I’m sorry about poor characterization there, but the “romance” has certainly gone. When you’re 9 and getting an airplane and it’s BIG deal, it makes an impression. Now, children are flying all the time, there’s nothing special about it. Add in a growing environmental concern that is part of growing up, the required regimentation that’s a nefesssry part and it’s just another career path. I doubt high schoolers are being encouraged to look at aviation. Of all the pilots I know only a few have flying sins and daughters. Usually only knew and all served in the military as did their parents. The military is highly inherited path for reasons beyond flying.

A fix is going to difficult and change US aviation.

This is nothing more than supply and demand. Airlines are reducing hiring minimums because they need to in order to hire enough pilots and this has been going on for well over 10 years. Before the ATP rules came into effect in 2014 regionals were hiring FOs with 500-800 hours total time and today they probably would be hiring pilots straight out of flight schools with fresh commercials if they could. At the same time pay has been greatly increased (supply goes down, price goes up).

For what it's worth from someone who could have gone that path and didn't... when I was much younger, I wanted to follow my dad--start in the military and move to the airlines after a while. One would have thought I'd be a natural fit.

In high school, as I was close to graduating, I talked some to Dad about career options. I distinctly remember his words:
"Don't fly for a living like me--I'm just a glorified bus driver. Get a good job, build your own airplane, fly for yourself". And that was right after my first solo in October 2001, and I saw the pay at the regionals and Dad was wondering if he'd still have a job in a few months.

A couple years later, as I was in college studying engineering and flying Dad's homebuilt airplane on weekends and breaks, he told me that flying for the airlines pretty much killed any enjoyment he got from flying and that was only "saved" when we finished building his airplane and he was flying it himself. A few years later he told me he would leave and change jobs but he had nowhere else to go this far in his career. He finally retired in Jan 2020 after 29 years (and kicks himself for not waiting just a bit longer).

Instead, I pursued a career in aerospace engineering and work for a well-known aircraft OEM. Perhaps my pay won't reach senior captain levels, but I'm home (and asleep) almost every night, I completed my education and training with no debt. I'm nearly done building my own airplane, and when I fly an airplane it's where I want to go, with no TSA hassle and no passenger complaints. There are times I sort of regret not shooting for the military route, but overall I think I'm a lot happier in this role than I would have been in the airlines. Just too many stories of bad layovers, sleeping in hotels, government hassle, etc.

Somebody posted elsewhere, airlines is where love of aviation hoes to die. Not far from the truth, in my experience. Very regimented, seniority-driven, very disconnected. I loved my career in military and corporate aviation, including time at an OEM, but pretty disliked the four years at an airline.

I’ve enjoyed my time in the airlines, it’s been better than I thought, with more advancement and pay at an early age that I ever could have thought. The opportunities for early 20s pilots in the US is nuts. 100k as an FO, chance of hitting 200k as a Capt with a bit of work. 3-4 years to hit a legacy, where you can be a 777/350 FO out of the gate, or a 767 captain. This won’t last forever, but those who pushed through post-2008 and hung in during COVID are being rewarded. I met a 24 year old who flies the 767, he will retire #1 at his company. Phenomenal.

I have zero interest in flying outside of the airlines. I haven’t touched GA since my last hour as a CFI. I get more enjoyment flying an arrival into Paris or London than I did doing turns around a point. Maybe I’m the oddball, I just have no desire to fly a prop around and say it’s “real flying”. Being captain of a jet into LGA during a blizzard is just as real to me!

I remember meeting a pilot in the airport as a teenager and he told me to go ATC. I am forever grateful I ignored him and pushed on. It’s all timing certainly, but if I backed out then, I’d be looking at my friends who are legacy captains or widebody FOs with a lot of envy, personally.

cedarjet wrote:

Totally confused by these requirements. Ryanair have FOs with 185h total time and have a perfect safety record. A friend of mine who’s a senior training captain there says the low time pilots are great — their knowledge is recent, they’re young so their energy levels and reflexes are super sharp, and they’re brimming with enthusiasm. The US rules came in after the Colgan crash but neither pilot was low time. What’s behind this?

