Norman, once again you have hit the nail firmly on the head. In this litigation and blame obsessed world, it's all about risk. And balancing risk against money is a trick that the airlines are constantly trying to refine. What has changed with P2F schemes is that the airlines have now found that they can make money out of these pilots - so the risk has been willingly increased in the intrests of more profit.
The flying world is full of risk assessments in various guises and risk can be viewed either objectively or subjectively. Objective assesments will look at training standards and statistics, but there is always a huge amount of subjectivity as well. For example, a 21 year old RAF pilot newly qualified on a Typhoon racking round a 4g turn in a Welsh valley at 250' and 420 knots is taking a risk. His boss and authorising officer will be happy that he can do the job, so thier assessment the risk has been minimised in what is perceived to be a dangerous job. But the pilot's mother, standing at the bottom of the valley and watching her son scream overhead will have a very different view.
Another example is a 35 year old 350 hour pilot who had flown only ten hours a year for four years on light singles before starting a jet airliner trype rating. He has problems passing the assessment, so is re-tested on a different type. Throughout his training, there are repeated questions and comments about his ability to land the aircraft. Eventually, on a Non Precision Approach to a difficult airport, he dosen't flare, the instructor doesn't take over soon enough and the aircraft is badly damaged. The risk is subsequently assessed in retrospect by the accident investigating authority who highlight the shortcomings of his training and the system he was being trained in. This was the objective risk assessment here, albeit too late to have an impact and seemingly ignored. But how would you feel if you were one of the 180 passengers paying for that flight to your yearly holiday in the sun. All you knew is that the landing was very hard. But would you have been happy getting on the aircraft at Gatwick had you known that the handling pilot wasn't a company employee, was inexperienced, had a documented history of training problems, and was training in a system which was failing to address them.
Of course this last example, the Thomas Cook accident at Kos in 2007 actually happened and the series of events a classic example of a buildup of factors which eventually lead to an accident. I'm lucky. I work for a company which either trains their own cadets or takes pilots with a minimum of 3000 hours includng 1000 on jets. And the cadets are aptitude assessed, given the best training and have about three times the minimum sim time and training before being released to line. The stay current, are well paid well and motivated. And they are very safe. The situation in Europe with the P2F schemes and their subsequent terms and conditions staggers me. The risk assessment seems to have been almost completely ignored in the chase for more profit.
The Americans have had their wake-up with the Coglan incident in Buffalo and have changed their experience and training requirements to try to prevent another such incident. I think the change will eventually happen in Europe as well. I just hope it will occur as a result of common sense rather than people being killed, but I doubt it.