If that is indeed the case, I would not expect a 1-to-1 mapping of pilots to planes;
Interesting idea - I can see that idea possibly working on, say, the North Atlantic Tracks on a good day with serviceable aircraft, passengers and cabin crew
, but I'd be interested to understand how a lack of 1 to 1 mapping would work out in the even of sudden closure of large chunks of airspace for weather reasons ( happens over the States in Summer on a regular basis most years putting a very high work load on all controllers and all crews) or the even more extreme, and hopefully never to be repeated, scenario - 9/11, where "our" airline had aircraft either being told to land somewhere suitable ASAP "your choice but don't come here", being forcibly told to go to airports they couldn't land for performance reasons (they didn't), or being simply told, regardless of fuel, to turn back as they were approaching an ATC Oceanic Boundary?? I know many people were very grateful for 2-on-1 mapping that day and personally I doubt less than 1-on-1 would cope for 100% of aircraft in the time and with the fuel available.
I'd be interested to see if the authorities would be prepared write that off as a less than a 10 to the 9 event, agree to reduced mapping and suck up the casualties if it or similar happened again, or would they demand at least 1-on-1?