“Whilst I'm not convinced that you arent a troll….”
Troll being a cyber euphemism for someone who does not subscribe to your theory I assume?
You can try to use accident examples such as the Turkish 737 to paint a certain if you wish picture but the statistics simply do not support the agenda you are pursuing. I can use similar accident examples to suggest that vast hours in the logbook do little to prevent a poorly trained crew from causing an accident in certain situations.
Should we explore the past events at carriers such as DAL and FDX for example?
I'm fairly certain that you have completely missed the point, prof. Which is not surprising, given your unpopularity on this forum.
And no, I dont regard you as a troll because your opinion happens to differ with mine. I regard you as a troll because you are getting on this forum and talking crap. A troll is someone who tries to wind others up. In this case, you probably wont find too many pilots who agree with you, therefore you are likely attempting a wind up.
You talk about facts and statistics? I ask you, what is the cost of just one life? If it is economically acceptable to you that inexperienced pilots are up front, again I ask, what price, one life? Would it make a difference if that life is yours?
Where do you get YOUR statistics from to prove YOUR point. There are plenty of pilots arguing on this forum that experience counts, and they are qualified to say that, because they have been there and done that. You on the other hand are suggesting something is OK, because it is economically viable, and no-one can prove otherwise. Righto, then prove your statistics. Where are they?
Again, what is the cost of one life?