did so with the knowledge of the length and type of training.