"experience" is a very inadequate word and a blunt tool.

At 1,500 hrs, I knew my Point A to B flying very well but it wasn't until around 4000 hrs until I learned how lucky I really was. My lack of education in aeronautics could've made me a statistic in literally hundreds of cases. Just being honest... The continuing education process never ends and without a structured education system, every pilot has a different intellectual toolkit. This is a problem because in such a chaotic system, we only statistically know that an adequate level of airmanship only develops at the higher number of hours of experience.

I've no doubt that these guys can do it in 250 hrs but there will be a greatly enhanced level of risk. Since risk is not easily quantified, airlines will simply ignore this and let the cards fall where they may.

The real litmus test are the situations where we can only speculate. Would a 250 hr pilot or even 1500 hr pilot successfully have reproduced Sullengberger's landing on the Hudson? I'm learning that a lot of civil pilots hate the guy for some of his comments but I do think he is 100% right about 'experience' and the airline environment.