Hours in a log book don't make pilots much safer, so experience measured in that manner is a red herring. Hours spent thumb-up-arse over the Atlantic or Pacific, napping while your colleague reads a paper is worse than useless - you're gaining no experience benefit but are still ageing and time is still passing since you last hand flew. Useful experience is dealing with unusual issues, like bad weather, tech problems, crew issues (illness or CRM issues) and dealing with cockups.
I see a mixture of colleagues, some new cadets fresh out of flying schools, some with prior GA experience and some experienced in the airlines. There is no trend in their ability; each has to be judged on merit. What is noticeable is how ability and safety follows attitude. The smart ones listen and watch closely, and rarely have to see something twice to pick it up. They cherry pick the best bits from all the skippers they fly with and make their own tailored toolkit, thinking and adapting to new situations seamlessly. The cocky ones don't learn much, having decided they know more than the old guys sitting next to them, and so have no toolkit and no adaptablity.
So, what do hours on paper signify? Sweet FA.
Having an incident per 1000 sector ratio for each company would be revealing of company cultures, which severely affect safety, and would be useful to passengers, but not break downs of pilots' hours.