Why hire military over your competition?

[pilotyip]

Btw, Yip- that last post was as dumb as you've ever posted. So contradictory in baseline logic that it doesn't deserve it's own response. Figure out what you actually think and let us know.

come on, don't you remember your slam to me from a couple years ago, that I was not as successful as you in my career because I did not work as hard as you. That my contention of the elements of timing and luck playing a major part in our careers did not apply to you because you have worked so hard at your career and I have not. Also you did not address my post of the average military pilot probably having much higher ACT scores than the average civilian pilots, an indicator of greater probability of success in training as measured by the college entrance requirements. How about that one?

 

[ragman]

I have observed the civ vs mil cat fight on this and other forums for many years. Allow me to share my perspective on the issue based on my 44 years as a professional pilot. 1. Good luck and good timing are the most important factors in getting on with a major airline. I know many talented ex mil pilots who had neither and could not get hired. 2. During my career I have shared a cockpit with many hundreds a talented aviators. I spent 21 years in the USAF mostly in jet transports, 16 with a major, 3 with a fractional and 2 as a contract pilot with a management outfit. During my career I have flown with only a infinitesimally small small minority of "knuckleheads". Good pilots are good pilots and knuckleheads are knuckleheads. I don't think a civ or mil background has any correlation in that regard. 3. In my experience, major airline flying was by far the least challenging and fractional/charter flying the most. 3. Excluding combat, one of the most challenging aspects of mil flying was the responsibility of command at such an early stage in your development as a pilot (in MAC UPT grads were considered for upgrade at 1000 hours and sent off in command of C-141s to the 4 corners of the world). I don't think adopting to the 121 world in a major airline is particularly tough or a big deal for any good pilot, regardless of background. Any new hire at SW or any other major is going to spend years in the right seat in any case.

 

[ragman]

I want to add 4. As an FO, take advantage of those years in the right seat and learn something from every a Captain you fly with. You can learn as much if not more from the bad ones! There's a lot of way " to skin a cat" as they say. Once you're in the left seat you'll be doing it your way. It's easy to stop learning when your way is the only way you see.

 

[freightdogfred]

I have observed the civ vs mil cat fight on this and other forums for many years. Allow me to share my perspective on the issue based on my 44 years as a professional pilot. 1. Good luck and good timing are the most important factors in getting on with a major airline. I know many talented ex mil pilots who had neither and could not get hired. 2. During my career I have shared a cockpit with many hundreds a talented aviators. I spent 21 years in the USAF mostly in jet transports, 16 with a major, 3 with a fractional and 2 as a contract pilot with a management outfit. During my career I have flown with only a infinitesimally small small minority of "knuckleheads". Good pilots are good pilots and knuckleheads are knuckleheads. I don't think a civ or mil background has any correlation in that regard. 3. In my experience, major airline flying was by far the least challenging and fractional/charter flying the most. 3. Excluding combat, one of the most challenging aspects of mil flying was the responsibility of command at such an early stage in your development as a pilot (in MAC UPT grads were considered for upgrade at 1000 hours and sent off in command of C-141s to the 4 corners of the world). I don't think adopting to the 121 world in a major airline is particularly tough or a big deal for any good pilot, regardless of background. Any new hire at SW or any other major is going to spend years in the right seat in any case.

Good post, right on the money. The sharpest pilot I ever flew with was ex-military. The worst pilot I ever flew with was ex-military. I emphasized a key point of your well written response.

 

[Capn Butthead]

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.

That's funny scoreboard...because in my initial ground school 9 years ago there were 4 busts in the time I was there. 2 were from Luke F16 guys...one was a nice guy just a lot going on. The other was a complete ******************************. He refused to go by his real name only his call sign. He wouldn't sit at the table with a bunch of us 28 year old regional pukes...until he busted. The other 2 were a kc135 guy and a F15 guy out of Massachusetts. There are hard facts for you....I can give you the call sign of 2 of them off of the top of my head.

