Impressive! I didn't think AA would hire any Eagle Rights guys. Good to see.

^^^ Some of us call that 'jumping the list.'

OTS = non flows.
OTS = mil + civ

Sounds like a go getter to me.

Al - they are. It's encouraged.

I've heard, unconfirmed, that 'jumping the list' isn't allowed anymore. IDK.

I personally know of three. All quality guys.

At the most basic, technical level, yes you're correct. Anyone NOT a flow is "technically" OTS. However, that's not at all how the term is used or understood.

Nobody said military are guaranteed a job, but the indisputable fact remains that they DO get invited to interview far faster than a regular non-mil candidate, and they DO get preferential treatment during the entire process over a regular civilian.

Just read the "Who's Been Hired" thread. Orleans any of the countless Facebook groups. Countless mil pilots getting a shot at the majors with only a few thousand hours, while many more equally qualified, if not more so, regular civilian pilots get ignored. Thousands of hours of PIC, widebody, passenger ops, etc etc totally ignored while any F16 pilot with low 4 digit flight time gets an interview.

This gist of this thread is who's getting hired at what legacy and who's not in a "special preferences" group.

American has made it very difficult for non-Mil, non-flow pilots to get on board. Not impossible, but incredibly unlikely.

Delta, a little bit easier, but still very difficult to get that phone call.

But for guys like me, veteran (not a pilot) brought up through the civilian ranks working through various regionals, ACMI trash haulers, LCC's and ULCC's, the ONLY Legacy that's giving us "off the street" guys a fair shot seems to be United.

I wasn't going to but you're Bernie Sanders "fair shot" whining made me bite.

How long was your longest training contract with any of those?

Delta is/was hiring almost 50% or in that neighborhood pure civilian. A sign of a weak individual is blaming others for their lack of success.

He may have worded that wrong. I think what he meant was, statistically UAL is the best shot based on the hiring stats, ratios and numbers thus far.

I viewed his post as good information and found it useful.

I don't think his original intention was to blame others for anything, sounds like he was interested in a specific statistical analysis of hired pilots, and I am interested in that as well: mil and flow vs regular civilian (non-mil, non-flow). Just trying to figure out what the odds are, that's all.