galaxy flyer

I went thru UPT in the ANG, then transferred to an AFRC unit. Really, take which ever one offers UPT that fits your situation/desires. If you want a long term military career (you don’t know that now), AFRC has more possibilities. States vary widely in their Guardsman orientation and friendliness. I’ve sent about 15 guys and gals thru UPT, many are now captains at DL, AA, JB, UA, UPS and FDX. Go to the units you’re interested in, rush the squadron and the recruiters. AFRC advantage is they can select you for any unit, ANG selects for its unit or state only.

Mojo79

Check out bogidope.com and MilRecruiter.com. Both are operated by the same guy. Lots of good information.

CX500T

If airlines is the end goal and flying for the military is also a goal..

Air Guard... Then USAF Reserve.

Navy hinders themselves with no "guard" equivalent, so Naval Aviators are basically 10 years from the day you walk in the door to OCS, to can go start your civilian job. (8 years post wings, hard to do OCS and flight school in under 2 these years, although I did it in 18 months in 2001-02)

I say this as a Navy guy, if I could have changed anything I did, I would have gone and flown either heavies or fighters out of the MA or close by ANG.

Other plus to the ANG, if you get hired by a C-17, C-5, A-10, whatever unit, provided you pass flight training, you will fly that.

When I finished primary for the Navy, my choices were Helicopters, Helicopters, Helicopters or hey, how do Helicopters sound? And this was with a 67 NSS (basically top 5% of last 200 students) and #1 in my class. Next week? Guys who were just over the 50% mark ended up flying Tomcats. Week after that? A P3 draft.

ANG takes all the "but what will I get" stress/uncertainty out of it, and you can just concentrate on being the best damn aviator you can be.

rickair7777

I wouldn't go back and change anything, I wasn't at all airline oriented when I joined the Navy, but in retrospect guard/USAFR would have been far more conducive to a flying career and ultimate airline seniority position.

I'm 90% sure the Navy did actually have reserve OTS pilots maybe as recently as the early 80's. But today's USNR really isn't in the wholesale business of providing operational force structure to the AC, they prefer (or more accurately AC prefers) that the reserves just provide staff augmentation.

The "Naval Reserve" name was changed to "USNR" about a decade ago... the AC did that because congress had earmarked certain funding and hardware for "Naval Reserve". When that ceased to exist, those resources largely defaulted to Big Navy.

This year the USNR is being re-focused from "operational support" to "strategic depth", which from my perspective will mean less involvement in current ops and more schools and local training, which will inevitably be a bit out of context with the real world. They're doing it for two reasons...

1. Bench strength for MCO (PAC AOR obviously).
2. So the AC doesn't have to deal with RC as much.

But in my experience, operational support allowed RC personnel (some but not all) to be well spooled-up to drop right into an MCO. At the HQ/MAJCOM staff level, which is where the majority of the RC is assigned anyway. Rant off.

CX500T

They did Flight School to FTS / VR in the not too distant past (post 9/11) but I think that was a 1 or 2 year thing when they were trying to adjust manning.

I was told, at a reserve leadership function, with the then VCNO in attendance, that Big Navy, if they could get rid of the reserve and get another CSG they would. Apparently the reserves cost about what it would cost to build another carrier, air wing, and staff it all.

I was a squadron XO at the time, and basically figured here come the budget cuts and the MOBs right at min dwell, and I was right.

rickair7777

Yes, they would. Congress likes reserves and I suspect some of that is the intangible perceived benefit of having some part-civilian hooks in the Naval enterprise. Navy has less of that than the other services as it is.

I honestly don't know which would better serve national security... another CSG or the USNR bench strength. My depend on the situation at hand.

Flyer12345

Would it be advisable for someone who has the flight time and age to pursue ANG after acquiring a major airline seniority number? What would you all see as the pros and cons of that move?

tnkrdrvr

If you want to serve your country, and are willing to sacrifice some time/income to do it, go for it! Once you’re at your career destination airline the ANG will provide no advantages career wise, unless you think the ability to drop mil leave is more valuable than losing income due to required training and deployments. That said, you would be able to spend more time smelling the roses as a new military aviator since you have the safety net of a great civilian job.

rickair7777

Pro: You don't take any airline career progression delays due to AD training.

Con: Mil wings will get you hired at a major faster.

Hard to say what the net effect of that would be seniority wise.

A good compromise might be get on at a AA WO regional then do the guard. That way you're at least making some progress towards employment at AA by virtue of regional seniority. Then apply to DL and UA as soon as you get back from mil training.

If you're competitive for a legacy *now* or soon, then absolutely do that first, get a number then go guard (even if you have to bail in your first year).

J3nkums

I had my commercial and just under 300 hrs flying mostly Cessnas. If you have the time and money to get a little GA flying under your belt it will help you. The Navy will still teach you the way they want you to fly; however, with a little bit of experience it will take the edge off because you should have some of the basic airwork licked and be comfortable with the radios etc. For me, it made Primary much easier while some with no time struggled. Everyone seems to catch up though in later Phases of training.