 

[waveflyer]

come on, don't you remember your slam to me from a couple years ago, that I was not as successful as you in my career because I did not work as hard as you. That my contention of the elements of timing and luck playing a major part in our careers did not apply to you because you have worked so hard at your career and I have not. Also you did not address my post of the average military pilot probably having much higher ACT scores than the average civilian pilots, an indicator of greater probability of success in training as measured by the college entrance requirements. How about that one?

No I don't remember that yip.
But I do work hard, albeit not as much at flying anymore, so if the shoe fits, that's for you to ponder....

Well, why don't you implement that one yip.
As crazy as it sounds, SWA doesn't ask my advice on hiring and is certainly better off for it.

I do not ask for mil pilots to not be proud. I don't ask them to not take advantage of opportunities try can get. I advocate for the good civilian pilots who deal with a lot of made up adversity so mil guys can get preference. That's my point

 

[SWA Bubba]

Tell, you what, Wave...

I'll break this up into smaller segments, since you've already pointed out that your attention span is very short.

Yet here's the deal: Military pilots aren't the ones being discriminated by SWA in the hiring process. So your whole argument breaks down on that one fact.

So save it. It's not an insecurity when southwest ran a class with 26 ex mil guys in it.

It is your OPINION that civilian-trained pilots are being discriminated against. That's all--your opinion. And one not widely held, other than by people just like you. And yes, it IS an insecurity (not to mention probably paranoia and rationalization) for you to take a single snapshot in time (recent class military percentage) to extrapolate that into a culture of "discrimination against civilian-trained pilots." I say that, because Southwest STILL has greater than 50% civilian-trained pilot force.*

If the entire company's pilot force was 90% military-trained, I'd agree that you have a point. Since it's FAR, FAR from that, in fact more civilian than military trained, then YES, your whining about one class clearly is insecurity or rationalization.

Clear enough?

Bubba

* To put this in a left-wing perspective for you, Wave: perhaps the recent class of mostly military was some sort of "Affirmative Action" to make up for past discrimination against military-trained pilots. You know, since there's a lot more civilian-trained guys here than military-trained guys at Southwest.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Civilians aren't the ones showing up with a sense of superiority, nor a sense of entitlement. And you REALLY THINK ITS CIVILIANS MAKING THIS JOB HARD OUT ONLINE??

Really? Like YOUR sense of superiority? Like YOUR sense of entitlement due to your flight experiences? You've bitched time and again about military guys saying they were better, and then, from the other side of your mouth insist that civilian-trained pilots are "better." Tell, me Wave: exactly what is the difference between a military guy disparaging you by saying his training was better, and YOU disparaging military guys saying that your training is better? Do you really not see that it's exactly the same?

And no, I'm not saying that it's "civilians" who are making this job hard online. I'm saying that it's elitists like the "kernals" you describe, and in addition the civilians like YOU who insist that they're better, that tribalize the pilot force and make the job harder. Is that any clearer for you?

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

Just means that those with the power to influence the algorithms are ex mil and systemically influence the system....
Garbage in, garbage out.

Well, finally you admit that it's no longer any kind of "good ole boy" influence at Southwest. It's an independent company, unaffiliated with Southwest, that weights the experiences and qualifications of our prospective applicants.

Phew! At least now we can get you to stop whining about that! That's one thing down.

Bubba

 

[labbats]

Since the majors have started their hiring in the last few months the vast majority of newhires have been military. That's a fact and the entire reason for making this post.

Mudslinging aside, I simply ask why. Why would you hire someone in the military over your competition that wouldn't need to consolidate their hours and has already flown your aircraft? It makes no sense. We all know it and yet anyone who asks why gets sidetracked with the back and forth of who is better online. Forget about online and accept that there is currently mass discrimination for military over civilian right now. Some posts have said to get over it... well that's not so easily done in our seniority based system. It's unfair and it shouldn't be defended.

