Why hire military over your competition?

[Russ]

Airlines hire military more because they are cheaper.

Cheaper to train, cheaper to keep, less likely to strike, tax deduction for hiring vets, etc.

Curious if you can back that up beyond simple opinion?

 

[Dan Roman]

Curious if you can back that up beyond simple opinion?

Good point.. I was trying to figure out how an ex mil pilot with a 737 type was cheaper to train than an ex RJ pilot with a 737 type ??? If anything, the ex-mil pilot might need a little extra training to transition to the civilian world (and then he would be just as good as a civ pilot).
Also, I have to wonder if that's internet reality that hiring ex mil pilots give the airlines a tax break????
No slam on ex mil pilots, I've known a lot of great one's, but the few that think they are "better" because they are ex mil are actually the weak one's of the breed.

 

[pilotyip]

Also, I have to wonder if that's internet reality that hiring ex mil pilots give the airlines a tax break????

I too wonder about this one. Maybe disabled Vet's but not many airline pilots would fit in that category. I got two vets in our last class, I'll ask HR if there is such a thing.

 

[scarlet]

Rather fly with Civilian way. Never been impressed by the military pilot skills, weather, approaches, or LANDINGS. just saying..Its just a poll.

 

[SIG600]

Is that why you guys have 12,000 foot runways?

HA! Owned!

Anyone can be a military pilot, the training is very good, it is just their entrance requirements make it hard to get a slot. Unless of course there is a war going and on and guys like me get a shot.

Wrong. If this were true you wouldn't have attrition in the Training Commands, and you wouldn't have guys getting FNAEB'd in the fleet for poor performance/decision making. The vetting is a never ending process.

 

[DCAA320]

Wrong. If this were true you wouldn't have attrition in the Training Commands, and you wouldn't have guys getting FNAEB'd in the fleet for poor performance/decision making. The vetting is a never ending process.

We lost 50% of our AOCS class, and that's even before anyone touched an airplane.

 

[SIG600]

We lost 50% of our AOCS class, and that's even before anyone touched an airplane.

I'm not saying it isn't a huge hurdle, but yip insinuates that it's the only hurdle to getting, and then keeping your wings.

 

[scoreboardII]

Curious if you can back that up beyond simple opinion?

What's your opinion against it? There is no hard study on any of this, just what I heard from my company.

I have heard of training busts. None by ex mil. I have heard some pretty adamant burn the place down comments from pilots, none ex mil.

Sorry this is a slap in the face of the everyone gets a trophy crowd, but at USAF pilot training we lost about 50% of our guys before the end of training, 100% of the girls. You couldn't just keep buying another hour trying to get better, you had to do it right the first time. Heck, at the next stage, after they spent $2 million on you, the bust rate was about 25%.

 

[DCAA320]

I'm not saying it isn't a huge hurdle, but yip insinuates that it's the only hurdle to getting, and then keeping your wings.

He is wrong, I am agreeing with you, lots of attrition start to finish, I had a great time.

San Diego, Hawaii, Manila, HK, Singapore, if was a rough cruise

 

[Russ]

Scoreboard

A claim was made, my expectation is it can be backed with empirical evidence, otherwise it's opinion only.

 

[dicko]

We lost 50% of our AOCS class, and that's even before anyone touched an airplane.

The dangers of tea bagging and snorkeling a shipmate in a small bunk are grossly underestimated. A 50% mortality rate is very high though. Poor technique perhaps ?

Lest we forget.

 

[maru657]

I know from our experience the training failure rate for military trained pilots is far below that of the civilian source pilots that we have hired. The military's weeding out process eliminates a lot of guys in training; I would guess much more than a civilian training program.

Of course that could be the problem with Delta re-inventing wind shear in the 80s, Palm 90 etc. Military pilots are what they were before induction and training. Some wanted it badly enough to work at being the best. Some sailed through, then joined the club at Delta, AA, etc.

 

[livin'thesim]

As an Air Force pilot I can assure everyone I am the best pilot on the planet. And I am certainly far superior in every way to others that flew for the other branches of service.

