Originally Posted by
PapaUniform
I wasn't trying to be disrespectful, I was merely pointing out that it isn't fair to say anybody without 121 experience is under-qualified, because it simply isn't true. Just because you personally have 1600 turbine hours doesn't mean somebody with anything less is incapable, or even less capable, of flying a jet. There is a lot more to experience than the number of pages in ones logbook, although that definitely plays a part.
Personally, I'm at a loss as to why you haven't gotten a call, and wish you luck. I guess only a few people in the AE hiring department know the rationale, but its ultimately their decision.
Also, sorry if my "burger" analogy wasn't clear. I was more referring to the training required, not comparing the jobs themselves. Obviously the basic requirements to be a pilot require much more "seasoning" than do a fry cook. Generally, people could become a great fry cook faster than they could become a great pilot. Probably, a lot of people who could be a fry cook don't have the stuff to become a pilot. But, nonetheless, there is some training required for both.
The number of hours doesn't matter so much, but zero hours in the airplane DOES matter. As an F.O., one of you responsibilities is to assume captain duties in the even the captain becomes incapacitated. What if he kicks the bucket on you're first flight. Would you want you're family in the back of that plane? It's a matter of safety. And also captains make mistakes too, they can benefit more from 121 experienced pilots. If you're in ORD and you're captain is about to deviate from taxi instructions, are you gonna step on the breaks as a new hire? Probably not because you have no idea where you're at, you're doing checklists, and you don't have the guts to question the captain. An experienced F.O. is more able to catch mistakes, speak up and prevent deviations.