Maybe no one should question airline HR policy but then the applications should not have the golden words "we are an Equal Opportunity Employer" embossed on the final page of every application or on their web-sites. Clearly, some people are more equal than others! If you are one of those trying to defend this policy then answer that one, using the same logic! Don't just talk the talk - walk the walk also.
It is clear that a policy like this IS discriminatory & those airlines that do it, do themselves a great disservice. If diversity & well-roundedness are key traits that airlines desire, this is no way to go forward. If you simply want to change the goal posts in order to make it harder for the pilot candidate, fine, there are plenty of creative ways of doing that. No useful purpose is served by dismissing one group entirely and then making out you are still an EOE!! Duh? And, as one previous poster mentions, I can almost hear the uproar if the "or military time" were also omitted (and before you all hose me on that one, I am ex-military but I don't think I'm special because of it!)
What about the candidate who has stacks of jet SIC time - hypothetically even on a B717 - and through NO fault of his/her own has been furloughed or laid off from several carriers - and NEVER made it to 121 PIC? Does that make that type of candidate any less of a "worthy" candidate? Attitude, resilience and tenacity, especially under adverse conditions, are far better indicators of future success than any 121 PIC time. I've seen plenty of guys with high PIC time lose their situational awareness and then try to blame their FO for ending up hot and high on the approach because their egos had been bruised. Yes, I am generalizing here, but you get my point, hopefully.
Besides, is ANY airline going to hire direct into the LHS? I don't think so, not even SWA. Also, the last time I looked in a FOTM, it said that
all First Officers are considered Captains- in-Training . My point, if you are going to get specific why not include that to include SIC time as well. There have been many well-documented cases where a PIC's ass has been saved (or not - KLM Tenerife) because he had a competent, SAFE & great attitude FO sitting next to him using his CRM etc. But, according to Air Tran, none of that counts any more. That is mean-spirited, very insulting to those otherwise qualified candidates and extremely short-sighted. They can do it because it is not illegal, but that does not make it right.
And finally, guess what? In most other countries (& I'm not talking about third world here) they don't even care that much for PIC turbine, just overall time on type and/or category. They don't have all this 121, 135, 91, military elitist stuff. Who cares what your background is, if you can fly the plane safely? I have seen plenty of "crusty" 121 PICs and to a lesser extent, some military pilots with very poor airmanship, attitude and man-mangement skills. I'm not trying to knock any single aviator category here. what I'm trying to say is that there is good apples and bad ones in EVERY industry, job whetever. No single group is better or worse than another. To insinuate that it is (by Air Tran's "new" requirements) is to perpetuate the myth that one group IS better than another and more likely to succeed. Excuse me, but what utter B@#$%^&p as Dr. Phil would say! Yes, any airline, or company for that matter, wants the best but how do you define best?
flx757 speaks volumes in his posts and this is from an experienced Air Tran Captain and Check Airman. With his credentials you would think he would know a thing or two about training, suitability and fairness. And I agree wholeheartedly with him. It takes a man of courage to stand up to the plate and say it is wrong - especially about your own company - and I, for one, applaud you for that. It's a pity there are not more like you who tell it like it is.
And no, I have not applied to Air Tran nor have I been turned down by them. I have just observed a lot of discriminatory hiring practices over the past decade, based on false assumptions. And no, I'm not bitter. I just feel for those folks who have worked so hard to get an opportunity have their hopes dashed because of some arbitrary "rule" that no one can challenge. Yes, no one owes you a job nor an interview. But by the same token, everyone is
supposed to be equal. It's bad enough to change hiring policy in such a subjective way but @ least have the decency to say it like it is ..."we are proud to be an Unequal Opportunity Employer and we actively discourage diversity in the workplace..." Somehow I doubt they'll do that....but you never know in this business!
___________________________________________
It's Nice to Be Important, But It's More Important To Be Nice
