Sorry but it's absurd to suggest that I have an agenda because I believe that the low experience levels operated by some Airlines needs to be addressed. The managements of these Airlines and the training organisations clearly have the agenda.
Yet you seem to have little problem in suggesting other people have agendas based on nothing more than your own absurd construction?
Bealzebub, your historical information is interesting but it is irrelevant because the era of the super low experience crew has only been around for a very short while and statistically there has not been time to prove it safe or not
So "historical information" is irrelevant and the basis of your assertion lacks any evidence to suggest it is "safe or not"?
I do believe that regulators should be answering much more to the media or to their government but currently they seem to have a free hand
Regulators are an emanation of the state so they do and are answerable to the government of that state. As far as I am aware they also provide information to the media when requested or required. However I assume you mean the same media that is subject to unending criticism for its lack of insight, accuracy, or understanding in most of the threads on these forums?
On what data are you basing your assertion? If you can share your source perhaps we can have a more informed debate. In the past two airlines I have worked for (both big companies) the average flightdeck experience is significantly higher than when I started flying a decade ago
Yes, I am curious as well. I have been flying professionally for over 35 years and haven't seen a significant overall reduction of quantitative experience in the flight deck. In the case of cadet first officers, they have been around long before I started flying. They didn't figure much in accident reports 40 years ago, thirty years ago, twenty years ago, ten years ago, or last year! "Experienced" pilots on the other hand......!
Look, the vast majority of professional pilots are committed, dedicated, mature, and intelligent individuals. Experience is then simply a measure of the quantitative time period they have spent developing those qualities in those roles. These days I see a lot of relatively young F/O's who attain the requirements on a sustained basis for a command at or around the minimum levels set down for such consideration. Unless they consistently demonstrate those standards that promotion will simply not happen. It isn't a right of passage or indeed a right of anything. Many individuals will not meet the required standards at the minimum point for doing so, and so will require more "experience" and development in their current roles before being considered further. A few will simply never make the grade. Of course in this latter group you are going to find some of the most "experienced" F/O's on the planet. However that "experience" in some cases is a by-product of not meeting the necessary standards for promotion. Do you think the "media" should be provided with this information so it can provide the transparency and "league tables" with which the public can then supposedly make their informed choices?
league tables are all well and good in reinforcing what you want to believe, but they rarely provide an honest or accurate overall picture. For example, take one that already exists such as delay statistics. There are few of us that aren't familiar with the concept of pushing back off stand on schedule to satisfy the league tables, only to spend lengthy periods of time sitting on a remote holding stand waiting for our delayed slot time to roll around. Similarly, those airlines who simply cancel their flights in order to avoid appearing in the delay statistics. I think the OP mentioned school league tables, yet the best (often private) schools are exempt from appearing in such tables thereby distorting the real picture.