Originally Posted by
Lambourne
I did not delve into any comparison to skills of the civ versus mil. When it comes down to being equal in a decision on the pilot to hire, the CIV pilot will cost the company less. The MIL pilot will miss time from the company duty and will still be given B/C fund contributions. The company needs to hire pilots that will be available to fly. MIL pilots are often unavailable. It is strictly a cost and availability issue. As I said in the previous post, add in the vast quantity of highly qualified regional pilots and the MIL pilot is less attactive to a company dedicated to the bottom line.
Should the company also only hire pilots over the age of 60? They could keep their costs low by never having to pay anyone 6th year rates!
Take note, that as an AMERICAN, you get a fantastic deal on what the Guard and Reserve pilots provide you and your fellow countrymen for their small military paycheck and a significantly delayed pension. Many of them even take significant pay cuts to pull Guard/Reserve duty on military leave from their airline jobs. Companies should indeed be dedicated to the bottom line, but not at the blind and complete exclusion of every other consideration. Supporting the part-time defenders of our freedoms with the full time jobs they also need to feed their families is fine with me.
If we're going to ask military members to walk away from their civilian jobs and families for 2, 3 or 6 months at a time (as if late) to take the fight to our enemies overseas, the WORST thing we (you) can do is propose they not be hired so an airline can save a few bucks. I'm embarrassed for you to have suggested it is "strictly a cost and availability issue" without thinking a little deeper about what all is involved in the defense of this great nation.