Shouldn't it be kept in mind that the pilots (high or low time ones) aren't the ppl posting the low hiring times??? it's the airlines. They wouldn't be hiring at these times if they didn't feel they could sufficiently train the pilots. Even if the airlines do post low times, thats no guarantee that the pilot is getting hired/through training.

Bottom line is: aviation is a business, airlines are going to do whatever they can to keep the costs down, even if that means hiring the low time pilots who will fly for nonexistant pay and QOL. I'm not economics afficiando, but its simple cost/benefit and risk/reward analyses.

I don't think there are many career-minded pilots out there who wouldn't take advantage of the lower hiring times, I'd be lying if i said i wasn't going to. It may not be right, but that seems the nature of our business, the sooner you get hired, the better. If you don't take that job, someone else will. Its sad but for most of us, the price of noblity & the moral high ground is just too steep.

Anyway, I just think we shouldn't be attacking each other over the decisions we aren't making.

Personally I think that more often than not, flight time is an accurate measure of our skills, however there are always exceptions. IMHO, if someone came out of a 141 paper mill as a "good" pilot, that probably would've happened anyway, and not everyone coming from the part61 schools is automatically entitled to the airline seat. It all depends on the pilot.

-----------------

Just so i don't get flamed too bad: I've been flying for 10yrs through high school & college (not aeronautical sci major) & CFI'ing for the last 1.5 yrs. I considered ERAU when I was a senior in h.s. but i'm glad i ultimately took the route I did and i feel i'm a better pilot because of it. I have no airline experience (yet ) so you guys already with the seats know better than i do, this is just the logic i've made of the whole situation.