Teresa
I couldn't agree more.
The point I was attempting to make was that in this case, a social equity issue is being fought on fallacious safety grounds. Yes I too would prefer to have those guys you have mentioned. However in many parts of the world, as you well know, that supply of experienced guys is not available. The alternative is made to work, and it succeeds.
To fight this disgraceful behaviour, of the company, on grounds of safety is in my view inaccurate and is demonstrably so. It is only a matter of time before someone trots out statistics that will in all probability exonerate the inexperienced RHS, and place blame on inexperienced LHS coupled with poor training an AND a low time RHS. To base an argument on perceptions that may be demonstrated to be incorrect is fraught with danger.
Stick to what can be defended. This is more of a social/industrial issue than a safety issue. Australian jobs, Australian conditions, and immigration/industrial laws to protect Australian employees.
As one who has been checked by you, (F/O annual line check), I acknowledge your credibility. However I believe you are fighting with emotion rather than reason.
( And BTW I still think being critical of someones flight plan (because of a crossout and overwrite), is a bit rich from someone with your illegible handwriting. Thankgoodness for CFP's and wordprocessors)
SS