![]() |
Originally Posted by Slaveaway
(Post 2121194)
Military guys should do a year or two at a regional. It would be a easier transition to mainline and it's a humbling experience living on poverty wages.
|
Originally Posted by Av8tor8710
(Post 2121037)
I'm sure at one point you were where I am now and had questions you wanted answered using the resources available to you. If you are getting that frustrated by questions from people who may not know something/are new to the industry, like you did and were at one point, then why even take the time to bother with a comment? Read it, roll your eyes and move along. Lmao.
|
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 2120899)
No, I agree that all civilian hires may have to come from the regional. However, military pilots will always be the first selected of pilot candidates for the majors. If you ran a company, you would understand that veterans are almost always better employees than non-veterans. Also, the only quantifiable education these days is the military academies, as even Ivy legal has become a joke.
Why are veterans better than non veterans in terms of a better employee? What an asinine remark. |
Who will be the first regional to fail? Air Wisconsin - future seems cloudy? Expressjet erj side contract comes to an end in 2017? Gojet - horrible performance and making daddy d mad? Silver? I see the wholly owns doing ok, Skywest filling classes just fine, Mesa with their crappy pay is still filling classes, Republic -who knows how they will emerge but they will emerge leaner and better suited to fulfill their contracts... TSA would be better off if they didn't bite off more than they can chew being unable to staff their newly added flying. Endevor is filling classes. Eventually someone is going down.
|
Johnny,
Please look at the last 40 years, or 40 weeks, of legacy hiring and that should prove Mesabah's point. The airlines seem to prefer ex-military pilots. GF |
Originally Posted by JohnnyDingus
(Post 2121223)
Why are veterans better than non veterans in terms of a better employee? What an asinine remark.
Of course Im probably wrong, so disregard the ramblings of another regional pilot ;) |
Originally Posted by NeverHome
(Post 2121241)
I think the reason he said that is because of EO laws and such. Showing a certain percentage of veterans on the roster is good PR. Besides im fairly certain that the companys get a level of tax breaks for having veterans on property. In that case yes the veteran may be the better candidate.
Of course Im probably wrong, so disregard the ramblings of another regional pilot ;) In that respect, that's a good point. Which is why I asked him why. |
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer
(Post 2121236)
Johnny,
Please look at the last 40 years, or 40 weeks, of legacy hiring and that should prove Mesabah's point. The airlines seem to prefer ex-military pilots. GF |
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 2121197)
You mean like when they were in college or brand new LTs?
I feel for the guys and gals that got burned with 9/11, 2008 and age 65. |
As an AA CA told me, the entire culture of the mainlines will change with retirements. Numbers speak for themselves, will be no choice but to have the majority of pilots coming from the civilian world over the next two decades. The people retiring now are mostly former military, the people doing the hiring of tomorrow will be mostly civilian.
One should not worry about these details however, effort is better spent making yourself more attractive to the mainlines. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:32 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands