I haven't researched the details of 141 programs, but it wouldn't take much effort for them to provide different entry points for their students if it were permitted. "A verified and approved training footprint" is not incompatible with accepting some training received elsewhere.
The whole industry is based on accepting training received elsewhere and then independently evaluating the skills and knowledge of the individual.
It's about money, not safety.
I don't know that that's wholly true, but it may play into part of it.
I've only been teaching for 5 months or so. The majority of my students are 141, although I'd say half of them don't really need to be.
As near as I can tell, what 141 does is bring a structure to the program that 61 doesn't require, with a series of stage/progress checks that have to be executed by chiefs who receive additional training and have specific criteria to work from. There is a certain advantage to this in that there is some built-in quality control to the program for the student, and training issues can be caught and addressed early. There is also some efficiency to be gained; because the program is broken into stages with progress checks, the student can work with more than one instructor who can review the previous lesson notes and address the immediate goals. And, again, from what I can tell, the standardized procedures the students learn definitely help establish a baseline for building-block training.
In my opinion, 141 programs suffer in two areas:
1) For it to be effective/successful, it absolutely requires all of the instructors to buy in to the training methodology and to teach the same things, even if they don't teach the same way. At most flight schools, you have a collection of different persons and personalities teaching, and on more than one occasion I've found another instructor teaching a student something they shouldn't, or deviating in a way that will make it difficult for another instructor to continue consistently for the student. In this case, the latter is worse than the former.
Some of it is ego, a lot of it is guys who simply love aviation and want to share what they know in their way; it's hard to fault good intentions like that but it comes at a disservice to the overall goal sometimes. One of the chiefs is fond of saying, "there's more than one way to cook an egg safely, y'know?" He's absolutely right about that - but in that program, in that system, there's a specific way the egg needs to be cooked, and that's what the Powers That Be want, because the curriculum is 'known' and approved.
It's sorta like flying your jet according to the GOM/FOM, no?
2) I think 141 tends to hinder the progress of the better, motivated students. I've got 2 who are really driven, solid pilots. They're hungry, they seek to learn more (one of them leaves for the USAF academy in June) and they consistently strive to fly better every time. A part 61 program would let their instructors get a little more creative and expand the envelope and challenge them more. I don't think middle-aged guys who are training for pleasure flying and want to buy a 182 or a Cirrus later need to go through a 141 program designed to produce airline pilot candidates. But they are.
Just my limited .02 from my limited view of instructing a sample set of a dozen and a half at various stages, so far....
If you think domestic ones are going to be any better (and that day will come, for reasons), well.
I have no reason to believe they would be any better and a few reasons to believe they might be worse depending on the implementation.
I think you're both right here, and I think Pilot Fighter hits the nail on the head - the implementation is key.