It is the owners or the shareholders who are fast asleep in bed, raking in the profits while you and I are mincing around doing our 4th sector in the middle of the night in bad weather, carrying MEL issues and delays.
Meanwhile, the management think it's all fine because Johnny Newboy with their MPL can fly perfectly well using the automatics and the SOP's.
When training in 2 rapidly expanding and financially successful LoCo's we questioned the length & depth of the TQ training and general daily line operation philosophy. The reply was that the emphasis was on a successful growth of the company. Nothing wrong with that. The next comment was that SOP's had to be rigid and followed. The companies had not yet reached critical mass, i.e. they could not afford an accident. It would spell ruin. The only way was strict adherence to a simple SOP formula. Too many crews were out of sight all over the region. I understand very well the rational of this attitude. It has proved successful. Add to this that the students are paying for their training. Another 4 sim sessions in the TQ would be very expensive. The argument is that LT will put some meat on the bones; the intense sector flying will create a steep and fast learning curve; the modern technology/reliability will add a strong level of safety. It's a compelling argument, but when the holes start to line up perhaps more than the basic requirements are needed to close them off. Add to all that the level of experience on the modern short-haul captain and it can be discussed that safety levels have been trimmed to bare minimums. In days gone by the old fart in the LHS could put a calming hand on the trembling pulse. Not any more with only 3000/4 years experience sitting there. Hence the rigid, no discretion, SOP model. It seems to have worked in the majority of cases; it's when the untoward happens and it gets messy; that's when the weakness of this philosophy is exposed. However, making a risk assessment of this over all the short-haul sectors flown every day, what is the true level of the risk? It may be considered extremely minute and acceptable. As a purist I'd still prefer the more in depth training of basic piloting skills and more in depth training of use of the automatics. My first airline was started by pilots. The MD was a pilot and all the management were pilots. The pilot corps were real hands on operators. Now, there are very few, if any, large airlines who are managed by pilots. Indeed the opposite; I know of airlines where the first level in management where you find a pilot is C.P. Even the DFO is not an aviator. This explains how the culture is so driven by finance and not flying standards. Modern a/c are no longer machines to be flown; they are profit generating instruments and the crews, engineers, rosterers etc are a pain in the rear-end costs. Regulations are not helpful so they try and dilute those. If the job can be reduced to rigid following of rules as to when to press which button then who in management cares? But I still doubt we'll see a passenger pilotless a/c in my lifetime: well not one with pax on it. And those pax still expect us to save their bacon when necessary and not jeopardise it.
It is said that the skilful pilot is one who avoids situations where they need to use their skill to escape. That might be true, but then you need those skills to make that judgement. I fear that the general knowledge of many crews today is devoid of that skill base. If they then find themselves out of their comfort zone, and have not enough skill to fall back on, a bad hair day will ensue.