Sorry Sunfish but I beg to disagree.
Pilots are involved in safety critical work in real time. Whilst I agree that company directors can affect flight safety by the decisions they make there is, I would suggest, often more time to change decisions and indeed often an opportunity for those on the shop floor to comment should those decisions be questionable. I agree that all those involved in flight operations including up to board level should be fit for purpose.
I also agree that the vast majority of flight crew go about their work in a conscientous manner but any community tends to mirror what is going on in the world at large. We are not just talking about alcohol here but also drug screening. Earlier it was stated that if a pilot is found positive it can cost $60,000. I would put it another way, how much does it cost if an aircraft is involved in an accident as a result of the flight crew being impaired due to drugs or alcohol?
How you deal with a crew member who fails a screening is another matter which is open to debate.
Random testing does not mean screening everyone - by definition it is random. I have difficulty understanding why trained professionals such as pilots should have any misconceptions with this issue. As a passenger I would like to believe that the crew are "fit for purpose" in every respect.
Yes, fatigue is another factor and this is an important issue which needs to be addressed. However, I think the pilot community might be listened to more on this issue if they were more agreeable to random screening for drugs and alcohol.
The world has moved on considerably. In my early days of commercial aviation (1970s) pilots going on duty worse for wear as a result of the night before was almost accepted. This behaviour now cannot be acceptable as the vast majority would agree but as a professional body we have to be seen to be whiter than white. How can we argue with random screening when it has been operating in other safety critical industries for years?