“Sometimes, though very rarely like the Hudson prang, events require you to demonstrate that you're capable of 90% plus or you die”
Well, maybe the minimum regulatory standard should be set to 90% then. Maybe it already is.
The point being that there is no data to support the assertion that higher salary amongst pilots results in higher levels of safety assuming that all pilots within the system have satisfactory oversight and achieve the minimum standard.
Interestingly Sully was one of the lowest paid pilots of any legacy airline in the US but it clearly didn’t affect his judgment.
“perhaps because those who got 98% went to a better paying gig”
Flawed assumption as highlighted by your suggested example of Sully himself. To think the highest paying airline is staffed by the most talented aircrew is not supported by any data at all. Take a look at what Fedex get for being one of the highest paying companies in the industry.
“ . . . and that isn't a black and white process”.
No, and I am not implying that it is. If pilot A is SAFE and pilot B is SAFER, there is simply no reason to value pilot B more than pilot A. Safe is good enough. Would you agree that a safe pilot wouldn’t crash into a mountain?