It depends on whether you are discussing Value Added or Added Value, and then on your viewpoint and how much you value labour or not.
With regard to the former, the modern neoclassical economic approach to Value Added explains that labour is a contribution to Value Added. With this approach, Value added refers to the unit price of a product, relative to the unit cost of the intermediary products used in the production of the final product. In relation to the aviation, the final "product" is a pax flown from A to B. The intermediary products are, amongst other things, the aeroplane. In this case, the pilots add value as without the pilots, the aeroplanes don't fly, thus precluding the production of a unit of "pax from A to B."
Regrettably, this economic analysis is essentially macro and rather different to the financial analysis of Added Value. This, of course, is Sales-capital costs-materials costs-labour. No staff here fare too well, including management. Thus one must consider, when analysing the issue in relation to the question posed, if, and by how much, the pilot not crashing is more or less important than the sales manager selling a few more cups of coffee.
Essentially, what we are asking is this, bearing in mind that a managers salary is as much a cost as a pilots: is the improvement in revenue, or the reduction in costs, generated by a manager, in relation to his/her salary greater or less of an asset to the business than the savings generated by a pilot not crashing the aeroplane are in relation to his/her salary?
Answering this question will tell us what the relative value a pilot adds to the company is.
For example, the combined crew cost on a flight is, maybe €170k p.a.. The cost of a crash would be something astronomical, in the order of at least €250m (based on hull costs and €1m comp. per dead pax, never mind lost forward bookings).
A good manager might cost €100k and generate €5m more revenue p.a.
Which is better value? Obviously in accounting terms the manager is, as his achievements are quantifiable whereas the pilots are not. The actuary and economist by contrast would choose the pilot. How else, indeed, would the insurance business exist?
It is important not to assume that if an added value can not be accurately quantified it doesn't exist. Obviously no manager will publicly agree with this assessment, but it would be nice if a few more pilots understand its implications and stopped selling themselves short.
The next question, of course, is what the relationship between pilots salaries and competence is. I doubt studies have been carried out into this, but anecdotal evidence would suggest that the lowest paid jet pilots in Europe (Ryanair) have had a lot of serious incidents in the last couple of years. While I doubt anyone will consciously take more care if paid more, the fact remains that better paying jobs will attract more applicants, thus allowing the airline to choose better people, that axiom holds true for any industry. I also suspect a certain "can't be bothered" attitude would creep in over time if one felt undervalued.
The industry and the regulator do care about safety.
I'm afraid not, as they undermine it at every opportunity in the name of cost cutting. Don't forget that MOL has bragged he can get away with 2 hull losses. Safety starts from the top down and an attitude of this sort will negatively permeate the entire company.