Risks and P2F?
"... the premiums won't go up until there are accidents and loss of life that can be directly attributed to P2F co-pilots. I agree that the risk must be greater with P2F pilots ..."
What is the "risk"? Oh do pray tell!
Just a little bit of honesty would be appreciated in the P2F discussion especially by those, basically almost all pilots, who have literally paid to fly. P2F is something exercised by most, if not all pilots, at some stage during their life in aviation, be it one cent, 50,000 or 100,000 plus dollars. That first dual hour in the first log book was for most us our first step on the P2F bandwagon, with many different routes, options, choices or end points along the way. The fact is that some drivers make an essentially economic decision (yes, with or without a thorough risk assessment) to outlay an additional and incremental payment to progress, advance or continue with their training and flying. In the end, there is no free lunch in life, no-one owes you anything or a job.
For the time being no recruitment ban on P2F pilots led by operators or pilot unions, exists or has been even mooted. No NAA regulator ban or license suspension or revocation of P2F pilots exist because the issue is simply one of proficiency, standards and checks. Why? If the P2F pilot or former P2F pilot passes the checks, meets and maintains the required standards and proficiency then where is the safety issue? My present operator happily and fortunately employs pilots from almost all sources and routes (including former so called P2F pilots) the current exception being the MPL route or former MPL pilot.
Again the issue is not P2F, but rather it is how any airline or AOC holder maintains acceptable levels of safety. The business model simply must be able to sustain safe operations. The fact that the model may include a P2F element is totally irrelevant. If the P2F FO or P2F Capt meet on entry, and continue to operate to, the required standards, then P2F will have no bearing on the safety performance of the airline. The P2F pilots I fly with must be a different bunch as they do not seem to be exhibiting and presenting risky behaviour any more or less than equivalent pilots from other routes.
Similar arguments were trotted out when the low costs and low cost hybrids went into operation only a few years ago ... essentially critical of the pilots and standards and forecasting doom and gloom in terms of safety and accidents and incidents. Has it eventuated?
Or, is your argument that P2F is only acceptable where the operator is governed by EASA, FAA, or other Western and Developed State NAAs?