If the Airline you worked for truly had a program of upgrading 1800 hour First Officers to Captain on passenger Jet Aircraft then I am absolutely horrified.
You really need to read what is being written.
An airline I used to work for upgraded at 1800 hours if you fitted the bill and passed the assessment.
Would you be "less horrified" if they waited another year and were reassessed with 2300 hours and achieved the same result? You do seem inordinately obsessed with "
never mind the quality feel the width"
You started this thread by asking:
I'm not trying to argue the benefit of experience or not but the first issue the media was interested in after both the Asiana accident and the Malaysian disappearance was the experience level of the crews.
It seems to me that Pilot experience is of public interest and to maintain transparency in the industry would it not be reasonable for an experience league table to exist for use by the media?
If the Asiana accident had been crewed by the most junior captains and the most junior first officers (or indeed anybody else) it is almost certain that the accident wouldn't have occurred. It was almost certainly the prevailing set of circumstances and/or the individual actions of those concerned that resulted in that accident.
I doubt much of the "public" would have any real idea of what levels of quantitative "experience" constitute typical benchmarks in any event. Is 200 hours a lot? 2000 hours? 20,000 hours? Even for those that might share your "horror" at the thought of their flight being crewed with a level that didn't (for whatever reason) match their personal level of acceptance, the random and dynamic nature of crewing a flight means they wouldn't know what the quantitative "experience" level was until they were about to board the flight in any event.
The issue we are discussing is a new situation where non-career structures are introducing cadets into an environment where there is an abundance of very low experience within the Captain group and even the training Captain group, low experience in combination with very localised Flying.
Cadets are part of a career structure. That is why they are cadets. Those cadets eventually become regular first officers once they have reached levels of quantity/ time / performance, gates. They are not released onto the line until they meet the performance standards expected of all first officers. They are then mentored, monitored and specifically assessed for a significant portion of their early careers. It is a steep learning curve and the selection and training requirements reflect that. the vast majority of cadets that I have come into contact with over they years have made their careers within the airline. Many of them are now captains and training captains. Those cadets from 15 years ago are now todays 11,000 captains. Is that enough "experience"?
I am not entirely sure I understand what you mean by the term "very localized flying"? If I take it to mean a lack of route variety, then yes that can become an issue. An airline that flies short haul routes to major airports can result in a lack of pilot exposure to more basic airports and less widespread application of non-precision or visual approaches. However an awareness of that problem (where it exists) results in a greater use of simulator exposure and real world opportunities being provided as and when they can be. However that problem is not contained to cadets, it is usually just as prevalent in experienced pilots as well.
Low experience is the same as age. Give it time and it will cure itself. I think I would most definitely fit into your definition of "experienced" and yet I do not have the slightest qualm about flying with a cadet tomorrow, or indeed a low hour f/o, or an f/o with 3000 hours, or an f/o with 20,000 hours who might have been passed over for command for the last 25 years. In a typical month I am likely to fly with all of those examples. So why are you horrified and I am not? Similarly I do not have the slightest qualm that my family might get on board an aircraft tomorrow crewed by the most junior captain and junior first officers in the company. If I have no cause for concern why on Earth should the general public?
What evidence would you like me to back up my opinion with?
Anything! Unless you simply demand theoretical reinforcement of your opinion, the thread is meaningless.