When you have an entire newhire class at Southwest that is military that is wrong. Same goes for the Delta and AA hiring lately.

I have immense respect for the military pilots. I simply don't accept the current hiring standards are justified.

What percent of ATP rated pilots are military? 5%? 10%? Yet they receive 80-90-100% of newhire slots at the majors? C'mon already.

 

[SWA Bubba]

As crazy as it sounds, SWA doesn't ask my advice on hiring and is certainly better off for it.

Well, at least you said ONE thing about pilot hiring that I can agree with.

I have no idea what all the criteria that this independent company uses to rate applicants, but I assume that they've weighed a lot of things that you and I haven't even considered. And I also assume that their criteria are those that have been vetted and approved by the airlines that use them (Southwest, American, etc.).

Hey, I have an idea, Wave-- why don't you start your own pilot rating company that heavily weighs all the Cessna time and other stuff you bitch about, and disregards any military fighter time, and downplays all other military time. Then you can see if even a single airline hiring board agrees with your idea of what makes a good pilot applicant.

Bubba

 

[Pirate]

Since the majors have started their hiring in the last few months the vast majority of newhires have been military. That's a fact and the entire reason for making this post.

Mudslinging aside, I simply ask why. Why would you hire someone in the military over your competition that wouldn't need to consolidate their hours and has already flown your aircraft? It makes no sense. We all know it and yet anyone who asks why gets sidetracked with the back and forth of who is better online. Forget about online and accept that there is currently mass discrimination for military over civilian right now. Some posts have said to get over it... well that's not so easily done in our seniority based system. It's unfair and it shouldn't be defended.

When you have an entire newhire class at Southwest that is military that is wrong. Same goes for the Delta and AA hiring lately.

I have immense respect for the military pilots. I simply don't accept the current hiring standards are justified.

What percent of ATP rated pilots are military? 5%? 10%? Yet they receive 80-90-100% of newhire slots at the majors? C'mon already.

How many of the magical 26 had 121 time? How long after a "military" guy has been in a 121 operation do you stop referring to him as a "military" guy.

I know a few military guys that were picked up recently. All had gotten off active duty and spent time in the guard while they flew either 121 or 135.

Some of you don't want facts. You just want to be butt hurt.

 

[labbats]

I would say one year at a 135 or 121 outfit would dismiss the military equivalent.

Ok, now your turn. How many of that Southwest class meet that criteria? Now how about at AA? Delta?

You'll find a let less of an inclination to be butthurt as you so eloquently put it and a lot more substance to the fact that a minority of pilots are getting the majority of jobs.

 

[SWA Bubba]

I would say one year at a 135 or 121 outfit would dismiss the military equivalent.

Ok, now your turn. How many of that Southwest class meet that criteria? Now how about at AA? Delta?

You'll find a let less of an inclination to be butthurt as you so eloquently put it and a lot more substance to the fact that a minority of pilots are getting the majority of jobs.

Again, I say BS.

Who knows how many military-trained guys in a specific class had 135 or 121 experience between the military and here? A fair portion of them, you can be sure. I've flown with a bunch of military-trained F/Os who spent time at Kalitta or a regional or a fractional or whatever, before they got hired here. Also remember, the last numbers that Capt Calkin put out mentioned that only 45% of our pilot force had "military experience." And, that 45% includes the guys who were ground pounders and non-pilots in the military and then got their flight ratings in the civilian world, as well as the military pilots who flew cargo, corporate or regionals before they got here. That means significantly less than 45% of our pilots came straight from a military cockpit to Southwest.

You're exactly like Wave in its regard: you use one snapshot, considering neither the historical numbers nor even the military-with-civilian-experience numbers from your own friggin' sample, to indict a culture and whine about poor, poor civilian pilots (who clearly are "better" than military-trained, according to Wave).

