What you probably never get to hear about are the statistics regarding how many incidents occur at regionals. Just because a plane doesn't crash doesn't mean inexperienced/uneducated pilots aren't liabilities. There are literally hundreds of thousands of ASAP reports attributable to pilot error in the regionals. Unfortunately we only hear about the guys that die trying to reach the FL400 club or taking off on the wrong runway and killing everyone. I'm not sure that such a high rate of incidents counts as "successful". Also, keep in mind that regional pilots are in the right seat for a LONG LONG LONG time before they become Captains so they gain lots of Point A to B flight experience with the complication that come along the way.

And yes... aircraft are getting safer and safer by virtue of engineering. For example, not everyone could fly the F-14 but just about anyone can fly the F-18. Likewise, it's considerably harder to safely fly an MD-88 with steam gauges than it is to fly an EMB-190. However, the computerization of the aircraft also provides a false sense of security which allows companies to lower knowledge requirements and training requirements. The problem is they don't account for "improbable" scenarios. They design their training programmes such that if the unexpected occurs, "airmanship" (translation: the art of flying in the absence of academic study or training) will save the day. These 0-to-hero programmes do not create "airmanship" which is largely a product of self-education and luck of experiencing certain events in one's career.

This becomes a particularly troublesome issue with newer, more complex aircraft. Take the A380 for example. Easy to fly on a sunny day but a real bear when things go wrong. Remember what happened to that Quantas A380 with an uncontained engine failure? How long did it take to go through all the ECAM messages and actions? Wasn't it in the hours? The crew was successful but perhaps only because of the experience of the pilots who were quite senior, educated, and experienced. The Airbus, as advanced as it is, still requires quite a bit of knowledge to successfully deal with problems. What is going to happen when these inexperienced pilots have to fly the A3XX in Direct Law with no protections? They will have to rely on that fundamental jet experience they never got.

JetBlue, or any other airline, is not scared of inexperienced pilots because they always find a way to not be culpable. In the end, insurance mostly covers the cost of accidents. Airlines always use the party lines "we meet or exceed government standards" and "pilot error" and "they were trained".

• "we meet or exceed government standards" = 1500 is not a lot. Not to mention, the government doesn't prescribe a rigid training and performance requirement. It simply assumes that their simple requirements are enough because it has historically relied upon highly experienced civilian and military pilots. Like everything else FAA, it will require blood to make new rules for the Zero-Hour Wonders. Trust me - it will happen. Unfortunately you cannot fix blood once it is drawn. This industry learns by making mistakes.
• "pilot error": the FAA licenses a pilot and the ultimate decisions are made by the pilots and not the company. The company manages the pilots via 'operational control' but it is still the pilots who bare all of the responsibility. Most accidents are pilot error. The company will simply blame the pilots but never take responsibility for setting them up to fail. Look at Allegiant. Heck, you can even cite Southwest since they keep having questionable maintenance practices. The bottom line is that pilots ultimately act on their own and their company rarely is there to force them into a course of action when weather is down to mins, aircraft is at min fuel, and weather forecasting is less than accurate. Try to think of it like a lawyer... can a company really "defend" a pilot?
• "they were trained". Civilian training sucks. It relies on prior experience and education. Many aspects of it are tied to performance snapshots that have no sustainable translation to real world environments. It sucks but it is adequate because of the existing experience crutch they currently enjoy. Will a corporate training program spend more than it thinks it needs to train a pilot? Of course not!!!! This is a business. Most training will consist of computer based training, superficial classroom instruction, and maybe a single shot attempt in a Level D simulator. In the end, the FAA will approve anything with lipstick no matter how inadequate it truly is. If a pilot crashes a plane because he screws up a go-around and stalls, the company will not be culpable because (1) training met FAA standards, (2) the company let the pilot do it once or twice in a simulator. Therefore, training was provided and pilot error is to blame.

We are entering uncharted territory. I hope there is never a tragic incident but I guarantee you that the number of ASAP reports and violations will go up significantly.