Ryan Air is also not US FAA or DOT are they? It matters little what Non- USA airlines do or Can do. It matters what the FAA will allow. and if this is OK? then they can meet the minimums.

Always thought southwest 1st-year FO pilots typically had way more than 1000 hours turbine. Is this far from the truth now? Was it ever the case?

CarlosSi wrote:

Always thought southwest 1st-year FO pilots typically had way more than 1000 hours turbine. Is this far from the truth now? Was it ever the case?

That was their minimum, not their mean

N1120A wrote:

CarlosSi wrote:

Always thought southwest 1st-year FO pilots typically had way more than 1000 hours turbine. Is this far from the truth now? Was it ever the case?

That was their minimum, not their mean

For sure, that still sounds low. Seems like the shortage isn’t at the regionals anymore then eh?

CarlosSi wrote:

N1120A wrote:

CarlosSi wrote:

Always thought southwest 1st-year FO pilots typically had way more than 1000 hours turbine. Is this far from the truth now? Was it ever the case?

That was their minimum, not their mean

For sure, that still sounds low. Seems like the shortage isn’t at the regionals anymore then eh?

The regionals have more of a shortage. Southwest is hiring over 2000 pilots this year, so need to compromise.

It's interesting to me how much attention this is getting. Back in my day, you had to have a 737 type rating to apply. That went away. Then the 1000 hrs turbine PIC requirement dropped. Then the PIC requirement dropped. Then the college degree. Now they've cut the requirement for turbine time.

This is hardly a new development.

barney captain wrote:

It's interesting to me how much attention this is getting. Back in my day, you had to have a 737 type rating to apply. That went away. Then the 1000 hrs turbine PIC requirement dropped. Then the PIC requirement dropped. Then the college degree. Now they've cut the requirement for turbine time.

This is hardly a new development.

The type rating requirement was technically illegal, which is why WN dropped that one. The rest, however, have proceeded along with the shortage.

Gotta wonder if they're going to stop hosing Osprey pilots soon, cause that's an anomaly

N1120A wrote:

barney captain wrote:

It's interesting to me how much attention this is getting. Back in my day, you had to have a 737 type rating to apply. That went away. Then the 1000 hrs turbine PIC requirement dropped. Then the PIC requirement dropped. Then the college degree. Now they've cut the requirement for turbine time.

This is hardly a new development.

The type rating requirement was technically illegal, which is why WN dropped that one. The rest, however, have proceeded along with the shortage.

Gotta wonder if they're going to stop hosing Osprey pilots soon, cause that's an anomaly

"illegal"? Oh, I gotta hear this. Do tell.......

barney captain wrote:

N1120A wrote:

barney captain wrote:

It's interesting to me how much attention this is getting. Back in my day, you had to have a 737 type rating to apply. That went away. Then the 1000 hrs turbine PIC requirement dropped. Then the PIC requirement dropped. Then the college degree. Now they've cut the requirement for turbine time.

This is hardly a new development.

The type rating requirement was technically illegal, which is why WN dropped that one. The rest, however, have proceeded along with the shortage.

Gotta wonder if they're going to stop hosing Osprey pilots soon, cause that's an anomaly

"illegal"? Oh, I gotta hear this. Do tell.......

Ran afoul of laws requiring payment of business expenses. That's why it went away pretty quickly and was replaced by having the rating preferred, but not required. You probably remember that Southwest was hiring pilots who didn't have a type rating, then making them pay to get rated prior to starting class. That would have run afoul of certain state laws requiring reimbursement of business expenses. Additionally, the issue with Southwest trying to foist type rating expenses on both pilots and inspectors was even the subject of Congressional hearings.

The type rating requirement was dropped with the Airtran acquisition.

That was a WN requirement for a long time, dating back to the mid-80s, at least.

