So if I fly with a new cadet tomorrow we have 21,400 hours in the cockpit. Would the public be reassured? If I fly with an F/O who has (on performance) been passed over for command for many years, we have 35,000 hours in the cockpit, would the public be reassured? One of my colleagues who has held a command on type for 6 years has 8,000 hours and is flying with an ex-cadet first officer who has 2500 hours, would the public be reassured? If that same captain flies with a cadet who has been with us for one year there is 9,000 hours experience in the cockpit, would the public be reassured?
When the public put their faith in an airline, it is usually on the basis that the airline is subject to, and complies with, regulatory oversight. It is on the basis that the airline has a rigorous standard of crew training, maintenance , and a general safety culture. I don't have any problem at all with somebody placing a blackboard with my (or my crews) experience written on it, at the boarding gate. I would be amazed if it made any difference to anybody at all. Would this transparency extend to gender, or age, or sexual orientation, or race or nationality, in those countries where that is permitted? Would it extend to OPC/LPC global marking? Would it extend to your training history (warts and all?)
The problem I have with the concept (and in fairness there doesn't appear to be any real end user need or demand,) Is that it is meaningless. Obviously I understand that the hypothesis is that perhaps the public could be frightened into believing a problem exists, that might otherwise help to unblock a career path for specific individuals who are simply exasperated by the fact. Should that be made transparent as well?