Major Airlines are no longer requiring 4yr degrees in becoming a Commercial pilot

[alwyn2d]

Delta airlines is the latest in not requiring a 4yr degree. It's preferred but no longer a requirement.

The major airlines are pulling away all the stops in finding pilots to fill the vacancies for the foreseeable future.

[Sprkt69]

There are not enough applicants for the airlines to hire over the next couple of years. Already desired number of new hires is being lowered to meet applicant pools

[HuggyU2]

34 minutes ago, Sprkt69 said:

Already desired number of new hires is being lowered to meet applicant pools

Not true!  
It has NOTHING to do with "lowering standards". 
Just ask "management". 

[RegularJoe]

Generations and decades change but airlines and the management will always be the same.

[hindsight2020]

*yawn* the tide goes up, the tide goes down. 

[Prosuper]

Seriously does having a non-technical degree make you a better pilot, just curious. Most guys in this forum have had the advantage of going through a commissioning source were Uncle Sam picks up the tab and the flight training. The private pilot route just costs about $25362.00 for a 4-year degree. Then add between the cost $8300.00 to $12300.00 to get your PPL. If wasn't for the military most of you would not be flying. Another $2000 to $6000 to get your twin rating.

[HossHarris]

1 hour ago, Prosuper said:

Seriously does having a non-technical degree make you a better pilot, just curious. Most guys in this forum have had the advantage of going through a commissioning source were Uncle Sam picks up the tab and the flight training. The private pilot route just costs about $25362.00 for a 4-year degree. Then add between the cost $8300.00 to $12300.00 to get your PPL. If wasn't for the military most of you would not be flying. Another $2000 to $6000 to get your twin rating.

It’s not about the degree itself. 
 

it’s about what it takes to get that piece of paper. Being able to manage time, commitment to long term goals, being “trainable,” etc. 

not saying that’s the only way to get or demonstrate desired qualities….but having a degree is a known quantity. 

[Prosuper]

47 minutes ago, HossHarris said:

It’s not about the degree itself. 
 

it’s about what it takes to get that piece of paper. Being able to manage time, commitment to long term goals, being “trainable,” etc. 

not saying that’s the only way to get or demonstrate desired qualities….but having a degree is a known quantity. 

My point is that the colleges and flight schools have priced themselves out of getting kids from non-affluent families from ever getting a degree or PPL due to cost which totally shrinks the future pilot pool. During my time on active duty, I actually met pilots who hated flying. Time for the airlines to shell out some dollars and start their own UPT's.

[mp5g]

Not exactly a guaranteed job, per se, but you’d definitely have a leg up in getting hired by a regional that then flows to the major at AA after 2 years.  
 

https://www.aacadetacademy.com/CadetAcademy/Index

[hindsight2020]

6 hours ago, Prosuper said:

Seriously does having a non-technical degree make you a better pilot, just curious. Most guys in this forum have had the advantage of going through a commissioning source were Uncle Sam picks up the tab and the flight training. The private pilot route just costs about $25362.00 for a 4-year degree. Then add between the cost $8300.00 to $12300.00 to get your PPL. If wasn't for the military most of you would not be flying. Another $2000 to $6000 to get your twin rating.

Say wut? LOL

You're conflating subjects AND missing the macro point simultaneously. Ever heard of the Guard/Reserves? The AF flight lines are not all staffed by Zoomies , not in the least. More on that later.

So let's detangle the conflated, by addressing the two distinct issues at hand:

1)Airlines attract civilian applicants who are willing to indebt themselves to that level based on the expectation of upper middle class incomes in early working age without the need to compete in white collar professional schools (civilian airliner piloting is grey collar work).  If that expectation didn't exist, people wouldn't do it (aka if regional airline pay hell was the top end to that career choice). Period. Military applicants got d$ck to do with that. Go bark at the airlines, and spare us the socioeconomic shaming of those of us who worked our entire formative years trying to elbow our way into the AF pilot corps, which implies the AF commissioned officer corps by proxy.

