D Ramapriya writes:

Nope. 1000-2000 are the typical figures for most airlines in the
Middle East. I could get you figures from Qatar Air and Etihaad (two
of the leading lights, not just of the region) in a few days.

I had a sneaking suspicion that "most airlines" actually meant "most
Third-World airlines." That's the kind of rule I'd expect from them. I can
think of several reasons for such a rule ... and all of them are bad.

I don't think Southwest or British Airways are forbidding their pilots to fly
by hand above 1000 feet. You're not even clear of obstacles at that height.

Ditto here, but that's the way it is. "Passenger comfort and safety"
is what's apparently at the root of this requirement.

A serious misunderstanding of how safety works is probably at play as well.

I beg to differ, mate. Apart from one A320 crash - a runway overrun in
Warsaw? - where the computers misread aquaplaning and didn't allow
braking, I struggle to think of an incident where computers and/or
automation caused a crash.

Well, there's Habsheim ... but we cannot be sure, since Airbus modified and
removed data on the flight data recorders in order to hide something (and I
don't think it was pilot incompetence).

On the other hand, I know a few instances
where the automation forfended accidents by thwarting ill-judged
premature takeoff attempts, which were an upshot of wrong loading
figures having been input, etc. There have been at least two incidents
involving Emirates A340 aircraft and one Virgin A330.

Maybe if the pilots were more competent and actually flew hands-on a bit more,
those problems wouldn't arise.

It's not the computers' job to compensate for incompetent crews.

Not being a pilot, I'm utterly unqualified to enter Boeing-Airbus
debates but it does strike me that Boeing does have more friends in
the press, with its glitches getting downplayed.

It has more friends among pilots and mechanics, that's for sure. Boeing
designs airplanes that help a pilot do his job. Airbus designs airplanes that
try to eliminate the pilot's job.

The dicky RA that contributed to the Turkish crash at Schipol ...

If it's the one I'm thinking of, the pilots were the weak spot, not the RA.

If you analyze Airbus crashes, nearly every one of them has been
because of pilot error, including the Aeroflot A310 where they risibly
ended up blaming the kid on the Cap'n's seat when what really happened
was that the 3 other qualified pilots looking on within the cabin
failed for a very long time to detect that the AP had disconnected.
Most Airbus crash reports would tell you that they could've been
prevented had pilots acted correctly.

This is true for all crashes, not just Airbus crashes.

The problem is that the Airbus design philosophy encourages the employment of
less competent pilots, since the computers will take care of everything (in
theory).

I admire the 747s and 777s and think the A340 a clunker, yet would
wager my life on Airbus's sophistication any day. It could be just me
but that's the way it is

If it's not Boeing, I'm not going.