AirTran/ATA Military Conversion Factor?

[RShebib]

Cave,

First of all, I think that mins are mins and you either meet them or you don't and that every airline has the right to set whatever min they want to attract the pilots they are looking for. Having said that, I think it's appropriate to add .2/.3 per flight like you mentioned as well to "equate" gate-to-gate time of the civilian guys with the takeoff-to-landing of the military guys.

For guys like me (and the guy who made your first quote), that could make a difference, because when you're flying fighters and getting your time 1.0 at a time, between making mins or not. I think the first quote guy was an F-18 driver, and a .2/.3 conversion factor might put him over the edge. Otherwise, it could easily take 1 to 1 1/2 years for a fighter pilot to get 200 hours. While I don't know what he was feeling, my interpretation of his 200 hours of cessna flying was his frustration that a fair conversion factor could be the difference in applying for an airline he would like to fly with today, or waiting up to 2 years to get the extra 200 hours.

The second quote seems to be someone who is/has been in a similar situation and just is finding someone like him to bit-ch with. While I have not started my airline career yet (jetBlue training in Feb), I understand that there is a healthy (and maybe not so healthy sometimes) rivalry between civilian and military pilots...bottom line is that if we're on this forum, we're all trying to become or are already part of a pretty cool fraternity. Why some of us continue to try to berate and belittle others is beyond me.

 

[Skater]

Back to the origingal thread, real quick... I called ATA in October with that same question and Helga, in the pilot hiring office, said do not add .3 conversion to military time. Good luck, hope you hear something, I haven't yet.

 

[BMD]

na

Ty, Thanks for singling out USNA grads. I suppose every pilot that graduated from your college is a stellar individual. Oh wait, that's a generalization.

 

[Ty Webb]

Re: na

Ty, Thanks for singling out USNA grads. I suppose every pilot that graduated from your college is a stellar individual. Oh wait, that's a generalization.

Get a grip. Tea Bags, the board's pre-eminent jackass started this thing by claiming that naval aviators were somehow better thant the other applicants . . . . if you don't want navy pilots to be in the spotlight, I suggest you p.m. your colleague T-Bags and let him know that you don't appreciate him being your spokesman.

Guess you guys forgot to throw him a blanket party or two.

 

[BMD]

spokesman

That begs the question, how many of your fellow AT pilots appreciate you acting as their spokeman?

 

[T-Bags]

The issue isn't "who's the "better pilot", the issue is how time should be counted. In all honesty, why would anyone want to work for a company that either doesn't understand the diff after all these years in the industry or INTENTIONALLY skews the hiring requirements AWAY from a military pilot? If a guy has 5000 hours in an F-16 he DOESN'T meet AT's minimums. That sounds reasonable .

Caveman, by looking at your background, it appears you spent 20 or so years in the marines (enlisted?), and at some point decided you wanted to be a pilot. I'm guessing you spent just about every extra dollar and a lot of your "free time" from a 24/7 job to build time and gain experience. Your path is honestly pretty impressive. You made it happen, and should be commended. You may be an OUTSTANDING pilot (the best pilot I flew with as an F/O had flown nothing larger or faster than a piper twin prior to the majors, and he was phenominal). This has NOTHING to do with "skills". For the record, I am not nor ever was a "fighter pilot", and The only boat I've been on was a cruise. But lets consider for a second what an F-whatever pilot went through to get his hours.
For each and EVERY flight hour he pre-briefs for probably two and de-briefs for two. Every single mucked up radio call is "reviewed", every airspeed deviation, every little mistake. who elese can say that? He has literally hundreds of hours in the simulator, dealing with sometimes 3 or 4 major malfunctions at a time. He zips around at at least .9 mach with no A/P and no F/O (he talks AND flies ). He must know more about "radar theory" than some of the engineers who designed the thing, and when he has an emergency, he's pretty much on his own.
Consider an AF instructor pilot. For every two flight hours, he's likely done at least one simulated single engine approach and landing. He likely averages three landings per hour and two instrument approaches. He may have nearly 500 sim hours where he did "V1" cut after "V1" cut. He zips around at .9 mach, again no A/P, one radio, one tacan , and one ils. At one point he eas cleared to 100 and 1/4 on the PAR (hand flown).

Do you REALLY think it is appropriate to compare that time to a C-150? By the AT guys on admission, they have a fairly high upgrade failure rate. The airlines who hire the fast movers apparently don't. Maybe AT should "re-evaluate" who meets the minimums. Unless they don't want guys who will/can leave for greener pastures when the majors start hiring again (or SWA calls...). Hmmm.

Ty, FLB, ect. My airline hired one jerk (me), I can count at least three or four at yours just from this board.... Hmmm.

 

[Ty Webb]

Re: spokesman

That begs the question, how many of your fellow AT pilots appreciate you acting as their spokeman?

I am not anyone's spokesman except Ty Webb.

But if your question is how many FL guys support my posts on this board- it's running 7-1, and the "1" smelled new.

Thanks for asking. Have a Happy New Year.

 

[Ty Webb]

No, Sport, that wouldn't be reasonable, and that is NOT what our minimums say. A pilot with 2500tt and 500 Milspec PIC meets the minimum requirements.

