As per Mr.Boeing's FCTM...

I haven't been with a US Carrier that trained Bounced Landing Recovery.

We do it at AA.

Exactly. Sim day 4??? "Landings sim." Bounced landings, increasing crosswinds up to max crosswind limits, short runways, heavy weights, etc. KSNA (5776'???) 20R single engine landing at max takeoff weight. KSNA 20L (2886'??) at max landing weight. < It can be done...barely!!!! It takes some cheating. "If you're not cheating you're not trying hard enough."

Why do the KSNA 'nonsense'? Divert fields can be very short. Barrow, Alaska is 6500' after the displaced threshold. 7100' of pavement. Guess where you're often going, even in the winter, if you're doing Polar Ops with an emergency?

And at least two other airlines that I can recall.

If the bounce lasts long enough that you have time to consider a GA, just do the GA.

Bounced Landing training is required every 36 months per FAR 121.423 as part of Extended Envelop Training.

Isolated though, bounced landings resulting in failed recoveries result in high "G" and or tail strikes. Training needs to emphasis the importance to recovery from bounced landings can be futile at best

Well aware of the training requirements.

§ 121.423 Pilots: Extended Envelope Training. Added I/A/W 67800 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 218/Tuesday, November 12, 2013 - Rules and Regulations

b) Extended envelope training must include the following maneuvers and procedures:

(5) Recovery from bounced landing.

Compliance for this CFR was no later than March 2019.

Deadhorse?

The point of bounced landing recovery training is to prevent a "failed recovery." There are two outcomes; either hold the pitch attitude and let the airplane land, or add power and go around. Anything else isn't a recovery; it's an exacerbation and the portal to pilot-induced oscilation. The MD11 is an outstanding example; with the highest accident rate of any transport aircraft to enter service, nearly every hull loss has been a landing mishap, nearlyk always the result of a pilot-induced oscilation. Simply put, don't do that.

I flew for an organization in a combat area that experienced an apallingly high number of damaged aircraft due to mishandled landings. Every instance was a military aviator, operating an aircraft outside his experience, and nearly every case was a bounce followed by a nosegear strike that progressed from bad to severe in one or two oscillations. Conversations with several of those yielded the same, predictable attitudes; they didn't take the airplane seriously. "It's just a ---," they each said. "No big deal." Then they each destroyed an aircraft.

There is absolutely NO reason a bounced landing should result in aircraft damage if one flies out of it, or in a minor case, allows the airplane to touch down again without excess flare. A salvage attempt is what leads pilots into trouble. Training does emphasize the importance of recovery. Poor responses contrary to training negate that value when pilots don't do what they've been trained to do. A single bounce and a recovery should be all it takes, because a bounce should never be allowed to progress beyond that.

In most cases, I agree. Operations in extreme weather conditions may dictate otherwise, especially the last 100' on final approach where a rejected landing may be appropriate.