Does Pilot Quality Impact the Bottom Line?

[JimNtexas]

In another thread someone mentioned that an airline has a day long interview process in a facility that is "far from any place to eat". This airline advises applicants to bring a sack lunch.

I'm not in the aviation business, but I am in business. I found this notion appalling. To me as a business person it just makes no sense to go to the trouble of bringing someone in to interview and then not treating them like a valued guest. When I interview people I want to hire the very person I can get. Not because I'm a saint, but rather because I know that the above average person is going to bring me more money to my bottom line than an average or below average person would in the same job.

Ten bucks for a deli sandwich is nothing compared to the cost of not getting the best person I can in any job in my organization.

And I just can't picture the best truck driver, plumber, or accountant being impressed with my company if I tell them to "bring a sack lunch".

When I posted this thought in the other thread I was of course roundly spanked for not knowing anything about professional aviation. Which is true.

So professional aviators, help me understand something. Put feelings aside and just look at the aviation business through the eyes of Montgomery Burns.

Does pilot quality affect the bottom line?

Will we have more profit at the end of the year if we target higher quality pilot applicants in our hiring process?

Or would our bottom line be higher if we target average or below average pilots who may have fewer options for other employment?

I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I'm just trying to understand the aviation business model.

 

[81Horse]

Thoughtful post, Jim. I'd like to respond, but I'm out of goof-off time today. I'm sure you'll hear from lots of others, though.

... I'm just trying to understand the aviation business model.

For now, I'll just say: the aviation business model is a lot like Sasquatch -- you hear a lot about it, but nobody's ever really seen it.

 

[FN FAL]

In another thread someone mentioned that an airline has a day long interview process in a facility that is "far from any place to eat". This airline advises applicants to bring a sack lunch.

I'm not in the aviation business, but I am in business. I found this notion appalling...

Maybe it's part of the test. You never know? I heard that great lakes used to let a guy sit in the interview room all by himself for over an hour and they would watch the guy over a tv monitor to see what he'd do...I can't verify this, it's just something I heard.

 

[RichardRambone]

I don't think the flying public or anyone knows the true pilot quality. Short of an accident b/c of a shatty pilot I dont think noone will make a deal of it. As far as how a company treats me bottom line is my self respect. I probably wouldnt bat an eye at having to bring a sack lunch but thats strictly from inexperience. I don't interivew at airlines yet. My current compnay treats me with respect and if I feel thats being violated by a potential company, thats certainly a red flag in my book. But with cutthroat competion maybe employers feel the bottom line is dollars, not quality. Again if there hasn't been any reason to get a higher grade pilot and still get the job done safely with a lower grade/paid guy, why give a shat about the employees? I wants my golden parachute.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

All good (and bad) pilots have to start somewhere. Even if this means low wages and brown bagging it at the interview.

Everything is part of the interview, by yourself or interacting in the waiting room with other applicants. This can have an impact as well. They can see how you get along with prospective pilots.

 

[WMUSIGPI]

Just my opinion but from what I have seen (granted I haven't been around all that long) Management is very short sighted in this industry. They don't seem to care about what will this do for me next year just how does this look for next weeks bonus. I believe quality pilots will be better for the bottom line than average guys. They are more likely to fly smoother and look for ways to save fuel for example. But in the airline world today even the best pilot doesn't have any motivation to go out of the way when all they get for their effort is a paycut and bankruptcy while the execs run with millions. In 10 months flying the Avro at Mesaba I worked with only 1 captain that ever taxied on 2 engines and a couple that sometimes taxied in on 3. Most were of the opinion of why bother. This attitude certainly increased with the CVG base closing and the bankruptcy. After that most effort to be on time went out the window. I believe the effort to squeeze a few dollars out of the pilots will end up costing more in other areas as the pilots (along with all the other work groups getting it without the KY) reduce efficency at least in perportion to the wage cuts. I flew with a few crews just before I was laid off that had the attitude of less productivity and effort equal to the less pay. (which is a lot for displaced Avro captains)
Had management decided to raise efficency rather than attack labor I suspect they'd come out about even except they'd have much better customer satisfaction.

 

[GogglesPisano]

World bought us pizza for our 2nd (long) day of the 3 day interview.

They also supplied a nice surprise on the first day (something I never expected from an airline interview.)

For the most part, though, airline interviews are more like fraternity pledging than professional "get-to-know-each-other" pow-wow's.

 

[Publishers]

Does pilot quality effect the bottom line.... the answer everyone would like to think is "of course it does". The reality is very little. Pilots often think of themselves as the revenue generators and that they make the money for the company. The reality is the guy who designs the yield revenue system is much more important to the wheel than the pilot corp.
Airlines are sophisticated systems that must have all cogs operating effectively to be profitable. In the last few years, the fuel purchasing group has been an extremely important cog. While there is a relationship between quality and safety, it should be a given at the airline level.

 

[MauleSkinner]

When the list of qualified applicants gets too short, the airline will start buying lunch at the interviews.

It isn't just flight instructors, corporate pilots, and charter pilots who are willing to prostitute themselves for a job.

Fly safe!

David

 

[Occam's Razor]

Of course pilot quality impacts the bottom line...but not in terms of their airmanship.

In every collection of employees there is a small percentage who expose the corporation to risk. The risk comes in the form of huge medical expenses, poor attendance, lawsuits stemming from the employee's behavior, theft, etc.

The Holy Grail for H.R. departments is the "quality" employee.

As people hired to make decisions...sometimes many of them in a time-compressed environment...we draw special scrutiny. A flawed perspective or skewed set of priorites ("Don't write that up! The delay will make me miss my commuter flight!") can lead to fines, damage, or other more serious problems.

Some carriers are putting renewed focus on airmanship right now (FedEx, after the DC-10/MD-11 mishaps they've had in recent years), but I'm proof-positive that chimps can be trained to operate airliners safely...so it's more of a "select OUT" process than "select IN".