It depends on the final product presented to the airline. If an airline had two candidates, one of whom soloed in 10 hours and did well in a Sim Eval but was self absorbed, didn't like to follow procedures if he/she knew better, and didn't work well with people, and a candidate who took 30 hours to solo but was a team player, can get along with anyone, was an eager learner and was emotionally mature, and did a passable job in the Sim Eval, they'd take the "slow learner" in a heartbeat if they were confident the candidate could get through the type course.

In the airline world, raw flying skills are an important baseline, but big picture personality related issues are just as important and personality problems with crews are a bigger long term problem than how long it took someone to catch on at the start.

The honest answer: nobody cares or would even ask you that question during a professional pilot interview. Aside from a military pilot job where they can wash you out during pre-solo training, it doesn’t matter. Primary checkride failures can be dings against you if you have a long string of them without a solid explanation. But everyone fails a primary checkride now and then. Now they will care about initial and recurrent type rating checkride fails for part 121 work.

There are a couple of exceptions these days. Many Chinese airlines who send new pilot recruits to flight schools in the states set time limits for soloing. Exceed those and you will not become a pilot with them (that and you’re obligated to work in another role within the airline for ten years or so) but the majors or regionals here in the states? They don’t care.

What will kill an airline career are:

1. Part 121 checkride failures
2. DUIs
3. Felony or drug convictions
4. Bad driving records
5. History of aircraft accidents or incidents
6. FAA violations, certificate suspensions or revocations
7. Cheating on FAA exams or logbook doctoring or
8. Lying about any of the above on a job application.

Basically the airlines want to see that you’re a safe, trustworthy, reliable individual at the controls of an aircraft or other motor vehicle. They’re also looking to see if you can fit into company culture and fly the way they want you to fly.

Similar to school, the airlines look to your last employer. Each subsequent increase in responsibility will be what matters. If you have 3000 hours PIC in a ERJ175 with a good reputation and references from the firm you work for, do you think they will really care that it took you 30 hours to solo in a 172?

Great question as it illustrates how the job applicant can improve their chances of employment by knowing what the employer wants. Years ago some flying schools were advertising 10 hours to solo courses.I took 40, but had no previous flying experience.

The major concerns were thoroughly knowing the slowflight characteristics of the plane, building confidence, learning and following landing check lists, handling cross winds, and go around procedures.

While it seemed easier to grease a plane in modulatingthe throttle, I was always worried about the turn base to final under power. More time was taken learning tocome in high and land by adding drag to the plane with flaps and forward slipping. This seemed better because the runway could always be made. I also liked it because it was similar to the engine out emergency landing procedure. Everybody has their own comfort level. But now nearing retirement, my advice would be to not worry about what is on the resume, but how you would answer a question about it. "I took the time to practice until I could safely do it" might be worth considering.

Although they give some good information, neither of the two answers actually answer your question.

would the person who soloed in 10 hours have an advantage?

Yes. All other things being equal, soloing after 10 hours shows on paper you are either a faster learner or just a more focused learner to me if I was looking at potential job applicants in a hiring manner. John K makes the point there are other factors we look at too (obviously) but to answer your question, 10 hours is more impressive than 30 hours (this kind of difference is significant).

It's like college GPA on your resume. Yes extracurriculars, and how well you get along in the interview is definitely important, but if two candidates are pretty much identical in all other factors, why would anyone choose the lower GPA candidate.

Ce n'est pas un facteur, pour être honnête, à moins que votre temps en solo n'ait été extraordinairement long. Les approbations individuelles varient beaucoup en fonction de l'instructeur et de l'étudiant. Vous pourriez avoir un CFI trop prudent qui ne vous laissera pas en solo avant 30 heures, ou peut-être avez-vous un type de cropduster fou qui vous approuvera à 10.

Si une compagnie aérienne compare deux pilotes qui ont des antécédents très similaires, et ils commencent à comparer les temps avec le solo, ils prendront sûrement du recul et trouveront un moyen de voir chaque pilote dans une perspective plus grande. Je spécule à ce sujet, mais je vois une grande compagnie aérienne poser une question de personnalité supplémentaire avant de regarder le temps de passer en solo.

Un gars a dit que le temps de jouer en solo était comme GPA sur un CV. Cela ressemble plus à un détail fin sur votre transcription montrant que vous avez pris les mathématiques 1, 2 et 3 tandis que l'autre gars a sauté 1 et a juste pris 2 et 3. Bien sûr, il était meilleur en mathématiques que vous à un moment donné, mais vous pourriez aussi argumenter que vous comprenez mieux que lui les concepts sous-jacents.

Ne vous inquiétez pas du temps passé en solo. Ne vous inquiétez pas de la cravate que vous allez porter.

Si une compagnie aérienne accorde trop d'attention à une telle différence, je serais inquiet. Très peu d'accidents sont causés par une mauvaise manipulation des commandes; la majorité est due aux mauvaises décisions et à la discipline des pilotes, alors je m'attends à ce que les compagnies aériennes se concentrent sur ce dernier.