742 probably has the most valid criticism of the pilot training situation in the U.S. that I've seen here. That said, the implication that U.S. pilots aren't as willing to work and learn as our European ab-initio bretheren is a bit harsh. There are a substantial number of trainees who believe they are far more qualified than they actually are, but most of them receive a reality check when they hit the line. Most low-time U.S. airline pilots are acutely aware of how much we have to learn, and of the incredible responsibility we have flying passengers. I feel that the key difference here is exactly what is expected of low time pilots here versus in Europe. Graduates of ab-initio programs in Europe are usually very technically qualified (if not yet in posession of flawless stick-and-rudder skills), and they are not expected to perform to the same standard as a fully qualified and experienced FO. They are properly trained, they are supported, and they are compensated. In America, low-time regional FOs receive the same standard training as everyone else, and we are expected to perform to the same standard as everyone else on the line at whatever regional we find ourselves in. In most cases, we are working harder for far less money than more experienced FOs at the major airlines. If that's not a recipe for a young pilot with a bad attitude, I don't know what is.
It's no secret that the life of a U.S. regional pilot is hard. If there are attitude problems (and there are), I would sooner blame the environment in which we train and work than accuse pilots of an unfounded sense of entitlement. I'm not entirely happy with the training new pilots receive in the transition from general aviation to the airlines, but most of us simply work that much harder in order to catch up. The alternative is to abandon the notion of an airline career, which is something I'm not willing to do at this point.