You’ve formed an opinion. No one faults you that. What I find interesting is your assumption that anyone who reaches a different conclusion must not have done their research, hasn’t spoken to the “right” people, or is just full of it. While you may have pondered this issue in depth, you might just entertain the idea that claiming safety concerns are just “BS” doesn’t exactly paint you as a very thoughtful person.
I'm not saying you can't form a contrary opinion having done research or speaking to the right people (and in this case, the right people are simply just people who spit facts and literally nothing else). I'm saying most the people who have expressed opposition don't actually do that. You are taking the most generous possible interpretation of someone who opposes it, which is simply just not what's happening in real life. They gossip on their forums, gin each other up in their online echo chambers, and then when you start peeling back the onion of what they think the facts are, it becomes readily apparent that it's grounded in hearsay and echo chamber rants, because a lot of their reasoning is just outright false. In my experience, most of these guys simply go looking for a reason to justify their pre-formed opinion, because their reasoning just falls apart every time. Other notable examples: opposing age 67 because of safety concerns. Stop it. It's because you don't want your seniority to stagnate for 2 years. Or, the "medical freedom" guys. It's about being anti-vax. If that's the hill you want to die on, then fine, but please do me the courtesy of not treating me like an idiot and pretending it's anything other than that.
If you want to have thoughtful, theoretical internet debates, then carry on. I'm just keeping it 100% real: the younger generation at this airline sees through all this BS crying about "safety" and "oh no we have to protect the new hires". They want their money.