the strict timeline can be a lie. yeah, on paper, you have a 3 year plan, but it fails most of the time so students wind up taking unpaid years to finish.
I did my PhD in The Netherlands. In my field (computational linguistics), the majority of people finished within the allotted four years. The working conditions are good: PhDs are generally employed as regular employees with vacation money and 13th month. The teaching duties were very light (typically TAing and later teaching one 7-week course), giving you a lot of time to focus on research.
Same in France: all the PhD students in computer science I know have finished in 3 years, or 3 years and 6 months (you can request a 6 month extension). You can't carry on after that duration because you have to be funded and be full-time (so no side job).
FWIW, these (IMHO absurdly) short PhD programs basically mean you need to do a postdoc for your CV to even be competitive with US CS PhDs -- assuming you want to do research in a top institution or research lab. So it's far from an obvious optimization.
That was not my experience. I did a PhD in quantum physics in the UK (Imperial College) in 3 years + 6 month extension. I collaborated with Oxford University and I was able to publish in Nature Physics, PRL, etc ... (in other words, the top journals in the field). I was offered post-doc positions but eventually went to industry.
I really enjoyed my PhD as a time to learn and think about deep and difficult questions. Regarding employment, I think it shows that you can commit to a problem. It shows perseverance and drive. And those are good skill to have at any technical job.
The view from Europe is that since students in US PhD programs spend their first two years doing courses they come out with similar actual research experience.
In my area, no-one has failed their 3 year plan yet, maybe up to 4 years taken - our area has very little Australian citizens so the incentives are large.
(there's an obvious Soviet joke here about 3 year plans)
