They won't hire those of us that spent years flying on-demand 135 in busted-up, antiquated, fuel-guzzling turbojets with dozens of deferral stickers, through horrendous wx in the dark, either (SWA is a notable exception); simply SURVIVING that (some colleagues did not), whilst passing sim checkrides every six months, avoiding getting violated, and learning when to PUSH BACK on matters of fuel, wx, and mx are 1000% more "relevant" in comparison to ANYTHING the military has to offer airlines. I don't care what the job was.

That's NOT to say military aviation experience isn't useful--it's simply that "complete the mission because lives are at stake" doesn't translate to operating Part 25 aircraft (in an air carrier capacity) in any MEANINGFUL way (requiring preferential notice) in the sorting of applicants. It just doesn't. It *never* did.

All else is sanctimony and obfuscation.

Maybe the classic, fanatical airline preference for military has more to do with hiring future MANAGEMENT; officers are well trained for management roles (and a great many are rather unsympathetic to union concerns by DEFAULT)...there's no denying that.

I would tend to agree with most of this. When I actually talk to mil pilots, they don't over embellish their time like some of the situations I have heard here. I will however admit, combat sucks and those that have been in it, my gratitude goes out to you. I simply don't think that, for the 121 world, should trump someone that has been doing 121 flying for 5+ years.

Listen, at the end of the day we want to all succeed and I think the issue non military pilots have is that we are put a rung down simply because we didn't fly for the military, while the military aviators are placed a rung higher simply because they did. It is an unfair advantage that in my opinion isn't justified anymore and is simply around due to the old way of doing things. This is one industry where it seems just being associated with the military automatically gets you a leg up regardless of who you are competing with for the same job.

For some of the examples listed about crappy situations, well they all happen in every single field of aviation. Engine failures, gear failures, given too little or too much fuel, diversions, sickness, check rides etc.

The ironic thing about this whole argument and that kinda makes my point for me is that we have a diverse set of pilots from all walks of life flying for the airlines and none of them are more safe or more prone to accident than another, at least in the jet world. So if being from the military was that much more of an advantage, why are planes not falling out of the sky every time an emergency happens and a civilian pilot is at the controls? Why isn't the FAA stepping in and mandating that there always needs to be a competent military pilot in the flight deck?

My guess, this whole thing goes back to the "good ole boys club" and practices from decades ago, when I admit, it mattered. In this day and age I think the gap has closed.

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.

And in my class all the military passed first time and 4 CFIs failed checkrides. See how anecdotes don't mean much?

You see that's exactly what I tried to say in my post. You can't predict training outcome based on pilots background.

You definitely can but I don't think the #1 deciding factor for hiring is how likely they are to pass training.

Provable nonsense. "Passing training" is something the VAST majority of the pilot stock is rather good at. It is not exceptional by any accepted definition, and therefore CANNOT be the "#1 deciding factor" by major airlines.

Another person who thinks their experiences are unique to their past.

You don’t think that military pilots fly busted up, antiquated aircraft that guzzle fuel with maintenance issues through horrendous weather in the dark, simply surviving (some colleagues did not) while passing sim and flight check rides, avoiding getting violated, while learning when to push back?

His entire point was to refute what a previous poster mentioned. The previous post made it out like only military pilots have those kinds of experiences.

Other than being shot at (some of you) and dropping ordnance, both of which don't really prepare you for the 121 world, there is anything unique about the "flying" aspect of it. I will give the Navy pilots their due when it comes to landing on a ship, but again, not really something you need for 121 world.

I would like to add now that everyone has fully measured various parts of their body, I think points have been made to show it really is irrelevant other than hiring managers most likely came from the military as well. Its a club, you are either in and get an expedited pass or you're not. Those who are not get to sit back and watch people who are brand new to the 121 world jump the seniority line for no other reason. It isn't fair and we are talking about huge sums of money that pilots miss out on just because of this practice.

Reread my post

There's no evidence that I suggested it was "unique;" only that I suggested it was overlooked in alignment with a clear, longstanding bias towards military aviators.

