Tourist. I agree with the idea that hiring good people is important and EK spends a lot of time an money trying to do that.
However, you other arguments don't hold water! Yes, some 10,000 hour pilots may not be very good just as some 2,000 hour pilots may not be. I'd rather have the 10,000 hour pilot in this case.
Your argument about modern aircraft reliability goes to the same case. More than likely the current crop of 10,000 hour pilots flew smaller aircraft, older aircraft with lots of non precision approaches into varying airports. A 2500 hour 737 cadet may well hand fly a bit but that's it!!! That is not experience!
Performance and age is a much studied topic. Athletically there is no doubt that performance declines with age. It is absolutely untrue in "science to politics"! In almost all endeavors not requiring large physical demands performance is highest in the above 35-45 age range declining later in their 60's. In many fields the years of experience and knowledge that have been learned cannot be taught. Regarding pilots in this area studies have found that 'physical' flying skills begin degrading in the mid to late 50's but experience compensates for it.
EK is at the point of lowering requirement because no one is applying NOT because there are low time pilots who are great. There are good low time pilots. Just not experienced low time pilots. All things being equal, any airline want quality, experienced pilots.
By the way, this is not a slight towards Ryan Air pilots or cadet pilots or other pilots. But I don't accept your premise that a low time pilot is better than a high time pilot in other than EXTREME examples.