We do have a requirement that applicants be able to read and understand English, and I suspect THAT is what tripped you up.

 

[T-Bags]

Hey moron, from YOUR website,


Fixed wing flight time - 2500 hours
Multi-engine, fixed wing flight time - 1000 hours
121 PIC or military equivalent - 500 hours
An ATP certificate, or successful completion of the ATP written exam
Current First Class Medical certificate
Valid passport
Legally eligible for employment in the United States
Free of felony convictions within the most recent 10 years

since when was a viper multi engined? So I guess from your reply that your companies flight time requirements AREN'T reasonable, and we can also infer from your inability to read your own companies web page that the ability to read and understand english apparently ISN'T a requirement for employment. but here's a news flash, Ty Webb spouts off with inaccurate info, revealing himself as an idiot... You don't see that more than two or three times a day.....

 

[Ty Webb]

Originally posted by T-Bags

Hey moron, from YOUR website . . . .


You know what, T-Bags, it's probably a typo. And for anyone other than you, I'd be very willing to put in a call to HR to clarify it. If that didn't work, I'd be willing to take it to the DO and point out the problem.

Like I said, though, I would do that for anyone but you. You are your own worst enemy, and it's no wonder that no one is pushing hard to get you hired anywhere, which is why you are on this site, shooting your mouth off and getting nowhere.

PS, if you are going to be here wasting bandwidth, how about kicking in some money to support this site? Funny how all the regional guys and the "lowly" AirTran guys can pay, but God's-gift-to-UAL-and-Home-Depot T-Bags can't cough up a few beans, huh?

 

[T-Bags]

Ty, trust me, I'd NEVER ask you for a favor and with >5000 multi turbine, don't think I'd need to. But must be a typo huh? says a lot about a company when they handle things as important as pilot recruitment with such a lack of attention to detail. guess that alloow guys of your ilk to slip in. not the kind of place I've ever or will ever apply to.

 

[Ty Webb]

That's great, Bags. I'd never apply to a place that until recently would hire pilots with 350tt as long as they could check a box, so I guess we don't have to ever worry about working together.

FWIW, I would rather work for a company that made an occaisional typo, than one that had to file bankruptcy and turn 2000 pilots out on the street.

Have a nice life . . . .Still waiting to hear when you're going to cough up a few bucks to support this site.

 

[Russ]

Wanting to remain out of the furball but curious about something I read here, hold your fire.

One of the posters said he thought a type rating would help (737) even though no time in it (my assumption) beyond that needed to get the type. I wonder if the interviewer perceives someone really wanting to fly for SWA. Not often someone gets the 73 type unless targeting SWA. I could almost see it as a liability in some instances at an interview, both from having to answer tech questions about an aircraft you have min exposure to and from the would be shrinks in HR. Anyone seen evidence of this, or opinions otherwise?

 

[T-Bags]

"Not often someone gets the 73 type unless targeting SWA. I could almost see it as a liability in some instances at an interview, both from having to answer tech questions about an aircraft you have min exposure to and from the would be shrinks in HR. Anyone seen evidence of this, or opinions otherwise?"

Tell them you wanted to further your aviation career, and since not many folks are selling 717 types, you did the next best thing getting the 737 type (aren't they buying them?). I think a realistic HR individual would realive that although you may have favorites, you won't sit around and wait for one airline. You are a professional and you are willing to put your money where your mouth is and earn additional ratings/qualifications. I just don't see that as a negative, and who knows, maybe SWA will call.

 

[FLB717]

TBag

If you think that only a military pilot could fly a V1 cut or do multiple circuts, fly with no AP or FO, did you fly civilian? BOTH Mil and Civ pilots have to be real pilots to be hired any place. We have guys who have never flown a twin in th Mil or Civ side, all that they flew was F16's, so your theory has holes.

You wonder how Ty or myself or others seem to those who read this forum? What about YOUR comments, how does that reflect on UAL? Talk about a glass house thier sparky. And what are your current 737-700 (or similar) rates, oh yeah real close to OURS. So get off the low pay crap. Well at least you admitted your a jerk.

 

[T-Bags]

"If you think that only a military pilot could fly a V1 cut or do multiple circuts, fly with no AP or FO, did you fly civilian?"

Well there goes Ty's theory tht you have to be able to read and understand english to get hired at AT...

RTFP. The ENTIRE point was not that a military aviator is "superior" in any way (except in his ability to read an understand english...), but that his "experience" level per flight hour just may be above the typical pilot. Did Comair (where you "paid for training"...) give you a jet a couple times a month with the instruction to "beat up the pattern", do practice approaches, and practice engine out work? How about AT? Was there a REQUIREMENT that you do a certain number of these procedures a month? There was for those guys, and it SHOULD be recognized by those hiring IMHO, but it's your company, and if you don't put a premium on experience and training, I guess thats your problem.... Keeps pilot turnover low.