Certainly. Now comes the question of frequency: how much time was spent behind desks saddled with management tasks for the air wing at the expense of flight time? What did they average a month? Ten hours? Fifteen? You think a retiree exiting the service after twenty years with 3000 hours TOTAL TIME is in the same league? Christ.

We're talking about DIFFERENT professions any way you cut it and, in addition to that, which background is more relevant (and beneficial) to operating transport category aircraft for an air carrier. My argument for the REASON behind this clearly unjust bias is that they're looking to hire future management...that's all.

Cheerfully withdrawn.

This implies it was unique and that non military pilots did not experience it:

“....1000% more ‘relevant’ in comparison to ANYTHING the military has to offer airlines. I don’t care what the job was”

Yeah, so I should have realized night cargo and military are basically the...same job? Come on.

Two different professions with some LIMITED overlap do not make for identical experiences.

I'm gonna end this debate once and for all. The ones who the airlines like to hire the most, are...........
.
.
.
.
ENLISTED GUYS!

Attachment 4223 ..........

Giving years of military service to this country, while being prepared to die for it, shows all the character that a company needs to know about you. Flying is the easy part and they can train just about anybody to fly within their standards.

Preference is given to veterans in almost every industry in the USA.

By the way, it’s not too late to go join up with the Army..

The military has some great people and some absolute garbage humans in it. It's not a league of saints.

The slobbering over the .mil is largely an American concept. In other countries people in the military are often viewed as being on government welfare, which it is.

I tried three times, couldn’t due to medical and then age, none of which had to do with flying. Please don’t start that defense. Just because one hasn’t doesn’t mean they wouldn’t.

So should fire fighters and police also get preferential hiring? They risk their lives everyday for their entire careers for our country.

The biggest jerks and the finest bros I’ve met have both been former military aviators.

Reading your posts reminds me of reading this bad boy:
https://www.amazon.com/Everything-Ex.../dp/0974261300





And I mean that as a compliment.

Okay, back to the popcorn....

Flow upgrade time with military experience
 

You’re missing the point. Military pilots fly in the exact conditions (busted up antiquated aircraft, horrendous weather at night, fuel guzzling, maintenance problems, surviving, etc) you described as being 1000% more relevant to an airline than ANYTHING the military has to offer. Military pilots fly in those same EXACT conditions from point A to point B, but add in the stress of a mission enroute and then landings and approaches at constantly unfamiliar fields in foreign countries. Also add in a wingman (or 3) whose problems also become your own. They are managing emergencies in multiple cockpits and making decisions for multiple aircraft at once. You would think an airline would want to hire someone who can do all of that safely, just as they should want to hire you.

I’m not saying that night cargo pilots aren’t suited for the majors. They are. But so are military pilots. Just because they haven’t logged 10,000 hours with a regional doesn’t mean they don’t have the skills and experience necessary to succeed at a major airline. 1000 hours at 3 hours each leg is much different than 1000 hours at .9 each.

OK, so by your comments then, should military pilots get preferential treatment over non military assuming we are comparing to say a 5+ year 121 regional pilot with several years as a captain?

Lack of currency is an issue. I’ve known many who did Eagle and never finished probation before going to Delta or United. It was about getting current.

The pro-.mil guys in this thread have weak arguments. I'd expect more articulate discussion points from superior pilots.

What’s your personal military aviation experience?

Yeah Varsity I agree with you, there’s about 80% great people and 20% garbage like you in every organization. If you can’t handle the slobbering on our Merican Service Members you ought to pack your **** and go fly for Norwegian.

Flow upgrade time with military experience
 

It depends on their resumes when compared side by side. Hours (and quality of those hours), experience, qualifications, leadership, interview answers, etc. It’s not preferential treatment. It’s who is more qualified. You seem to think the 121 captain is always more qualified, but that’s just your opinion.

