I think it's more than a military fetish or even gung-ho comradeship or respect for the quality of military training. It keeps the cost of the payroll down.

Why WOULD an airline wish to hire a 25 year old at a major when they could hire a 45.year old military retiree? Both are going to get paid based on their seniority.

Say both spend ten years climbing the FO Payscale, then become captains. That's a push for payroll. But then two years later both are going to go over 12 years, essentially maxing out top Payscale for a lot of airlines. But one guy is going to stay there for eight years and then retire - to be replaced if possible with another 45 year old and the process gets repeated. The other is going to stay there for 28 years and retire.

So which group of pilots is going to represent the LOWEST annual personnel cost to the airline over the course of their career? The guy who spends half of his career as an FO - who are needed on a pretty much one for one basis as captains - or the guy who spends three quarters of his career as a captain, most of that at the top of the Payscale? That's pretty simple arithmetic for the HR and accounting people to do.

No, given their druthers, the guys with the green eyeshades and sharp pencils will always prefer the older guy, other factors being essentially equal. The training cost of bringing two 45 year olds up to standard are trivial compared to the cost of bringing one 25 year old up to standard and then eventually paying him top scale for three decades.

Given their druthers, the accountants would rather start the 25 year olds out at a wholly owned regional, and keep him there for 20 years, plugging older flyers from the military and older OTS hires from somebody else's regional in above him so they can reset his seniority back to zero when he does eventually flow to the major.

It isn't personal, just bookkeeping.