"Beancounters" is a term which keeps coming up here, suggesting as the original post alleges, that airlines are seeking to reduce the experience base and professional competence of the typical cockpit crewmember.
This is, of course, patently untrue.
And this is where your argument falls apart.
Airlines are in an extremely competitive environment with massive oversupply of pilots.
Quite an observation, given that all the talk is nothing but the so-called impending pilot shortage. I agree with you, however: we have no shortage, never have, and never will. We presently have ample qualified pilots seeking work. We are not seeing an influx of inexperienced aviators. Operators have an ample base of significant experience from which to draw, hence the high competitive minimums. Accordingly, my "argument" does not fall apart. It's consistent, and correct.
These experience pilots are going to be forced to work on ever decreasing salaries and if they refuse then there is someone less experienced willing to take their place.
I don't believe I've ever worked for an employer that cut my wages. It's come up, and I've been asked to make wage concessions. I've refused. Consistently, my career has seen a salary increase with time, and with employment. While I've taken new jobs, contract assignments, temporary work, and other duties that have paid less, I've not seen a decrease with any given employer over time. My wage has either been consistent in accordance with a contract, or has increased with longevity.
If you're talking about pilots who lose their employment and seek other employment, it's certainly possible that they may be forced to take a lower paying job. Don't blame that on the beancounters; not every employer pays the same, and let's face it: if furloughs and layoffs are in progress, the economy is down. The economy is down, expect the market to become employer-driven. The market becomes an employer's market.
This does not diminish the professionalism of crews. Lower pay does not equate to lower professionalism, or diminished airmanship. Your parallel is non-sequitur.
And the tail spin to the bottom is what this thread is all about.
No, the thread is built on a lie, and serves as fodder for the hungry media specialists out there seeking to build a story. In this case, a story about nothing.
If the competitive minimums set by applicants goes up to 15,000 hours and ample wide body experience, whereas the published mins. Were 1500hrs. then the HR department of the said airline bases it's minimum cut off for their interviews based on the types of heavy machinery and experience whereby in this case is going to be quantified in hours of flight.
No. Competitive minimums increase where more experienced pilots are available to compete for a given position. In nearly all cases, competitive minimums are well above published minimums.
Competitive numbers aren't necessarily flight hour numbers. The possession of a type rating, prior experience in the desired line of work, previous experience in type, command experience, etc, all serve as factors to make a pilot more desirable.
I tend to hire into positions with specialty experience. Often when I'm hired for a job, it's not based on my hours, or certainly not on my hours alone. When I take a job, it's not based on who is paying the most. In some cases, I'm hired based on my experience in a particular type of flying operation, or in a particular type of equipment. My dedication to a particular assignment, be it temporary, long term, contract, direct employment, or otherwise, is not contingent on what I'm getting paid. It's not contingent on the type of equipment I'm flying. I have gone from large turbojet to small piston and back, single to multi, multi to single, turbojet to piston to turboprop to turbojet, and back and forth. My own dedication to the assignment, my level of attention, my professionalism, and my effort have not diminished between assignments.
You would suggest that as airmen lose a position or move from one job to another and find lower wages, that professionalism diminishes? Airmanship decreases? CRM is somehow less? Hardly.
Remember the recruiters doing the shortlisting of the 'applying candidates' have neither met nor flown with these wannabes, so their shortlisting is largely based on 'ample experience' which in this case can only be established by looking at types and hours provided on candidates resume.
No. I can tell you that my employer looks at far more than hours. Most employers do. Employers look at past experience and job history; it's there on the resume. Employers look at the experience of the pilot. It's not a matter of he-who-has-the-greatest-hours-wins. Not at all.
A pilot with prior command experience and check airman experience may have less hours than others at the interview, but may make a better, more desirable candidate. Thus, hours don't necessarily trump experience.
I arrived at an interview session many years ago in which I was the highest time pilot present. The job involved twin turboprop aircraft. I had four-engine experience in large piston airplanes, which was counted by the interviewers the same as single engine time. The employers weren't interested in total time, but specifically experience.
Go on kidding yourself, the argument that hours count for nothing can be argued very broadly as has been said on this thread severally, it all depends how, where and doing what or in this case flying what but generally speaking a 5,000 hour rated co pilot isn't the same as a 250 hour straight from flying school F/O.
Precisely; the 5,000 hour rated copilot has greater experience.