Please help!

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
. ..
[...]
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=3427

Which arguably states, with some authority, somewhere between 60% and
80%.

Heh. I was going to look for other rebuttal data, but your so-called
reference specifically says that current hiring is running at about 60%
*CIVILIAN* hires for the airlines. That's rebuttal enough for me.

Umm, right. Read what you wrote again, Pete: "Current hiring is running at
about 60% civilian."

If you actually read the link as you claimed, you would have seen the
following:

"I would note Jack70 that your question asked what percentage of CURRENT
pilots were trained in the armed forces. The quote from Nicholas Lacey
stated that as of 2001, 60 percent of all pilots HIRED were civilian pilots.
This does not necessarily mean that only 40% of today's employed pilots were
trained in the military. Indeed, the quote states that as late as the
mid-90s, "80 percent of major airline new hires were military trained." This
statement would suggest that the actual number of current pilots trained in
the military is substantially higher (though dwindling)."

If you would have looked at some of the actual data these comments came
from, you'd see (from:
http://books.nap.edu/books/030905676...4.html#pagetop)
"Overall, for the years represented in the table (1985 to 2001), an average
of 68 percent of new hires had military backgrounds."

I would imagine that almost no military pilots have been hired since 2001
due to the war but that's just a WAG.

Bottom line is that since about 1985, on average (and this average varies
wildly from year to year) military pilots comprise around 70 percent of new
hires for the majors. Advanced Alabama Math tells me that if, on average,
70% of all new hires are military for many years in a row, then the ranks of
pilots with military background is probably somewhere around, oh, 70%.

--
Jim Fisher

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
.. .
[...]
Bottom line is that since about 1985, on average (and this average varies
wildly from year to year) military pilots comprise around 70 percent of
new
hires for the majors.

How is that relevant to this thread? The idiot who started it all is
talking about CURRENT HIRING. Any other statistic is worthless. I read the
entire link, and the only part of it relevant to this thread is the part
that describes CURRENT HIRING.

If you're going to jump into an argument, make sure you have a clue about
what you're suppose to be arguing about.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message

How is that relevant to this thread? The idiot who started it all is
talking about CURRENT HIRING. Any other statistic is worthless. I read
the
entire link, and the only part of it relevant to this thread is the part
that describes CURRENT HIRING.

I wasn't responding to the original poster. I only read the forst sentance
of his drivel before I skimmed on through the thread.

As was very clearly stated in my origianl post to YOU (not the original
poster), I was responding to YOUR comment as follows:

"Peter Domino"
Your claim that the
airlines "seem to have a 'liking' for ex-military pilots" is utter B.S.
Most commercial pilots are NOT from the military.

Which is utter BS . . . Mostly.

As stated in my reply, you are probably right that most "commercial" pilots
are not military. But you specifically mentioned AIRLINE PILOTS.

It appears that most airline pilots do, in fact, have military backgrounds
according to some fairly authoritative (but not terribly current) data. . .
.. which resulted in New's calling BS on me, me calling BS on Newps, then me
posting relevant data supporting the figure and your inevitable and
maddening twisting of the data in a feeble attempt to backslide from an
unsupported stance.

It's right there in black and white, Pete.

If you're going to jump into an argument, make sure you have a clue about
what you're suppose to be arguing about.

Ditters.

--
Jim Fisher

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
...
I wasn't responding to the original poster. I only read the forst
sentance
of his drivel before I skimmed on through the thread.

If you want to know what the thread is about, you need to read the original
message. Otherwise, you do something stupid like read a sentence that
clearly means one thing in context, and interpret it to mean something
entirely else.

Which is exactly what you did here. Obviously my statement was specifically
about pilots being hired, since that's what the thread is about. I didn't
see a need to waste a bunch of words clarifying that I'm talking about
pilots being hired, since the thread is about pilots being hired. It's not
my fault you can't be bothered to read before you post.

"Peter Domino"

What kind of idiot takes the time to intentionally mispell someone else's
name? Oh, that's right. Your kind of idiot. I forgot. My fault.

Your claim that the
airlines "seem to have a 'liking' for ex-military pilots" is utter B.S.
Most commercial pilots are NOT from the military.

Which is utter BS . . . Mostly.

It's not BS at all. Even if you take my statement literally out of context,
it's true that most commercial pilots are not from the military.
Furthermore, it's utter BS that the airlines "seem to have a liking" for
ex-military. They hire who they can hire. The fact that the military
provided a glut of pilots looking for jobs in the past is a) irrelevant to
someone looking for a job today, and b) does not show any indication
regarding who airlines "like" or "don't like".

If you'd bothered to pay attention to the context though, you'd have noticed
(maybe) that the topic here is who the airlines are hiring now. Even if we
only restrict the concept to *airline* hiring, it's still true that most are
not ex-military.

As stated in my reply, you are probably right that most "commercial"
pilots
are not military. But you specifically mentioned AIRLINE PILOTS.

I never specifically mentioned "AIRLINE PILOTS" explicitly, as it happens.
I have no idea why you are claiming that I did.

It's right there in black and white, Pete.

Yes, it is. Too bad you haven't bothered to read it.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message

Obviously my statement was specifically
about pilots being hired, since that's what the thread is about.

Obvious my ass. Nowhere in your post did you mention anything about hiring
practices.

Your full post that I was responding to, in context, reads as follows:

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Bill Gamelson" wrote in message
...
Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Bill Gamelson, and I had a
promising life ahead of me. I grew up with the nicest mom and dad I
could
have
ever had.

Apparently they weren't that nice. Your dad didn't leave you any money,
and
your mom squandered it all. And apparently they taught you nothing about
proper management of your own finances.

Not that I actually believe a word of what you wrote. Your claim that the
airlines "seem to have a 'liking' for ex-military pilots" is utter B.S.
Most commercial pilots are NOT from the military.

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
...
Obviously my statement was specifically
about pilots being hired, since that's what the thread is about.

Obvious my ass. Nowhere in your post did you mention anything about
hiring
practices.

It is obvious to anyone who had bothered to read the message that started
the thread. Context is everything, buddy boy.