2) The question about degrees wrt military pilots is not germane to your gripe about civilian costs. Whether you like it or not, the military has the outright accessions-discriminatory luxury of not relying on a degree-less warrant officer or enlisted corps, to staff their multi-million dollar turbofan/jets. Which means, they can have us elbow each other for a spot at AF UPT, by hook or by crook. That means college degrees, pink tutus and anything else in between, are going to be just another discriminator to get to a coveted UPT slot, good bad or indifferent. Your foot-stomping about degrees not being skillset-germane to aircraft flying is frankly banal and long ago stipulated. You're arguing about the world of what things should be, and not the world of what things are. 

BL, It's not about privilege-shaming military pilots for having played the game to gain access to military pilot training in order to cajole an expedited entry point to an airline career. A hypothetical itself which btw, is a hell of a presumption on your part, as there's a good chunk of us who never got into military flying for the sake of becoming airline pilots, nor who have a burning desire to leave the flying we enjoy in the military to go watch paint dry to the right of an FMS box on AT. Nevermind the many more who never touch an airliner in post mil life. Don't let BODN be your only barometer on what mil pilots want to do in civilian life. This place has long been established as a airline/guard-reserve transition/ sports kvetching echo chamber.

 

Finally, you're also missing the mark by insinuating that everybody flying for the AF got their degree costs floated by a Service Academy or a ROTC scholarship. Seriously, wtf.

 

Hate the game, not the playa. <--That would probably net you more ideological allies around here on your quest to put "poor/enlisted kids" on the decks of US airliners, than whatever class grievance you're peddling.

 

 

Edited January 16, 2022 by hindsight2020
grammerz

[Prosuper]

2 hours ago, hindsight2020 said:

Say wut? LOL

You're conflating subjects AND missing the macro point simultaneously. Ever heard of the Guard/Reserves? The AF flight lines are not all staffed by Zoomies , not in the least. More on that later.

So let's detangle the conflated, by addressing the two distinct issues at hand:

1)Airlines attract civilian applicants who are willing to indebt themselves to that level based on the expectation of upper middle class incomes in early working age without the need to compete in white collar professional schools (civilian airliner piloting is grey collar work).  If that expectation didn't exist, people wouldn't do it (aka if regional airline pay hell was the top end to that career choice). Period. Military applicants got d$ck to do with that. Go bark at the airlines, and spare us the socioeconomic shaming of those of us who worked our entire formative years trying to elbow our way into the AF pilot corps, which implies the AF commissioned officer corps by proxy.

2) The question about degrees wrt military pilots is not germane to your gripe about civilian costs. Whether you like it or not, the military has the outright accessions-discriminatory luxury of not relying on a degree-less warrant officer or enlisted corps, to staff their multi-million dollar turbofan/jets. Which means, they can have us elbow each other for a spot at AF UPT, by hook or by crook. That means college degrees, pink tutus and anything else in between, are going to be just another discriminator to get to a coveted UPT slot, good bad or indifferent. Your foot-stomping about degrees not being skillset-germane to aircraft flying is frankly banal and long ago stipulated. You're arguing about the world of what things should be, and not the world of what things are. 

BL, It's not about privilege-shaming military pilots for having played the game to gain access to military pilot training in order to cajole an expedited entry point to an airline career. A hypothetical itself which btw, is a hell of a presumption on your part, as there's a good chunk of us who never got into military flying for the sake of becoming airline pilots, nor who have a burning desire to leave the flying we enjoy in the military to go watch paint dry to the right of an FMS box on AT. Nevermind the many more who never touch an airliner in post mil life. Don't let BODN be your only barometer on what mil pilots want to do in civilian life. This place has long been established as a airline/guard-reserve transition/ sports kvetching echo chamber.

 

Finally, you're also missing the mark by insinuating that everybody flying for the AF got their degree costs floated by a Service Academy or a ROTC scholarship. Seriously, wtf.

 

Hate the game, not the playa. <--That would probably net you more ideological allies around here on your quest to put "poor/enlisted kids" on the decks of US airliners, than whatever class grievance you're peddling.

 

 

You see that , I always tell kids who  want to get a degree to be a English major. 

[Guardian]

How nice would it have been to have the undergrad and grad or even some of the student loans paid by the AF….. oh well.

[FLEA]

16 hours ago, Prosuper said:

Seriously does having a non-technical degree make you a better pilot, just curious. Most guys in this forum have had the advantage of going through a commissioning source were Uncle Sam picks up the tab and the flight training. The private pilot route just costs about $25362.00 for a 4-year degree. Then add between the cost $8300.00 to $12300.00 to get your PPL. If wasn't for the military most of you would not be flying. Another $2000 to $6000 to get your twin rating.

