you can definitely see that they are shorthanded of well-trained pilots.
And therein lies a possible problem. The type of pilots flying who've joined in the past 10 years are different animals from those 30 years ago, even though the technology is not so wildly different. LNAV/VNAV, magenta line FMC flying with triple autopilots started early 80's. FBW & GPS has taken it a stage further, but the basic foundation is not so far removed. What has changed is the type & depth of training. MPL pilots coming from a diluted CPL syllabus straight into a computerised jet, MPA trained monkey style.
So what is a 'well trained pilot'? We've had many circular debates on here for years. I'm not trying to start another one. However I do feel there is a need for a good long hard review of what the real requirements are for the major airline jet environment. I still see the 'candidate's requirements' are very similar to 40 years ago, but the job is completely different. The sim tests are still raw data SE ILS's following procedural patterns and then visual circuits and NDB approaches with GA's. All great stuff and should be possible; but I then ask why do some airlines want these skills but do not let their crews use them on a daily basis? What's the point of being recruited because you are a nice, team working, well hand-eye coordinated, clear thinking son of a gun, who is then treated like a school boy; as in sit down do your job and don't ask questions; and not allowed to fly.
Square pegs round holes comes to mind. I beg to differ with some ideas of what is a well trained pilot. We hear there are some large airlines who like to poach from some small airlines because it is believed their training is excellent. That might be true in an automated trained monkey environment, but it doesn't make them well trained pilots; just one sort of pilot.