My point is that you and DreadWing both expressed a sentiment that YOUR experiences were more relevant than that of a military pilot (see your exact quotes below). Not the other way around. When you gave examples of those experiences, you precisely described the administrative portion of a military pilots’ routine flight. It showed your ignorance as to what a military pilot experiences, going so far as saying that a military pilot could “pick up all that very easily.” It turns out that airlines like to hire people who have proven to perform safely and routinely under extreme pressures that are rarely recreated in civil aviation. They also like to hire regional captains, so don’t feel that this is unfair. Both are being hired with approximately the same amount of years flying (the pay your dues argument). So why is it so unfair to you?

“...you cant tell me that experience is more relevant than that of a regional pilot who has probably had a dozen or more 121 emergencies, countless re-routes, fuel issues etc...I also agree that a military pilot can pick up all that very easily...”

“...1000% more relevant than ANYTHING the military has to offer”

Two unbelievably ignorant statements that show a profound lack of basic military aviation knowledge. I would think the hiring practices of major airlines were unfair too if I didn’t realize that military pilots do more than just drop bombs and play volleyball. If I didn’t realize military pilots had fuel problems, flew in bad weather, dealt with emergencies, and were re-routed, I too would be angry that they were hired even by a regional.

OK, so feel we are getting a little off track here. I dont recall stating that military pilots didn't experience similar situations as a 121 pilot, only that 121 pilots have already proven that they can handle those situations in the 121 world.

Fantastic that military guys/gals can do all that you said they can, I dont think that is the argument. The argument is that a military guy automatically moves to the front of the line because, to summarize you, have proven capable of handling tense situations under stress. You know what, you are absolutely correct in that statement. However, if you are comparing that person to a 5+ year 121 pilot, guess what, they probably already have experienced a great number of crappy situations as well and are still alive to talk about it, hence proving themselves capable of doing the job.

So again, it isn't fair that a military pilot is chosen over a civilian pilot strictly on the basis of military time when compared to a capable and experienced civilian. They should both be given equal treatment and wait their turn.

I am not sure why this is even a debate to be honest. In terms of veterans being given priority in all fields, this is true, however most fields dont require 10 years of work just to start your final career. As an example, if a veteran is given a spot over a civilian to join the police force, its not like the civilian has been working as a cop for 10 years and then someone shows up and jumps in front of them, or worse, stops them from being hired at a hire position.

We are a unique industry and just because something works elsewhere doesn't mean it will hear. I will end it with this, I respect the hell out of our armed services and I sincerely hope that I am not misrepresenting myself on that. I am going to just call it spades here and agree to disagree, not like my voice really matters in this debate anyway. As I stated way back on page one, I wish you the best of luck and one day when I make it mainline and you are my captain, a thousand or so numbers ahead of me, we can reminisce about the good ole days of forum discussion. ;) Take care.

Still waiting on an answer...

That was entertaining fellas. 2 Thumbs up!

Sorry to do this, but back to the original post, being military has nothing to do with flow time, which it kinda sounds like you're asking. Flow is based solely off when your seniority number comes up.



If you're asking how long it will take a major to call you as military type that came to Envoy, you'd have to ask the pilot recruitment teams at the majors. Some don't make it to sims, some are around for several years.

If you walk into a room, and you can't figure out who the a-hole is...

I would say that if the majors give a preference for military, some of that might stem from military pilots coming from one of three very structured training programs, whereas civilians can come from a plethora of training/experience backgrounds of varying quality. I'm not saying civilian training is bad, I'm just saying it could be an unknown quality to the hiring teams.



And military pilots also deal with emergencies, re-routes, fuel issues, etc. After all they're often flying planes that can be up to 5 decades old. They also have experience with international and over-water/ oceanic ops, etc. that are relevant to the majors, that most civilian pilots won't get until they're flying with the majors.



But don't take this as me saying military should be given preference just because they're military, but they're experience is generally broader than it seems you think it is. And I don't think 121 folks should get preference because they're 121, it's not rocket science after all.

;)




:p





:D

We all put in our time and pay our dues, one way or another. I hope my military flying will help get me to mainline faster, but certainly don't expect it to. As for what each airline is specifically looking for, I have no clue. Till I get a call or email, I'll just keep putting in my time and updating my apps weekly.