To all you guys whith MPL as your wet dream:
What you seem to forget is that you cannot compare a MPL/737 with a guy with 200hrs SEP. Once the 200hr guy have got his 737 rating, THEN we can start discussing who's the "best" pilot.
The standards for the MPL 737 rating is all the same as the "normal" 737 rating. In other words the 200hr guy is trained to the same "perfection"/proficiency as the MPL guy, but in addition he has 200hrs of real flying time, incl all the descition making etc that comes with that.
Those of you who say instructing in a 172 for 1000hrs is a waste of time, don't understand much. Most likely your one of those 200hr guys who bought yourself a job in some LCC.
Sure, flying a 172 is not too relevant for pushing buttons on the 737 or 319, but flying is not all about flying the 'bus on autopilot, but more about making decisions. And what do you base your desicions on? Knowlegde and experience. Where do you get that knowlegde and experience? By flying! So all the decsicion making and responsibilities you learn by 1000hrs in the sky, is HIGHLY relevant when you become a captain and have to start thinking yourself.
Did I hear "Monkey see, monkey doo"? No wonder it'll take 10 years for this poor F/O until he can start making descicions...
Doesnt matter what way you twist and turn this issue;
The total experience level of the 737/MPL is LESS than the 1000hr guy with 737 rating, or even the 200hr guy!
The allegded positive reasons;
1 "more proficient pilots"
2 takes less time to become a pilot
3 airline saves money
Only 1 of these should even be considered when training pilots. "More proficient pilots" - I dont see how this can be the case, since the standards for the MPL TR and "normal" TR is exactly the same!
The other two isn't even worth discussing...
The MPL is only a back-up solution when the airlines is short on desperate people willing to buy them selves a job...
It is apparent that the airlines have too much influence on the JAA/ICAO... FAA has said no to this, wonder why?