It makes you a better officer I know that much. People can gripe on it as much as they want but the truth is, not many Generals out there engineering aircraft systems and designing parts. Rather, most of them are incredibly smart on the geopolitical nuances of several regions where a background in anthropology, sociology, criminal justice, etc.... Introduced them to abstract concepts used to identify cultural friction with a high probability to lead to violence. 

Point is, for the AF, a degree is a no brainer. For the airlines, I'm not certain. But up until now I suppose the hiring environment allowed them to be very picky. 

That said, let's not pretend military pilots were handed a golden platter. The military choice was open to everyone bar a few with medical issues and it wasn't picked for some reason are another. Perhaps they simply weren't competitive, I don't know. Realize though, a significant population of pilots in the military still accrue student loan debt. I had $50K entering the AF.

Additionally most military pilots are not multi engine fixed wing pilots leaving the military. The majority are Army/Navy rotary dudes. And of course we could talk about the obvious as well, the implication that you could have to go to war for all of that training. So I would say holistically it's a fair trade off. 

[jazzdude]

I'll also add that it's not uncommon for people to pursue a PPL on their own dime before the AF, as it makes you more competitive to get picked up for a pilot slot. I know I did.

So no, just like several people mentioned, becoming a military pilots isn't something that is handed to us on a silver platter. Throw in all the other stuff to make yourself a competitive candidate, and it's a serious investment.

Plus, in return for "free" training, we are committing to a minimum of 11-12 years of military service, not to mention most pilots also go through the academy or ROTC which adds 2-4 years of additional time commitment.

[Majestik Møøse]

A bachelor’s degree isn’t required for the technical operation of a jet on the day of execution. Back when I was a crew aircraft guy, I was pretty sure a reasonably competent flight engineer could’ve chair flown the whole operation in his mind, so all that’s left is to teach him how to land and do AR. For more complex tactical jets, well many NATO nations seem to get by with 20 year old non-bachelors pilots, though their education system is different.

Things begin to fall apart when you move farther left of execution and things get less “technical operator” and more “leadership and coordination.” Plenty of enlisted folks help with mission planning and design, but they’re not leading MPCs and deciding how we’re employing billions of dollars worth of jets in peacetime or how we’ll win or lose in wartime. Nor - when you look even farther left in the timeline - are they responsible for the organizing/training/equipping part where we decide how the next war will be fought and what capabilities we need to buy, test, and develop. Officers do that, and those officers must have tactical and technical  street cred from the beginning to end of their careers. Should every CSAF know how to tactically kill people and also know what it’s like to almost be killed by you own jet? Absolutely. Absofuckinglutely.

BL: Are there enlisted dudes that are capable of being trained to fly the hell out of the jet? Yes! But the mistake is keeping them enlisted (or making them warrants) rather than doing the right thing and paying them more by commissioning them. As for the college part - yes, it expands your thinking well beyond being a technical operator, which is the critical requirement for the left of execution stuff above. 

[HuggyU2]

On 1/16/2022 at 8:43 AM, Majestik Møøse said:

But the mistake is keeping them enlisted (or making them warrants) rather than doing the right thing and paying them more by commissioning them. 

Small point, but I was under the impression that all CWO's are commissioned.  

[FLEA]

58 minutes ago, HuggyU2 said:

Small point, but I was under the impression that all CWO's are commissioned.  

I believe they gain their authority through a warrant which is different than a commission. They are similar but a warrant has limited conditions and outlines specific limits to their authority. Commissioned officers can hold additional warrants as well. Contracting officers come to mind. 

Edited January 17, 2022 by FLEA

[Sua Sponte]

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

I believe they gain their authority through a warrant which is different than a commission. They are similar but a warrant has limited conditions and outlines specific limits to their authority. Commissioned officers can hold additional warrants as well. Contracting officers come to mind. 

Warrants are appointed to W-1 by the Service Secretary of their branch (minus the USAF). The President can do this via a commission, however that’s not common. Once they’re promoted to W-2, they are commissioned by the president. They take the same oath of office as commissioned officers.