"We have guys who have never flown a twin in th Mil or Civ side, all that they flew was F16's, so your theory has holes."
Not my "theory", it's YOUR WEBSITE. Apparently when your neighbor built you the shortcut for this website, he forgot to make you one to AT. Go to the top of your browser and type www.airtrash, I mean airtran.com. follow the links. Never mind, you won't be able to figure it out, so here's the link. http://www.airtran.com/aboutus/employ/pilot.jsp

Do you think it's possible that the minimums have changed at some point? Heck, at one point, it seemed you had to have "demonstrated company (eal) loyalty during trying times...."

"And what are your current 737-700 (or similar) rates, oh yeah real close to OURS."

No. They aren't. You statement illustrates your ignorance with regard to the value of the entire package. benefit packages (to include retirement) are hugely expenses, and MUST be considered as part of the equation, unless you don't plan on being there at retirement....

 

[FLB717]

Les,
You have your thoughts on the Mil issue, do I think some conversion should be made for guys like you? Yeah maybe some. Do I think one type of pilots is better than the other, no. If you or anyone (TBag) tell me that only a Mil pilots does lots of training then that person has never flown as a Civ Instructor or Night Frieght etc. If you have not then you are not qualified to comment on the Civ side, maybe you are. Some would like to know your level of experience to understand if you know what you know or if your just some 14 year old with MSFS 2000. More than just Ty and myslef have asked you your background, other than your statement that you flew Mil and now are a airline pilot you say nothing. Have some stones man, Im not going to stoop to the level of TBag and make some slure on your airlines name or its pilots.

TBag,
Better check your own spelling there bud. So now all Comair guys are PFT, and so some form of looser.? I quess by your reasoning they are unqaulified to fly a jet. I can promise you I did not PFT. Those who did, that is thier choice. No Comair didnt give us an airplane to do circuts all day on taxpayer money. We did it all day on passenger money. We also did sim checks for V1 cuts, you ever do one, yes so whats the point? At AT, we like every other airline had to be able to fly before we got hired, I sure UAL needed even basic abilities from even you. Last I checked the UAL AFund was dead and the BFund alive. Could I be wrong, Im sure you will tell me. Your 737-700 rates are only slightly higher. Heck tell what they are currently. Is it more sure, but not by a great deal. Just be happy you have recall rights vs nothing. You dont like AT or maybe others, dont apply and be happy about it, I will. You want to tell all here that we are destroying the Industry, but our rates are slightly higher than othe LCC and only slightly lower than yours and AA. If you think your company, mine or anyone elses can have a a safe future keep then your head in the sand, and good luck. Any way this thread is less than informative.

 

[FDJ2]

We have guys who have never flown a twin in th Mil or Civ side, all that they flew was F16's, so your theory has holes.

FLB717, one small point, in order to get to that F-16 that pilot had to fly T-37s and T-38s, both of which I believe are twin engine jets.

Back to the subject matter of the thread. This has nothing to do with who is a better pilot or not, it has to do with converting military flight time to civilian flight time. When I got out of the Navy I only had about 2,000 hours, but I had flown over 1,400 sorties. Since military flight time reflects take-off to landing as opposed to block to block, I added .2 hours to each sortie to make up for the difference when I transfered my military time into my civilian logbook. On the inside front cover of my logbook I attached my conversion formula, along with my justification, and on which aircraft it was applicable as well as how much time was added to each airframe. As long as you are not trying to misrepresent yourself you should be fine. Don't adjust your logbook for any one particular employer, because you might have multiple interviews throughout your career. If a potential employer doesn't want see a conversion factor, it can easily be subtracted, if they do, there it is. Most employers understand the difference.

 

[FLB717]

FDJ2,
Thanks for the point. I think your method sounds like a winner. You are covered either way.

I put a call into HR for info on this subject to keep the BS factor in check and find out for sure. The point is every company has the ability and right to put what ever mins they want. If a person wants to apply for a particular company it is thier responsability to meet that companies mins, not the other way around.

 

[Astra Guy]

Gosh,

Before I found flightinfo.com I had no idea there was so much animosity between 121 types. I guess I have been too busy working in my own little but expanding world....flying around the country.

The economic situation even prior to 9/11 surely put a speed bump in many commercial careers. This, from what I have been told, is pretty much a ten year cyclical thing. The economy is more than ever before a supply and demand model.

I can tell you as an occasional pax in the back the conditions are similar to flying Thai Airways in the 70s on their turbo props. Gone are the days of having four seats across the fuselage or having more than nine inches of leg room. Prior to the recession all the carriers were cramming us in like sardines. With that in mind why in the world should we spend a $1 more to fly on ABC vs XYZ.

The LCC carriers will rule because none of the beheomoths have figured out that it will take some increased level of comfort, some increased level of service and more than foil wrapped pretzels for the flying public to splurge for the higher rates they charge. Brand loyalty may come with increases in these areas of comfort, service and pretzel count, but not until then.

Deregulation was the first thing to screw the pooch here. Hub and spoke was the second. Point to point for market share will be the savior of not only the LCCs but the rest.

While many of you might see $300K+ as you reach retirement age you have to consider that $300K in 2030 is about $150K in today's dollars.

I wish you all good luck if you are on the street, I sincerely do. I hope the rest who are working are thankful for what you have. It isn't about the money....it is about the flying and being the best you can at what you do.