I don't see how this represents bias. It is a very factual report. Besides, it is very a valid question/concern, considering how much time and money it costs to train good pilots and keep them cutting edge. It is directly related to maintaining air force combat effectiveness, an air force that is part of NATO and as such has both national and international obligations to fullfil.
Just consider this, from September 19, 2016:
"On July 15, 2016, members of the Turkish Air Force and Army attempted to topple Turkey’s elected government by coup. In the wake of the failed coup, over 80,000 civil servants have been suspended, including over 100 admirals and generals. Among those, an astonishing
274 Turkish Air Force pilots have been discharged — comparable to the entire annual production of fighter pilots in the U.S. Air Force. Owing to the purges, Turkey now faces an acute fighter pilot shortage, with the number of F-16 pilots dropping from a healthy (by Western standards)
1.25:1 pilot-to-cockpit ratio to a paltry
0.8:1 following the discharges. A 1.25:1 ratio is the accepted norm for sustainment in numerous air forces."
http://warontherocks.com/2016/09/the-post-coup-purge-of-turkeys-air-force/
If you have some 110 F-5s, 50 F-4s and 240 F16s to man (and that's just the 400 combat aircraft out of some 668 total aircraft), then 350 pilots out of the game is a serious bloodletting. Who would TAF rather have fly the expensive new F-35: relative rookies, or its very best?