The tone of that suggests crew morale, ability and experience might have had something to do with the track record. That in turn suggests crew error. It would be inappropriate to comment further on the obvious.
But keeping along those lines as suggested, plenty of airlines have what are preceived as poor working conditions. That's no reason for a series of crashes or 'incidents' as they are humanely referred to. (It sounds like calling genocide 'ethnic cleansing'?)
Nothing wrong with two totally inexperienced first officers flying in the rhs of a simple jet - not my personal ideal but never mind. Presumably minimum experience requiremens are laid down in the ops manual which has been approved by the CAA?However, such crewing scene presupposes that for some hundred hours or more, any captain with whom they fly will be functioning as a line training captain even if he only has the experience to be a line captain. Also-plenty of captains absolutely do not want to be line training captains! Presumably, if true, these two fo/s were before an interview board of Airlink and presumably someone from the training section was on that panel. At least, it is true to say that such would be normal?
It is not fair to refer to Airlink crews as monkeys even if they may be. There is not a lot of opportunity out there at the moment and anyway, if a 500hr single pilot can pass an 1179 or equivalent and IR on a BA146-he is not doing too badly in the actual flying stakes. But that is a small part of the total picture.
If Airlink has three fleets, BA41, Emb 145 and BA 146-are the all under the control of one chief training captain and/or one chief pilot? I think that such an operations manual would not be approved in Europe. But then of course, this is blue sky country.