Originally Posted by deltajuliet

It probably is somewhere in between, but those names are UND professors. Google them, their credentials seem legit.

Originally Posted by CptGSXR

Written by UND students......Not sure how 'nice' I can put this but it even if I agreed with their findings, it's suspect. Might as well have a link to their flight dept and tuition costs on it. Cubdriver often posts a chart showing all the commercial/atps and Dept of Labor stats that basically show the opposite of this paper. Those numbers I don't agree with EITHER.

I'm sure like most issues the truth of the matter is somewhere in-between.

Originally Posted by OnCenterline

This is spot on. In my new-hire class at UA, every single person brought something to the table that made them a step above "average." One had flown in Viet Nam for a few years, all of us had been check airmen of some sort, except one, and that one had been heavily involved in ASAP work. Most of us also had some sort of community service on our resume, and ALL of us had been to at least one job fair, and most to two, and all of us had a 4 year degree. When the (then) head of hiring came in to say hello to us, he made it clear that those standards will stay in place--and they have. Special emphasis was placed on attending job fairs, so that recruiters can get some face time with you and see beyond what is on the resume.

Also, only 1 person in my class was military. The rest of the 11 off-the-streeters like myself were civilian (there were 5 furloughees returning as well).

Average flight time was over 12,000 hours.

As for importance of TPIC....it's still there. I know of one person who was hired without it, and that individual had at least 1,000 hours of wide-body international time flying cargo. Another friend of mine with thousands of DC-8 and 767 FO time also got invited for the interview, but didn't get past the Hogan test. If he had, I'm sure he would have gotten hired. So, either have a competitive amount of TPIC or some wide-body international time.

Originally Posted by RV5M

Definitely kind of reads like school paper. They didn't even use the Bureau of Labor Statistics as a source.

Originally Posted by Avroman

That's nice... I wasn't alive to fly in Vietnam, and didn't meet the vision requirements to fly in Iraq/Afghanistan... The check airman selection is very selective and even more so political at my company... most of us will never get the chance to have LCA next to our names. Ah the mystical Job Fair... how much is the company being paid in kickbacks to require this attendance before an interview? That's as bad if not worse than SWA and the B737 type.

Originally Posted by CBreezy

They did and discounted their findings because there was no way to differentiate or correlate quantity of commercial certificates with those pursuing professional aviation. They also said the number of new commercial certificates issued each year is not a good indicator of future labor availability because of the increasing quantity of foreign students (as of 2012 they made up 50% of all written tests taken).

Originally Posted by Kprc1

Can we get back to the thread topic?