N1120A wrote:

barney captain wrote:

N1120A wrote:

The type rating requirement was technically illegal, which is why WN dropped that one. The rest, however, have proceeded along with the shortage.

Gotta wonder if they're going to stop hosing Osprey pilots soon, cause that's an anomaly

"illegal"? Oh, I gotta hear this. Do tell.......

Ran afoul of laws requiring payment of business expenses. That's why it went away pretty quickly and was replaced by having the rating preferred, but not required. You probably remember that Southwest was hiring pilots who didn't have a type rating, then making them pay to get rated prior to starting class. That would have run afoul of certain state laws requiring reimbursement of business expenses. Additionally, the issue with Southwest trying to foist type rating expenses on both pilots and inspectors was even the subject of Congressional hearings.

If that was true then requiring a college degree would be illegal. WN required the 737 type basically since they started until they aquired AirTran.

737tanker wrote:

N1120A wrote:

barney captain wrote:

"illegal"? Oh, I gotta hear this. Do tell.......

Ran afoul of laws requiring payment of business expenses. That's why it went away pretty quickly and was replaced by having the rating preferred, but not required. You probably remember that Southwest was hiring pilots who didn't have a type rating, then making them pay to get rated prior to starting class. That would have run afoul of certain state laws requiring reimbursement of business expenses. Additionally, the issue with Southwest trying to foist type rating expenses on both pilots and inspectors was even the subject of Congressional hearings.

If that was true then requiring a college degree would be illegal. WN required the 737 type basically since they started until they aquired AirTran.

Different requirements. One is directly related to the employment, one isn't.

N1120A wrote:

737tanker wrote:

N1120A wrote:

Ran afoul of laws requiring payment of business expenses. That's why it went away pretty quickly and was replaced by having the rating preferred, but not required. You probably remember that Southwest was hiring pilots who didn't have a type rating, then making them pay to get rated prior to starting class. That would have run afoul of certain state laws requiring reimbursement of business expenses. Additionally, the issue with Southwest trying to foist type rating expenses on both pilots and inspectors was even the subject of Congressional hearings.

If that was true then requiring a college degree would be illegal. WN required the 737 type basically since they started until they aquired AirTran.

Different requirements. One is directly related to the employment, one isn't.

What’s the distinction between the type rating and licensure expenses for, say, doctors and lawyers?

Cubsrule wrote:

N1120A wrote:

737tanker wrote:

If that was true then requiring a college degree would be illegal. WN required the 737 type basically since they started until they aquired AirTran.

Different requirements. One is directly related to the employment, one isn't.

What’s the distinction between the type rating and licensure expenses for, say, doctors and lawyers?

That would be the equivalent to a doctor needing to be type rated to be a brain surgeon or a heart surgeon, or a lawyer needing to be type rated for criminal law or something. Do they need to be licensed for specific areas of those fields, I have no idea.

Cubsrule wrote:

N1120A wrote:

737tanker wrote:

If that was true then requiring a college degree would be illegal. WN required the 737 type basically since they started until they aquired AirTran.

Different requirements. One is directly related to the employment, one isn't.

What’s the distinction between the type rating and licensure expenses for, say, doctors and lawyers?

The same as getting a pilot certificate vs a type rating.

N1120A wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

N1120A wrote:

Different requirements. One is directly related to the employment, one isn't.

What’s the distinction between the type rating and licensure expenses for, say, doctors and lawyers?

The same as getting a pilot certificate vs a type rating.

I guess I don’t really understand that because plenty of legal and medical jobs have licensure requirements above the baseline.

Cubsrule wrote:

N1120A wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

What’s the distinction between the type rating and licensure expenses for, say, doctors and lawyers?

The same as getting a pilot certificate vs a type rating.

I guess I don’t really understand that because plenty of legal and medical jobs have licensure requirements above the baseline.

If someone is an attorney employee of a law firm in California, that law firm must pay for their bar dues and potentially CLE, but doesn't retroactively pay for their legal education and initial licensure. See the difference?