You might possibly be the best pilot ever known. However, I'm not inclined to let your squadron buddies piggyback on your reputation.

 

[livin'thesim]

After training it's a toss up dude.

I have landed in zero zero conditions, you have not, not counting Cat III auto pilot.

After training and a year or so on the line.

Immediately after, haha, lol, no.

And exactly how much automation and guidance did you have to make that 0/0 landing?

Just like a military guy to think that it all comes down to some procedural skills rather than thinking holistically, about things like managing the crew, managing the resources, familiarity with working with maintenance control, familiarity with the regulatory and procedural aspects of the airline job, etc.

If you want to claim that a freshly trained fighter pilot is more capable on first day off IOE than a 10,000 regional captain who has actually been doing the job for the last ten years, b|tch, please....

 

[livin'thesim]

A few points:

#1....your not a military guy
#2....you went to a podunk local flight school
#3....you have low flight time because of being in the sim most of the time
#4....your begging to be hired but are having difficulty even though you think that your skills and "aviation upbringing" are a result of the best route anyone could ever take to a career in aviation....much like the military guys you are complaining about to begin with.

I'm low time? Coulda fooled me.

My sim time taught me that there is no difference between civil and military, or between Embry Riddle and local flight school. Every pilot is the sum total of their capabilities, motivation, and opportunities.

My path was no better or worse than anyone else's. I've met people who fly way better than me, and who fly way worse.

I think that military training is one very excellent way to go, having the additional benefit of not having to pay for the ratings.

However, like I said, military pilots (to a far greater degree than civilian pilots) just can't seem to let go of pointing to their pedigree. They NEED to be better. It's an ego thing. Now, I've met plenty of military pilots who think as I do - that it all depends on the individual.

Ever sit in the sim and watch a mid-time regional FO coaching his former-military sim partner through an approach? It happens.

It all depends on the pilot. Having better training is like having better genetics. It helps, but only to the extent you capitalize on it.

 

[DCAA320]

And exactly how much automation and guidance did you have to make that 0/0 landing?
.

Zero automation, PAR.

After training and a year or so on the line.

Immediately after, haha, lol, no.

Wrong, they try to make the QRH easy for everyone now and there are so few memory items also.

I would say it is more up to the individual on how they handle an emergency.

 

[Russ]

Not exactly sure why you would fly a PAR approach as down to 0/0 when its not intended for it. There are published minimums in the general section of the approach plate books.

The FPN63 and other PAR types I used were accurate to decision height though most of us would continue with advisory information to over landing threshold.

 

[DCAA320]

Not exactly sure why you would fly a PAR approach as down to 0/0 when its not intended for it. There are published minimums in the general section of the approach plate books.

The FPN63 and other PAR types I used were accurate to decision height though most of us would continue with advisory information to over landing threshold.

Because you are allowed to shoot practice approaches, and if you just happen to get the runway in sight, and deem it safe to land, you can.

 

[SIG600]

I'm low time? Coulda fooled me.

My sim time taught me that there is no difference between civil and military, or between Embry Riddle and local flight school. Every pilot is the sum total of their capabilities, motivation, and opportunities.

My path was no better or worse than anyone else's. I've met people who fly way better than me, and who fly way worse.

I think that military training is one very excellent way to go, having the additional benefit of not having to pay for the ratings.

However, like I said, military pilots (to a far greater degree than civilian pilots) just can't seem to let go of pointing to their pedigree. They NEED to be better. It's an ego thing. Now, I've met plenty of military pilots who think as I do - that it all depends on the individual.

Ever sit in the sim and watch a mid-time regional FO coaching his former-military sim partner through an approach? It happens.

It all depends on the pilot. Having better training is like having better genetics. It helps, but only to the extent you capitalize on it.

There is nothing more entertaining than a guy with no experience or street cred trying to argue a point.

Get back in your box. Literally.

 

[Russ]

Sure, you can do practice approaches, but its not 0/0 when the PAR controller stops giving guidance prior to touchdown. A lot can happen between threshold crossing and touchdown.