Will yearly flight times be factor for major airline applicants?

[OState597]

Looking for facts and opinions concerning a potential resume checkbox I've been hearing about. I'm doing all I can to be marketable to both Flight Ops and the HR side of the interview process as the majors start to get ramped up...problem is I'm hearing that around 400 hours flown yearly might be required for recency of experience. I'm a former 121 FO of four years in the RJ, now acting as PIC on a private family-owned Hawker. And while I am in fact the lead Captain, the flying is cushy and casual and doesn't rack up the time like it used to, i.e less than 400 a year. Any thoughts? I'm afraid these computer driven application filters might kick me out before I get a foot in the door.

 

[BoilerUP]

Where did you hear "400hr/yr" from?

I would hope any HR professional worth a damn would realize a Part 91 pilot doesn't fly as much as a 121 pilot...

 

[OState597]

Didn't quote it from an official source, just chat amongst others on the same path...I'm also not saying it is viewed as an official "minimum". Mainly becoming curious if light flying (250+/- a year) would be considered a negative to an interview panel.

 

[IBNAV8R]

Where did you hear "400hr/yr" from?

I would hope any HR professional worth a damn would realize a Part 91 pilot doesn't fly as much as a 121 pilot...

IMHO, most of the HR "professionals" I've come across are utter morons. There is no rhyme or reason to what, how, or even IF, they think.

Most interviewers (who know what they're doing) basically want your experience to pass the "smell" test. I would think 200+ in the last year would be fine (unless some slack-jawed HR pogue arbitrarily deems otherwise) if you have the overall experience.

 

[Flying Illini]

There are CP's at regionals that don't log 200hrs in 12 months.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pilotyip]

Looking for facts and opinions concerning a potential resume checkbox I've been hearing about. I'm doing all I can to be marketable to both Flight Ops and the HR side of the interview process as the majors start to get ramped up...problem is I'm hearing that around 400 hours flown yearly might be required for recency of experience. I'm a former 121 FO of four years in the RJ, now acting as PIC on a private family-owned Hawker. And while I am in fact the lead Captain, the flying is cushy and casual and doesn't rack up the time like it used to, i.e less than 400 a year. Any thoughts? I'm afraid these computer driven application filters might kick me out before I get a foot in the door.

With the coming hiring boom airlines are going to be much less picky about how much time you got in the last year. Plus you are getting quality time as TJ PIC. Depends upon how bad the airline wants you. I know a guy hired at a major who not flown in 5 years. Of course his time was in the KC-135. In 1996 American Eagle wanted 500 hours in the last year and I know a guy who flying a King Air and had about 400 hours who got turned down, but if he had rented an AC-7 for a hundred hours he would have been eligible to fly for AE because of impressive experienced in a fabric cover VFR only SEL. All a matter of timing. Incidentally, the KingAir guy was hired by NWA a year later.

 

[Twisted Mind]

Yip,

What is an AC-7?

 

[Jeepman]

I have never heard this one. In my opinion a company would rather have a greater amount of hours than say 400/yr. Why? Experience. The greater the total time, the greater the experience, the more adept a candidate will be at handling a variety of situations from maintenance, to passengers (smoking, drunk, cussing in first class) to a variety of things.

Yes they want you current, but I haven't heard of this requirement.

 

[JudgeSmails218]

The recency of experience deal comes in to play more if you're currently on furlough. When I was out, many of the employers wanted you to have flown in the last 6 months. If you're currently employed and recent on your landings, I wouldn't be too concerned about it.

 

[cbrown1]

I know airways is looking for 400 hours in the last 12 months as one of their criteria as well as a type rating or upgrade in the past five years or less.

 

[BoilerUP]

I have never heard this one. In my opinion a company would rather have a greater amount of hours than say 400/yr. Why? Experience. The greater the total time, the greater the experience, the more adept a candidate will be at handling a variety of situations from maintenance, to passengers (smoking, drunk, cussing in first class) to a variety of things.

While I see your point...

I'm pretty certain a corporate pilot that "only" flies <400hr/yr is plenty experienced at dealing with a variety of situations including maintenance issues, high maintenance/unruly passengers, weather, special airports, etc.

The sum of one's experience is not directly correlated with the number in the total time column of their logbook, ESPECIALLY in business aviation.

 

[pilotyip]

I have never heard this one. In my opinion a company would rather have a greater amount of hours than say 400/yr. Why? Experience. The greater the total time, the greater the experience, the more adept a candidate will be at handling a variety of situations from maintenance, to passengers (smoking, drunk, cussing in first class) to a variety of things.

Yes they want you current, but I haven't heard of this requirement.

Experience is not measured strictly in hours, unfortunately except by HR people who can only read numbers. Reference the KC-135 driver who had not flown in 5 years hired a NWA. There is a big difference in experience between 400 hours in the last year flying a DA-20 out of KYIP, or 1000 hours of towing banners a MYR.

Yip,

What is an AC-7?

Aeronca Champ actually a 7AC, Piper Cub like airplane

 

[kj6991]

Biiiiishiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiip

 

[LearLove]

What is an AC-7?

Really??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aeronca_7ac_champion_g-bpfm_1946_arp.jpg

 

[OState597]

I know airways is looking for 400 hours in the last 12 months as one of their criteria as well as a type rating or upgrade in the past five years or less.

Oddly enough, the topic came up concerning the Airways criteria.

 

[JECKEL]

Concerning US Airways "application filter" that you must have had initial training within the last five years (upgrade counts).
US Air chief pilots and fleet captains have voiced concerns over the question, being used strictly as a HR tool, and have requested that it be altered or removed altogether. It effectively removes some if not all of the most experienced and qualified regional captains.
HR says that statics show that applicants who have had formal initial or upgrade training within the last 5 years are more apt to pass their required training and is a smarter hire than a 15 year captain far removed from his/her initial or upgrade training.
It's all about counting beans and not hiring the most qualified.

 

[SIG600]

Experience is not measured strictly in hours, unfortunately except by HR people who can only read numbers. Reference the KC-135 driver who had not flown in 5 years hired a NWA. There is a big difference in experience between 400 hours in the last year flying a DA-20 out of KYIP, or 1000 hours of towing banners a MYR.

Too bad they pay the same.

 

[xjhawk]

I have also heard that companies like FedEx have commission bullcrap studies to find their "ideal" candidate and they think that (I cant remember the exact numbers) somewhere between 3500-7500 is the most trainable-using computers to allow only their window of hours and their applications to be seen by the screeners.

 

[cbrown1]

I have also heard that companies like FedEx have commission bullcrap studies to find their "ideal" candidate and they think that (I cant remember the exact numbers) somewhere between 3500-7500 is the most trainable-using computers to allow only their window of hours and their applications to be seen by the screeners.

It's the current trend among HR departments.
That and asking almost 90% TMAT questions.

 

[JLaPine]

Looking for facts and opinions concerning a potential resume checkbox I've been hearing about. I'm doing all I can to be marketable to both Flight Ops and the HR side of the interview process as the majors start to get ramped up...problem is I'm hearing that around 400 hours flown yearly might be required for recency of experience. I'm a former 121 FO of four years in the RJ, now acting as PIC on a private family-owned Hawker. And while I am in fact the lead Captain, the flying is cushy and casual and doesn't rack up the time like it used to, i.e less than 400 a year. Any thoughts? I'm afraid these computer driven application filters might kick me out before I get a foot in the door.

You'd be lucky to get 400 hours a year in most military aircraft. I wouldn't worry about it. If you have a good job flying a Hawker, why worry about the airlines? I get the senority thing but why fix what's not broken?