N1120A wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

N1120A wrote:

The same as getting a pilot certificate vs a type rating.

I guess I don’t really understand that because plenty of legal and medical jobs have licensure requirements above the baseline.

If someone is an attorney employee of a law firm in California, that law firm must pay for their bar dues and potentially CLE, but doesn't retroactively pay for their legal education and initial licensure. See the difference?

I see the difference, but is that an accurate statement of the law outside California?

Perhaps a good legal analog here would be moving from Texas to California. The California firm will require a California license (which isn’t “initial licensure,” that’s the Texas license). Must the California firm pay for the California license if having the license is a condition of employment? If so, under what law?

Cubsrule wrote:

N1120A wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

I guess I don’t really understand that because plenty of legal and medical jobs have licensure requirements above the baseline.

If someone is an attorney employee of a law firm in California, that law firm must pay for their bar dues and potentially CLE, but doesn't retroactively pay for their legal education and initial licensure. See the difference?

I see the difference, but is that an accurate statement of the law outside California?

Perhaps a good legal analog here would be moving from Texas to California. The California firm will require a California license (which isn’t “initial licensure,” that’s the Texas license). Must the California firm pay for the California license if having the license is a condition of employment? If so, under what law?

In some states yes, in others maybe/maybe not. The law in California is Labor Code Section 2802

So how do countless corporate operators get away with requiring a type rating? Don’t buy it.

AirKevin wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

N1120A wrote:

Different requirements. One is directly related to the employment, one isn't.

What’s the distinction between the type rating and licensure expenses for, say, doctors and lawyers?

That would be the equivalent to a doctor needing to be type rated to be a brain surgeon or a heart surgeon, or a lawyer needing to be type rated for criminal law or something. Do they need to be licensed for specific areas of those fields, I have no idea.

I don't know about lawyers, but surgeons certainly need qualifications in their particular field, e.g. heart surgery. From what I've read and seen, the qualification requirements are similar to pilot training in many respects. Formal exams. Apprenticeship. Moving upward gradually from "basic" operations like an appendectomy, going back to school, etc...

Well at least Southwest is still requiring ATP to apply.

My airline dropped the requirement for an ATP certificate required. Now the requirement is to have the ATP written test results, but not require an ATP certificate.

It will do what the regionals have had to do for years and offer the ATP-CTP class to new hires if they don't have the ATP multi-engine certificate and issue the initial ATP certificate when they complete their A320 type rating.

What this means is the LCCs have reached the point where they have to hire people with no 121 flying experience, like the regional airlines had to do for decades. It will take a few years before Southwest and the big 3 will reach that point.

But after that pilot gets 500hrs in a A320 - he'll be running over to Southwest and the big 3 as fast as they will hire them - at 2000hr TT and 500 turbine.

Woodreau wrote:

Well at least Southwest is still requiring ATP to apply.

My airline dropped the requirement for an ATP certificate required. Now the requirement is to have the ATP written test results, but not require an ATP certificate.

It will do what the regionals have had to do for years and offer the ATP-CTP class to new hires if they don't have the ATP multi-engine certificate and issue the initial ATP certificate when they complete their A320 type rating.

What this means is the LCCs have reached the point where they have to hire people with no 121 flying experience, like the regional airlines had to do for decades. It will take a few years before Southwest and the big 3 will reach that point.

But after that pilot gets 500hrs in a A320 - he'll be running over to Southwest and the big 3 as fast as they will hire them - at 2000hr TT and 500 turbine.

My assumption is they're primarily doing that for the military folks, at this point.

N1120A wrote:

Woodreau wrote:

Well at least Southwest is still requiring ATP to apply.

My airline dropped the requirement for an ATP certificate required. Now the requirement is to have the ATP written test results, but not require an ATP certificate.

It will do what the regionals have had to do for years and offer the ATP-CTP class to new hires if they don't have the ATP multi-engine certificate and issue the initial ATP certificate when they complete their A320 type rating.

