A smoking hole with lots of dead bodies won't necessarily improve things for pilots. In fact quite the reverse is possible. When (not if) the first A-380 augers in and takes out 400 souls, if human error is the cause, the race will be on to perfect the pilot-less airliner. Indeed, if the fate of the MH aircraft is determined to have been a deliberate act (and I am certainly NOT implying that it was!), the race could be on soon to make it impossible to send an airline aircraft anywhere other than where it can be safely landed. Progressively, we will see pilots less in control, and ergo, less valued by the beancounters.
The only thing that will slow (but not halt) progress to pilot-less would be if said A-380 goes in as a result of a major design flaw in its automation. Yes, before you jump on me, I know all about the team of heroes who saved that Qantas A-380, and who could forget Capt Sullenberger? But automation failure was not the root cause of either of these events. So, had either event occurred in a pilot-less aircraft who knows if a co-ordinated team of ground control geeks would have or could have handled it? Probably not right now. But fast forward 20 to 25 years and it is quite possible that technology will allow remote control management of virtually any problem short of in-flight break-up.
Therefore, 20+ years from now things will have only got worse for pilots. The few good jobs will be on older airframes where experience may still be well regarded.