Originally Posted by
uavking
Yet, the irony is that vets (commissioned or not) who did stuff besides aviation are largely afforded no more preference than any other 121 applicant. (My understanding is that UA was asked if vets got any additional points if they weren't military trained aviators) This is regardless of the types of leadership, deployment, schools, etc., experience that a guy has. I'd argue that a rifle squad or platoon leader is probably better at dynamic leadership than some aviators, and if it's pure management stuff, then some combat support and service support trades offer pretty good experience. Oh well.
Completely true. I'm addressing more the popular
perception that military officers (specifically that officer aviators are managers FIRST, that cannot be denied) are "better equipped" for airline management...as seen by
pilot managers.
It's totally plausible that officers/NCOs in other MOSs are completely INVISIBLE to pilot managers (especially ones with a military background). I've never heard anyone compliment management as being particularly...imaginative. Have you?
Airline management is ALWAYS going to biased toward what they
perceive as more "management," and for a myriad of largely
indefensible reasons, none of which have any meaningful bearing on which candidate is (actually) better qualified to operate transport category aircraft conservatively.
That's my theory, at any rate. I seriously doubt that airline management (in general), for all their grotesque inadequacies, actually BELIEVES that military aviators are superior pilots. No, it's far more likely they've been hiring future chief pilots, et al, and they've been doing so for DECADES.