For context for my post above, let's look at MAG. Looking at their most recent financial data (includes subsidiaries), their block hours for the year stand at 571,827. Let's say that they stay in business for the next 25 years with no change, positive in negative, in either their pilot numbers or pilot efficiency (aka, pilot numbers stay the same, block hours stay the same). That equals out to 14,289,295,675 miles flown. Now, in 1996, the NTSB approximated that carriers experienced fatal .026 accidents per 100,000 flight hours, or about 3.8m flight hours between fatal accidents. It can certainly be argued that pilots make or break a carrier when it comes to accidents, simply on the statistics of pilot error vs mechanical concerns (I know, I know, if 8 things break that the pilot is supposedly able to deal with, and he/she can't and crashes, that's pilot error, but bear with me). So take those statistics, and Mesa will be exposed to about 3684 "potential accidents" (14b divided by 3.8m). It can certainly be argued that pilots make or break a carrier when it comes to accidents, simply on the statistics of pilot error vs mechanical concerns (I know, I know, if 8 things break that the pilot is supposedly able to deal with, and he/she can't and crashes, that's pilot error, but bear with me). So let's say that with any reasonable training (.026/100000 includes foreign countries too, so let's give MAG the benefit of the doubt) and maintenance, 95% of these situations can be averted. That still leaves 184 situations over 25 years where pilots make the difference. Let's assume that MAG is a much, MUCH less liable company than mine, and that they've figured that with all things considered, an accident will cost about $100m (that's basically the cost of the AC and 1.5m per pax, so no future loss of revenue, no realistic liability numbers, no raised premiums, etc) . That works out to about $18.4b in potential losses, or about $441k of potential savings PER PILOT PER YEAR! Of course, should pilots be paid that full amount? No, because of acceptable levels of risk, but should pilots at any carrier lay down and accept $20k salaries under the excuse that they aren't valuable enough of assets to earn more? Absolutely not.