m80drvr,
I'm a known quantity to Delta. They know what they're getting. If I was coming from some RJ outfit I'm a wildcard. I'm sure they'd rather have me and my 1725 hours than that captian at Colgan.
Yes, you're a known qty. Known that you ended up on the bottom-rung of military aircraft. Reason? Not graduating at the top of your class? So did you come in as average then? I've never flown military (they weren't hiring when I graduated) but every mil pilot I've flown with tells me fighter guys are the cream of the crop and that tanker/ freighter/ helo guys aren't. I'm not saying either way, only relaying what your military brethren have told me. I don't mean any offense to C17, KC or UH60 drivers. I'm sure the training you received was top-notch and only the best of your group got through. But these are the things I have been told by fighter-jocks and other military personnel over the years.
Fact is, there is little difference between a military or civilian pilot, once the civilian drivers get up past a certain number of hours (say 4-5,000). I've trained military and civilian pilots in Pt121 flying. 8 out of 10 times the civilian pilots are much easier to train and grasp commercial-flying concepts. Not saying it's impossible for military pilots to make the transition; at the end of the day an ILS is an ILS, a G/A the same. But like I said, neither group, as a whole, is better than the other. To say military is better is, well, uninformed. Though I will agree that those who get through military flight school are held to a higher standard than those in the civilian world who might have somehow slipped through the cracks, I have met plenty of average military pilots who made me wonder whether they slipped through cracks as well.
If there is a bias at an airline to hire military pilots, like at say, FedEx (85% mil), then THAT is the reason they are chosen... the bias. But it isn't based on being a known-qty, as you say. BTW, how many seasoned military-pilots have crashed FedEx aircraft in the last 10 yrs? Their safety record is so bad their own CP put out that 3 pager pilot circular a few years back lambasting the pilots for the "WTF-aspect" of all their crashes of late (remember that letter?). Yet the NRT crew failed to execute a basic G/A after a balked ldg... something we all train for in the sim (3rd bounce 3.4 Gs).
I find a lot of military pilots go into this job expecting that they are "the best" at what they do. That often introduces a blind-spot to their learning from others. I've seen F/18 pilots crash in the sim because they mismanaged their thrust, then turn around and tell me it was my fault. Really. A few weeks back an airline I use to fly for had a former AF pilot crash one of their birds (hard landing, crashed on 3rd bounce of balked). The nose gear went into the FOs seat. He's lucky to still be alive. The latest is that plane will be a total write-off. Numerous FOs have complained about this skipper to me, one even wrote the CP that he will not fly with him. He also had two (yes 2!) tail-strikes on ldg in the past 3 yrs. So everyone expected him to be fired this time around. But guess what, he's going back to re-training as we speak. Reason? His CP buddy is former AF as well. Incredible. There's a lot of that in the military. Buddies protecting buddies, etc. I think we all know that. I know I've heard enough stories of such.
Believe me, 8,000hr RJ Captains with 5,000 hrs PIC jet are a just as much of a "known qty" than a 1800 hr mil pilot. It all depends on who is sitting on the interview panel that day, how well that pilot flys the sim, and how well he or she gets through the panel.
BTW, there isn't any doubt in my mind that US Military training is light-years better than any airline or civilian training (airline trng is minimal due to cost). I've been put though a number of advanced, swept-wing, aerodynamics classes taught by military pilots and what I learned was, by far, way more than I would ever get taught in an airline training environment. But training is just that, training. It's text-book, abstract learning. Not exactly real-world. At the end of the day, real-world experience is the database you access for judgement in this business. Just because a military pilot learns about cross-over angle of attack or backside of the drag curve in mil training classroom, doesn't mean he has the skills to apply that to civilian airliner flying. To be fair, neither does the civilian pilot, especially if he hasn't been taught the aforementioned subjects in a proper learning environment. I'm just saying, there isn't much difference between military or civilian (once civilians have passed that 4-5,000 hr mark). It all boils down the the pilot and his or her competence and experience level.
Back to the OP thread topic. I will concur the bar is often lowered for women pilots. It's up the the checkairman to see that they don't send sub-standard products to the line. I have always maintained my professionalism there but I have seen a few of occasions where women have used their "assets" to try and persuade me otherwise (less than 5 in 7 yrs as a 121 checkairman). While I don't cave, I must admit, tragically, I have seen instructors who do/ have. It's kind of pathetic actually. To see a grown man cut some young chick a break because of how well she flirts with him.
- has a much higher attrition rate that civilian flight training. Just the facts. 
