Dude, brevity is a virtue. And your "facts" are anything but. Not worth going into details on this thread, because it's all unrelated, but I'll be happy to answer them if you start another thread about it.
To be clear, I don't consider it PFT. I haven't used that term, others have. I've just said that it's wrong and damaging to the profession.
Requiring a type rating isn't PFT anymore than requiring an ATP was. I doubt that anyone at ALPA, other than you, would even consider it that.
To be clear, I don't consider it PFT. I haven't used that term, others have. I've just said that it's wrong and damaging to the profession.