What this means is the LCCs have reached the point where they have to hire people with no 121 flying experience, like the regional airlines had to do for decades. It will take a few years before Southwest and the big 3 will reach that point.

But after that pilot gets 500hrs in a A320 - he'll be running over to Southwest and the big 3 as fast as they will hire them - at 2000hr TT and 500 turbine.

My assumption is they're primarily doing that for the military folks, at this point.

There are no military pilots clamoring to fly for my ULCC

These are all 23-24 year old pilots who have come straight from flight instructing and going from Senecas and 172s going right into 320s/321s

TonyClifton wrote:

So how do countless corporate operators get away with requiring a type rating? Don’t buy it.

There is a difference between requiring a type rating before being hired/offered employment (no different than requiring a college degree or an ATP) and hiring someone, then forcing him to obtain job-specific training at his own expense. One is a prerequisite and is perfectly legal for any employer (as long as said prerequisites don't run afoul of anti-discrimination laws), the other is essentially requiring an employee to pay in order to keep the job he already has and that potentially runs afoul of the laws of at least some states.

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think it would be illegal in any state for Southwest to refuse to consider applicants who don't already have a B-737 type rating. What was potentially illegal was Southwest's previous practice of offering the job, then requiring the pilot to buy his own type rating.

ArcticFlyer wrote:

TonyClifton wrote:

So how do countless corporate operators get away with requiring a type rating? Don’t buy it.

There is a difference between requiring a type rating before being hired/offered employment (no different than requiring a college degree or an ATP) and hiring someone, then forcing him to obtain job-specific training at his own expense. One is a prerequisite and is perfectly legal for any employer (as long as said prerequisites don't run afoul of anti-discrimination laws), the other is essentially requiring an employee to pay in order to keep the job he already has and that potentially runs afoul of the laws of at least some states.

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think it would be illegal in any state for Southwest to refuse to consider applicants who don't already have a B-737 type rating. What was potentially illegal was Southwest's previous practice of offering the job, then requiring the pilot to buy his own type rating.

That and there are enough pilots in the corporate who have types and move around. I know a few that got type rated, boss didn’t take delivery of the plane and sent them to another type course a couple of months later.

Woodreau wrote:

N1120A wrote:

Woodreau wrote:

Well at least Southwest is still requiring ATP to apply.

My airline dropped the requirement for an ATP certificate required. Now the requirement is to have the ATP written test results, but not require an ATP certificate.

It will do what the regionals have had to do for years and offer the ATP-CTP class to new hires if they don't have the ATP multi-engine certificate and issue the initial ATP certificate when they complete their A320 type rating.

What this means is the LCCs have reached the point where they have to hire people with no 121 flying experience, like the regional airlines had to do for decades. It will take a few years before Southwest and the big 3 will reach that point.

But after that pilot gets 500hrs in a A320 - he'll be running over to Southwest and the big 3 as fast as they will hire them - at 2000hr TT and 500 turbine.

My assumption is they're primarily doing that for the military folks, at this point.

There are no military pilots clamoring to fly for my ULCC

These are all 23-24 year old pilots who have come straight from flight instructing and going from Senecas and 172s going right into 320s/321s

Just like in the rest of the world, then.

Like many of my colleagues, I went straight from 172s to A330s, and with far fewer than 500 hours.

I had a "frozen ATPL", meaning I had passed the exams, but didn't yet have the required experience for the ATPL to be issued. Once I had said experienced, I converted my CPL to an ATPL.

(Granted, the EASA/CASA style ATPL exams are a very different beast from the FAA ATP.)

Starlionblue wrote:

Woodreau wrote:

N1120A wrote:

My assumption is they're primarily doing that for the military folks, at this point.

There are no military pilots clamoring to fly for my ULCC

These are all 23-24 year old pilots who have come straight from flight instructing and going from Senecas and 172s going right into 320s/321s

Just like in the rest of the world, then.

