Last flight whitin the last 12 months

[pippobaudo]

Goodmorning guys,

do you know if the last flight whitin the last 12 months requirements that many Airlines used to ask to be able to apply for a job position is something purely based on an internal preference or is something dictated by some regulation or for insurance reason.....or similar motivation?
Thank you and all the best everybody!

[CW247]

Personally, I dont think it's insurance. Many legends have their roots in some kind "insurance requirement" but it's largely not true. What about those that go on long term sickness, and come back to fly? From experience, I have been at two fairly busy and large charter outfits that hired people who had not flown for in some cases 10 years and others who had not flown the type in 10 years. Supply and demand is usually the primary dictator.

[pippobaudo]

In fact i tend to believe that is just a “preference” based in something related to that particular airline.
I wonder if once they restart to hire.........if they will ever restart......that “last flight within......” will be a matter of go/no-go.

[nickler]

It is generally some HR-driven BS written by people who have no clue about pilots competencies. In their mind if you have your last flight within the last 12 months you are a tip-top candidate who will encounter no issues during OCC/type ratings - not withstanding the fact that you maybe flying as a cowboy.
I have trained/checked several crew members coming back from long term sickness (2+ years) and nobody ever encountered any issue with the proposed return to line programs.
Provided a pilot maintains a good level of knowledge while being grounded, all the rest can be easily retrained.
Actually in some cases people became even better professionals than they used to be ; an extended ground time brought back the passion and the eagerness to go back in the air.

[PilotLZ]

There's no legal or practical reason why someone who has last flown 360 days ago is a better or safer pilot than someone who has last flown 370 days ago. And I seriously doubt that a break of two or three years will make you totally unemployable, at least not with a great number of airlines and especially under the circumstances. In the current situation, there are already quite a lot of pilots who haven't flown for a year or so. Think those who lost their jobs last autumn and haven't found new ones yet (Thomas Cook?). Think those who work for companies that fly only or mostly in the summer and didn't manage to get airborne this summer. Think those who were in the middle of the really lengthy, up to one year long process of application for a job in China before COVID-19 hit. Most of those people are high-quality candidates which any airline would be happy to have - and the circumstances which resulted in them having a long break from flying were far beyond their remit. Who in their right mind would suggest to replace them with someone who might be far less knowledgeable and experienced, not having the right attitude, but having a flight within the last 12 months in their logbook? That would be downright nonsensical.

[Flying Clog]

Nonsensical = airline human resources departments.

[hamil]

Well, today there are thousands of pilots with experience, who made their last flight within the last 12 months, and possibly with valid licenses. But the pilot's career is perishable.

So, 2 questions: what will happen in the future (let's say, from 2022 onwards) when the economy has hypothetically improved, there's a new positive cycle in the aviation industry, airlines start hiring again, and of course, there's a pool, although with a bunch of experienced pilots who made their last commercial flights over 24 months ago and eventually with expired licenses/type rating? Who will potentially take those vacancies in the future?

[Meester proach]

Depends on supply.
We’ve all seen the job ads ranging from - “ we want a current astronaut “, all the way to “ 250 hr CPL , who doesn’t dribble in their food “.

Companies will take who is the cheapest to train simply

[PilotLZ]

Actually, it depends on many factors within an airline. I've seen an airline hire a non-rated FO with an ATPL who had been out of flying for a couple of years simply because their insurance required all pilots to hold an ATPL. It wasn't like there weren't any rated guys with recent experience on type out there, but not having the correct licence automatically disqualified them. At the very same time, a CPL holder with the correct type rating and over 1000 hours on type didn't make it in, despite being a lot cheaper and easier to train.

That's one example of a situation. Another one is if the company has a vested interest in training someone. Do they have a finger in the pie when it comes to type ratings? Will you spend some time working on a drastically reduced salary while in training? Will you be made to sign some ridiculously large training bond, meaning that they will literally own you in the next 3 or 5 years? All things that can influence the choice of a candidate regardless their recency.