I have eared some employers don't like military pilots cuz they fly alone, and take risks,...
Again I have to agree with Dirty Sanchez, this is a total generalisation thrown about by people who have no clue as to the differences between military flying and civilian flying.
I am often asked what the difference is and it is quite simple. In the military you are required to complete a complex training scheme within a set time frame with a minimum number of repeated sorties (i.e. after a failed trip). The aim of this training is to enable the pilot (single seat or multi crew, helicopter or jet) to achieve a designated task by all achieveable methods using the assets available to their
operational limits if required whilst maintaining the safety of the aircraft and crew.
The self sponsered civilian pilot operates an aircraft well within its safety zone limitations which are a further set of limits imposed before the operational limits of the aircraft are reached. The airline pilot flys the aircraft to achieve the safest, most cost effective and most comfortable flight for revenue generating passengers.
The major difference in the training is that most military pilots have completed a high stress, demanding, complex training structure with one shot only. Many (not all) civilian pilots can throw money at the problem and just keep hacking through.
As to what the airlines want these days it's difficult to say. The cynic in me wants to say that many LoCo's are taking the young boys because they are less likely to kick off about the degraded terms and conditions that infect the industry.
In my carrier there are a vast amount of ex-military pilots of both fixed and rotary background who bring a broad expanse of knowledge both in command and as an FO.
SiSio, I know the Italian system as well having a couple of helo friends down there next to Genoa, the best advice I could give is keep applying. With Alitalia in meltdown it could be a difficult couple of years.
Good luck
W2P