Great post, birddog;
From a captain's pov, if I may respond:
1. Is it appropriate for a pilot decide to land a 2 crew commercial jet on their own?
The captain is the final authority on the flight s/he can decide and do as s/he needs to conduct the flight with the maximum of safety under the circumstances. S/he has the unbridled right to command whatever resources are required, the right to expect that orders will be followed and the right to defend those decisions when the emergency is over. In direct answer to your question, Yes, it is entirely appropriate and I would have done the same.
2. In this occurence, did the PIC (in this case the captain) make an appropriate decision to have a "third party" (non cockpit crew) assist him to safely land the aircraft?
See above. Yes, the decision was appropriate. I have done it in a similar circumstance but in my case the "third party" was the Relief Pilot on duty. They are not licensed to land the aircraft or sit in the front seats below cruise altitude but in the circumstances I faced, there was no one better qualified. It was a non-event. Failing that good luck, I would have conducted the balance of the flight precisely as this captain did. It was text-book and should be an example for all crews on how it's done in such an emergency.
3. Was the thread title appropriate?
Odd question given the first two - it deals with industrial relations matters, not flight safety matters and the two should never mix. Nevertheless it deserves at least a clarifying answer:
Although veterans in their own right, new First Officers hired on these days with major carriers will earn approximately $35,000 year if they're fortunate. "New" captains promoted on a major carrier's junior equipment, (sometimes they're promoted right at hiring - they're still veterans!), are paid about $65k/year.
Comparatively speaking, graduate nurses with no experience can expect a starting wage of between $45k and $65k/year as can teachers in some regions.
Think about two things when you climb on board a commuter jet next time: The guys up front combined, aren't earning enough to live in many of the large cities crews are based in, and raise a family - not even today - without going into debt. The spouse has to work. Second, the guys probably have short layovers, (9 hours off-duty (10.5hrs from in-to-out) is common) and would probably be flying at least a four-leg, 13hr day, almost always through the same weather fronts. East coast work is challenging to say the least.
If you sense that there is more to this than an "industrial approach" you're right - it's flight safety work as it relates to "who will come for $35000 bucks a year", and what drives the beancounters mad - duty days and crew fatigue. Both these points are controversial, the first more than the second, and do require in-depth, patient and knowledgable discussion. Please be aware that I have put these issues in pithy terms intentionally because they are industry hot-buttons within, and without.
Hope this helps!
PJ2