I guess I've been living under a basket - I've seen the references for "PTF" - and have been told it stands for "pay to fly." Now I see your question regarding whether or not the new FAA requirement might become a "you can sit right seat of a jet for $100,000" kind of a deal.
Am I to understand that there are places where someone can operate as a required crew member without having completed the required training courses simply by paying someone a hefty sum of money? Or are we describing someone who has otherwise completed all the relevant training programs, passed all the relevant checks, and is now "competing" for a job on the basis of the size of his wallet (or rather, what's in his wallet)?
The requirement as I read this section of the new rule in the US is that there may be more than one way to achieve the prerequisite number of hours (i.e., 1500 hours) through appropriately approved training programs - which have yet to be described, by the way. I would suspect there might be a number of hours of ground traininng - a number of hours in a flight training device - a number of hours in a simulator - and a number of hours (perhaps) in the actual airplane. If that totals 1500 hours - you've completed that aspect of the law. However and again, the exact requirements have not been developed yet (at least as far as I know) - and as of now there are no requirements regarding what organizations will be able to offer this kind of training - and if any of it (more than likely at least some of it) will have to be provided by the airline for which the person will be operating as a pilot. I would suspect this kind of program will take on at least some (perhaps all of) the aspects of the ICAO-developed MPL programs.
As far as I am aware, in the US there are no "PTF" operations.
No, you need to have your certificates but some "places" want to convince you that buying a type and experience will make you more "attractive" for you first real job.
I was referring to the yet-to-be-designed training courses that can waive the 1500 hour requirement. With lots of cash you can shortcut one career step, instead of building experience by "time building". I hope those new training courses are not going to be some ERAU, UND etc. copy. We had a lot of problems with new hires at my US regional. Basically, they wanted to tell us what to do.
I am not sure if the "approved training scheme" and "non-approved training" scheme still exists in the UK. I had looked at the differences and the financial difference versus flight time training difference was horrendous. But is there a
significant difference in quality?
To bring this discussion to a point the question is: Can you replace experience with training? Can you train common sense? Some, but not all. I am still not convinced by ab-initio and MPL training done by some EU operators.
I honestly don't think that the (regional) airline training in the US is bad (At Trans States our washout rate was pretty high). Some operators spoon-feed their new-hires more than others. Some 250 hour pilots are better than others, and some learn/adapt quicker than others.
I'd personally have a CFI as a co-pilot then some low-time "wonder" kid from ERAU, Purdue or UND.