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, Sua Sponte said:

Warrants are appointed to W-1 by the Service Secretary of their branch (minus the USAF). The President can do this via a commission, however that’s not common. Once they’re promoted to W-2, they are commissioned by the president. They take the same oath of office as commissioned officers.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I'm not an expert but one of my ROTC instructors was a former warrant and I remember him explaining. I didnt realize they do get a commission at W-2 though. So then what's the point in distinction? Why not just promote W-1 to O-1? Nevermind, this has nothing to do with me getting promoted from O-4 to Mr. which is the only promotion I'm on this thread for. 

[M2]

4 hours ago, FLEA said:

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I'm not an expert but one of my ROTC instructors was a former warrant and I remember him explaining. I didnt realize they do get a commission at W-2 though. So then what's the point in distinction? Why not just promote W-1 to O-1? Nevermind, this has nothing to do with me getting promoted from O-4 to Mr. which is the only promotion I'm on this thread for. 

A quick answer, there is a clear difference between the responsibilities of a "commissioned" officer and a warrant.  

Secondly, there isn't much difference in pay; at least not enough to put up with the extra bullshit of being a "commissioned" officer.

Having spent a lot of time around the Army, most Warrants don't want to be "commissioned" officers!

[Majestik Møøse]

I also know some warrants - in the guard no less - and I’m not sure what extra bullshit a commissioned officer would have. They still have a training shop, Stan/eval shop, etc. It’s not like they show up, fly, and go home; they still have to run their own squadron like anybody else.

To be completely honest, all the extraneous bullshit duties in the AF (CFC, voting, awards/devs, volunteering, UFPM/PTL) were always demanded by the enlisted leadership; the officers never wanted anything to do with it.

Officers should focus on flying, training, tactics, and the future direction of all of it.

[Prosuper]

1 hour ago, Majestik Møøse said:

 

To be completely honest, all the extraneous bullshit duties in the AF (CFC, voting, awards/devs, volunteering, UFPM/PTL) were always demanded by the enlisted leadership; the officers never wanted anything to do with it.

Officers should focus on flying, training, tactics, and the future direction of all of it.

Right before I started my terminal leave after 23 years, my boss a E-8 perfumed prince who always went class C when it was his turn to deploy to the desert came into my office. He told me I will not be receiving any retirement medal. The reasoning is because I just deployed all the time and did my job. You never were involved with all the politics it took to receive a Senior Rater Endorsement. Bake sales, Sq Picnic, Xmas Party, Top 3.  Anytime we needed you, you were gone in the desert doing the mission. Two days into my terminal leave he called the house asking why I wasn't at work. Sharp tool this guy.

[Sua Sponte]

3 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

 

To be completely honest, all the extraneous bullshit duties in the AF (CFC, voting, awards/devs, volunteering, UFPM/PTL) were always demanded by the enlisted leadership; the officers never wanted anything to do with it.

 

Maybe in your experience, but that isn't true in mine. I had a Sq/CC get furious with me because he, unbeknownst to me, had appointed me a tax rep for our base. He was irate that I had missed the training for it on a Friday. I was getting a checkride and deploying the following Monday. A lot of times the Sq/CC and/or OG/CC were the idiots pushing for that garbage and the senior enlisted leadership tried to talk them out of it. 

Edited January 19, 2022 by Sua Sponte

[Sua Sponte]

1 hour ago, Prosuper said:

Right before I started my terminal leave after 23 years, my boss a E-8 perfumed prince who always went class C when it was his turn to deploy to the desert came into my office. He told me I will not be receiving any retirement medal. The reasoning is because I just deployed all the time and did my job. You never were involved with all the politics it took to receive a Senior Rater Endorsement. Bake sales, Sq Picnic, Xmas Party, Top 3.  Anytime we needed you, you were gone in the desert doing the mission. Two days into my terminal leave he called the house asking why I wasn't at work. Sharp tool this guy.

The idiot who's the OG/CC at Macdill just told my buddy, who's a Chief, that he wasn't getting a retirement medal because there "wasn't enough stuff to warrant it in his last EPR." My buddy deployed for six-months as the Group Superintendent of the C-17 unit at the Deid. The Air Force wonders why people are voting in mass with their feet...

[HuggyU2]

2 hours ago, Prosuper said:

Two days into my terminal leave he called the house asking why I wasn't at work. 

Please please tell me you had a great reply to his question that nearly gave him an aneurism.