You know, since greater than 55% of Southwest's pilot force were all civilian-trained, and then even more percentage had significant civilian flying experience prior to Southwest, then obviously there were many, many new hire classes here that had a preponderance of civilian-trained guys in them. Funny, I don't remember the military guys ever whining like little b1tches about it when that happens.

Bubba

 

[labbats]

I suppose you could say I'm whining if you see it that way, but I've gone out of my way to be respectful and find out the reasoning. Seems the last few posts have been full of venom. I don't see the point.

If you want to say that the hiring in the last 5-6 months is primarily civilian then I disagree... strongly. Seems you want to skew facts away from my argument that the current regime caters to military by showing the entire seniority list. So be it. I'm discussing current events, you're discussing decades. I'm also discussing AA and Delta while you focus solely on Southwest.

 

[maru657]

This is nothing new, remember Delta only hired military trained pilots up untill the 80-s. On the other hand, that's one group that could NEVER afford to risk a strike.

 

[SpauldingSmails]

Interesting bit here from "Flying The Line 2" about the 1985 UAL Strike. There's a bit of discussion on UAL's hiring practices through the 60's and 70's and specifically how UAL was seeking a "placidity factor" in their pilots. Major airlines aren't simply hiring a pilot for a stint, once you're off probation you're basically theirs until you retire.

Perhaps some of what UAL sought in the past, is what airlines still seek today for their pilot employees.

http://www.alpa.org/publications/Flying_The_Line_II/FTL2Chapter15.html

 

[b737jock]

Like I said we all will get our day to Interview where we want it just might take some time. I know seniority is everything but fighting on a forum is not going to change a thing. I am a civilian pilot but have spent as much time flying into Afghanistan as a reserve C-17 pilot. the difference is i do it in a 747. I dont think either one is better just a different avenue to learn to fly. I tried to get a flight slot in the Navy when I was enlisted but at that time only academy grads were getting slots. No harm no foul I just went civilian. I have a knack for bad timing I guess. I will end up where I am meant to be when it is my time. Until then I will enjoy flying the whale.

 

[waveflyer]

Really? Like YOUR sense of superiority? Like YOUR sense of entitlement due to your flight experiences? You've bitched time and again about military guys saying they were better, and then, from the other side of your mouth insist that civilian-trained pilots are "better." Tell, me Wave: exactly what is the difference between a military guy disparaging you by saying his training was better, and YOU disparaging military guys saying that your training is better? Do you really not see that it's exactly the same?

And no, I'm not saying that it's "civilians" who are making this job hard online. I'm saying that it's elitists like the "kernals" you describe, and in addition the civilians like YOU who insist that they're better, that tribalize the pilot force and make the job harder. Is that any clearer for you?

Bubba

Bubba,
Thanks for all the internet attention. I appreciate it. Really.

My sense of superiority doesn't come from being a civilian pilot, it comes from walking around being me all day.

Bubba, this isn't a who came first, chicken or egg-

So let me ask you- ever been through the Phoenix base?
Is it possible that you can't see the military attitude and polarization that you don't like, because the main perpetrators treat you with more respect bc of your background?
Think that's possible?

Also, air tran hired a lot more civilian pilots than military. If SWA is now hiring more military than civilian to even it out, would that be acceptable to you?

Do you think that would be right?

Btw, I have never said that civilian training is better. I would put many civilian flight schools on par with any training, including military, as well as many 121 training departments as pilots make that step to turbine aircraft. But it isn't about training for me. It's experience.
Answer this, why do civilian pilots need 2-4 TIMES the amount of flight time, when they're flight time is the most applicable?

Argue that for me? Justify it?

 

[DCAA320]

I would put many civilian flight schools on par with any training, including military,

I know you don't agree, but sometimes you should just STFU, just saying as a friend bro

Civilian flight schools are a business. If they bust people, less will come.

Not going to type paragraphs of rhetoric because you are stuck on your opinions, that's dangerous.

Fly safe, have a nice day.