I did not delve into any comparison to skills of the civ versus mil. When it comes down to being equal in a decision on the pilot to hire, the CIV pilot will cost the company less. The MIL pilot will miss time from the company duty and will still be given B/C fund contributions. The company needs to hire pilots that will be available to fly. MIL pilots are often unavailable. It is strictly a cost and availability issue. As I said in the previous post, add in the vast quantity of highly qualified regional pilots and the MIL pilot is less attactive to a company dedicated to the bottom line.

 

And just like crew planning/staffing departments takes into account the "averages" of sick calls, OJI's, retirements, training events and whatever else can pull a pilot out offline, it gets taken into account in the PFM of "it takes X amount of pilots to staff Y amount of block hours/segments". And in typical airline (mis)management fashion, DOESN'T mean they get it right.

So although it can create somewhat of a challenge for staffing purposes, it HARDLY factors into a decision of whether or not they'd want to hire mil guard/reserve pilots.

Look at many of the OTS hires at DAL, seems as if a high percentage of them are mil due to much of the civ demographic coming from flows and the SSP. And it's probably safe to say that not ALL of them are separated with NO reserve/guard commitment.

 

Should the company also only hire pilots over the age of 60? They could keep their costs low by never having to pay anyone 6th year rates!

Take note, that as an AMERICAN, you get a fantastic deal on what the Guard and Reserve pilots provide you and your fellow countrymen for their small military paycheck and a significantly delayed pension. Many of them even take significant pay cuts to pull Guard/Reserve duty on military leave from their airline jobs. Companies should indeed be dedicated to the bottom line, but not at the blind and complete exclusion of every other consideration. Supporting the part-time defenders of our freedoms with the full time jobs they also need to feed their families is fine with me.

If we're going to ask military members to walk away from their civilian jobs and families for 2, 3 or 6 months at a time (as if late) to take the fight to our enemies overseas, the WORST thing we (you) can do is propose they not be hired so an airline can save a few bucks. I'm embarrassed for you to have suggested it is "strictly a cost and availability issue" without thinking a little deeper about what all is involved in the defense of this great nation.

 

In addition, military pilots usually don't use company offered healthcare. I'd argue that over a career that savings would likely easily outpace any perceived loss from military commitments. In addition, a pilot is paid B/C retirement funds only for the hours he or she works. They get nothing when on mil leave. I too am embarrassed by your comments.

 

It would be even more weird if he was the commuter I saw that had a mini tape measure clipped to his roller bag. I still don't know what the point of carrying that thing was...or why it was on the outside of the bag?

 

Can someone explain the "rack & stack"? I'd this just a reevaluation of all active apps to determine those with the most points?

 

Did LUAL have any issues with this? Since the hiring process is not exclusively LCAL now I would think this would no longer be an issue, or a perceived issue.

LCAL was sued for a "hostile work environment" and lost on what seemed like a technicality--that it may indeed have been a hostile work environment but that wasn't covered under USERRA.

Fifth Circuit Rejects USERRA Hostile Work Environment Claims by Group of Continental Airlines Pilots | Bracewell & Giuliani Mobile

Fifth Circuit Rejects USERRA Hostile Work Environment Claims by Group of Continental Airlines Pilots

On March 22, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Carder v. Continental Airlines, Inc., ruling that there is no cause of action for hostile work environment or harassment under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), which prohibits discrimination against employees who serve in the uniformed services. The Fifth Circuit is the first court of appeals to expressly address this issue.

Facts

Continental was sued by a group of its pilots who were also members of the Air National Guard and the Reserves. The pilots alleged that the airline had violated USERRA by subjecting them to a hostile work environment and harassment because of their military service obligations. For example, they complained that Continental managers made derisive comments to them such as:

"If you guys take more than three or four days a month in military leave, you’re just taking advantage of the system."
“I used to be guard guy, so I know the scams you guys are running."
It’s getting really difficult to hire you military guys because you’re taking so much military leave."
“You need to choose between CAL and the Navy."

The Fifth Circuit:

Refused to recognize a hostile work environment or harassment claim under USERRA because USERRA does not expressly provide for such claims and the language in USERRA is very different from that in other non-discrimination laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), where hostile work environment and harassment claims have been recognized.

Reasoned that Title VII and the ADA prohibit discrimination against historically disadvantaged minorities with respect to the "terms, conditions, or privileges of employment." In contrast, USERRA does not speak in terms of "conditions" of employment, but uses the more narrow language “any benefit of employment." Also, there is no indication that Congress considered members of the uniformed services to be a historically disadvantaged minority that needed special protection.

Concluded that if a service member suffers harassment to such a degree that it makes the workplace intolerable or otherwise adversely affects a benefit of employment, then the service member will have a claim against his/her employer for constructive discharge or other claim based on discrimination. Therefore, recognition of a hostile work environment or harassment claim under USERRA is unnecessary.

 

Congress did pass a subsequent law that changed the language to bridge the gap between USERRA language and other federal laws regarding workplace harassment.

http://www.tullylegal.com/washington...e&page_id=7443

Service members who felt vulnerable after a federal appellate court earlier this year ruled the Uniformed Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) does not protect them from hostile work environments now have reason to be hopeful. Legislation proposing to protect service members from work environments in which their military duty is a source of hostility is advancing in Congress.

The U.S. House of Representatives on Oct. 12 passed the Veterans Opportunity to Work Act of 2011 (VOW Act, H.R. 2433). Among the bill’s many provisions, which mostly aim to help veterans to more easily transition into civilian employment, is one that would amend USERRA. The bill proposes to clarify USERRA’s definitions for employment benefits to include “the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.”

It was because this phrase was missing from USERRA that the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Carder v. Continental Airlines, Inc. that the law’s employment protections do not cover hostile work environments. Other anti-discrimination-based federal laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, feature this phrase. The protection for “conditions...of employment” is what is crucial for employees seeking to enforce their rights when facing a hostile work environment.

[became law on 11/21/11 combined with a Senate bill]

http://warriorcare.dodlive.mil/2011/...re-heroes-act/

 

To clarify, the pilots who sued LCAL lost.

 

Now I'm just speculating here based on her comments. Someone will respond how they were hired back in the 90s with <1000 hrs. But that was then, today...
Sub 2k might be too low for UA. She recommended this guy go to job fairs.
Sub 3k is getting there if you're strong elsewhere in your resume.
>3k is good, except that you're about to retire (fighter guys). But that's the life we chose.
If UA is your #1, go to the job fairs, meet a CP and work at UAX for a decade. Ok, skip the last one...