Like many of my colleagues, I went straight from 172s to A330s, and with far fewer than 500 hours.

I had a "frozen ATPL", meaning I had passed the exams, but didn't yet have the required experience for the ATPL to be issued. Once I had said experienced, I converted my CPL to an ATPL.

(Granted, the EASA/CASA style ATPL exams are a very different beast from the FAA ATP.)

The US has something similar. You can get a restricted ATP with a subset of the requirements met if you've studied aviation or a few other cases (see 61.159 and 61.160 if you're bored), but none of them allow you to fly an A330 in 121 ops with <500 hours.

How hard are the EASA ATPL exams? In the US, there are programs like Sheppard Air where you memorize the question bank and get a 90+ score: http://sheppardair.com/atp.htm If you're good at memorizing things, it's 10-30 hours of studying and then you're done. It's the interviews that are tougher, because they can ask you any question under the sun.

There’s 14 exams for starters!

LH707330 wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

Woodreau wrote:

There are no military pilots clamoring to fly for my ULCC

These are all 23-24 year old pilots who have come straight from flight instructing and going from Senecas and 172s going right into 320s/321s

Just like in the rest of the world, then.

Like many of my colleagues, I went straight from 172s to A330s, and with far fewer than 500 hours.

I had a "frozen ATPL", meaning I had passed the exams, but didn't yet have the required experience for the ATPL to be issued. Once I had said experienced, I converted my CPL to an ATPL.

(Granted, the EASA/CASA style ATPL exams are a very different beast from the FAA ATP.)

The US has something similar. You can get a restricted ATP with a subset of the requirements met if you've studied aviation or a few other cases (see 61.159 and 61.160 if you're bored), but none of them allow you to fly an A330 in 121 ops with <500 hours.

How hard are the EASA ATPL exams? In the US, there are programs like Sheppard Air where you memorize the question bank and get a 90+ score: http://sheppardair.com/atp.htm If you're good at memorizing things, it's 10-30 hours of studying and then you're done. It's the interviews that are tougher, because they can ask you any question under the sun.

The interview would probably be similar in the US or outside. They can indeed ask you anything under the sun. I believe the EASA exams prepare you better for the interview, since the knowledge is vast and rather airline operations oriented.

How hard are the EASA ATPL exams? Several orders of magnitude more work than the FAA one. As GalaxyFlyer says, just for starters there are fourteen exams, not just one. Apart from the easier ones like VFR Communications, most are at least as "big" individually as the FAA exam. The "heavy" ones like General Navigation, Principles of Flight, Flight Planning, and Performance each take weeks to prepare for. There is simply no substitute for doing endless worksheets and spending dozens of hours slogging through question banks.

It took me a total 4-6 months of studying 3-4 hours a day, as well as four weeks of intense groundschool, with lots of homework every night, to prepare for the exams. Like most people, I didn't take all the exams at once but split them into two sessions. Some people do three sessions, taking fewer exams each session.

Even after all that, prepping for the interview took me several weeks, mostly reviewing potential technical questions, but also memorising fleet numbers, destinations, employee numbers, ownership structure, and even the names of managers relevant to flight operations.

Of course, knowing which airports a potential employer operates to in a particular country doesn't make you a better pilot, but it does show that you are willing and able to prepare and put in the effort before your interview.

Starlionblue wrote:

LH707330 wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

Just like in the rest of the world, then.

Like many of my colleagues, I went straight from 172s to A330s, and with far fewer than 500 hours.

I had a "frozen ATPL", meaning I had passed the exams, but didn't yet have the required experience for the ATPL to be issued. Once I had said experienced, I converted my CPL to an ATPL.

(Granted, the EASA/CASA style ATPL exams are a very different beast from the FAA ATP.)

The US has something similar. You can get a restricted ATP with a subset of the requirements met if you've studied aviation or a few other cases (see 61.159 and 61.160 if you're bored), but none of them allow you to fly an A330 in 121 ops with <500 hours.

How hard are the EASA ATPL exams? In the US, there are programs like Sheppard Air where you memorize the question bank and get a 90+ score: http://sheppardair.com/atp.htm If you're good at memorizing things, it's 10-30 hours of studying and then you're done. It's the interviews that are tougher, because they can ask you any question under the sun.

The interview would probably be similar in the US or outside. They can indeed ask you anything under the sun. I believe the EASA exams prepare you better for the interview, since the knowledge is vast and rather airline operations oriented.

How hard are the EASA ATPL exams? Several orders of magnitude more work than the FAA one. As GalaxyFlyer says, just for starters there are fourteen exams, not just one. Apart from the easier ones like VFR Communications, most are at least as "big" individually as the FAA exam. The "heavy" ones like General Navigation, Principles of Flight, Flight Planning, and Performance each take weeks to prepare for. There is simply no substitute for doing endless worksheets and spending dozens of hours slogging through question banks.

It took me a total 4-6 months of studying 3-4 hours a day, as well as four weeks of intense groundschool, with lots of homework every night, to prepare for the exams. Like most people, I didn't take all the exams at once but split them into two sessions. Some people do three sessions, taking fewer exams each session.

Even after all that, prepping for the interview took me several weeks, mostly reviewing potential technical questions, but also memorising fleet numbers, destinations, employee numbers, ownership structure, and even the names of managers relevant to flight operations.

Of course, knowing which airports a potential employer operates to in a particular country doesn't make you a better pilot, but it does show that you are willing and able to prepare and put in the effort before your interview.

Wow, that's a lot more involved then. How much of that do you think was useful information that you retained and applied professionally?

LH707330 wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

LH707330 wrote:

The US has something similar. You can get a restricted ATP with a subset of the requirements met if you've studied aviation or a few other cases (see 61.159 and 61.160 if you're bored), but none of them allow you to fly an A330 in 121 ops with <500 hours.

How hard are the EASA ATPL exams? In the US, there are programs like Sheppard Air where you memorize the question bank and get a 90+ score: http://sheppardair.com/atp.htm If you're good at memorizing things, it's 10-30 hours of studying and then you're done. It's the interviews that are tougher, because they can ask you any question under the sun.

The interview would probably be similar in the US or outside. They can indeed ask you anything under the sun. I believe the EASA exams prepare you better for the interview, since the knowledge is vast and rather airline operations oriented.

How hard are the EASA ATPL exams? Several orders of magnitude more work than the FAA one. As GalaxyFlyer says, just for starters there are fourteen exams, not just one. Apart from the easier ones like VFR Communications, most are at least as "big" individually as the FAA exam. The "heavy" ones like General Navigation, Principles of Flight, Flight Planning, and Performance each take weeks to prepare for. There is simply no substitute for doing endless worksheets and spending dozens of hours slogging through question banks.

It took me a total 4-6 months of studying 3-4 hours a day, as well as four weeks of intense groundschool, with lots of homework every night, to prepare for the exams. Like most people, I didn't take all the exams at once but split them into two sessions. Some people do three sessions, taking fewer exams each session.

Even after all that, prepping for the interview took me several weeks, mostly reviewing potential technical questions, but also memorising fleet numbers, destinations, employee numbers, ownership structure, and even the names of managers relevant to flight operations.

Of course, knowing which airports a potential employer operates to in a particular country doesn't make you a better pilot, but it does show that you are willing and able to prepare and put in the effort before your interview.

Wow, that's a lot more involved then. How much of that do you think was useful information that you retained and applied professionally?

That's a tricky question.

I think a lot of the background stuff is still handy. For example, while at work I don't have to calculate the longitude intercept angles for a great circle route, or know how a mechanical inertial platform functions, it is useful to understand the concepts.

Having passed the exams also goes a long way towards proving to a potential employer that you are capable of study, learning, and hard work in order to reach your goals.

Fair enough, I suppose it's still better to have a grasp of those things so that you can apply the TLAR and TARA principles when operating.