Comparing hiring practices--Who is doing it right?

[WillowRunVortex]

Last time I checked I was entitled to my own opinion whether popular or not. Had you stayed at Southwest, you would be a Millionaire today. We have never furloughed, so your decision to leave might have been your disparagement for Southwest. I was at Bob Pratt's retirement party, and he was a great guy, not just for his character, but for the fact that he stuck with this airline. We have had guys leave in every decade since our inception, always thinking that the grass is always greener. For those that have left I have no love lost, the place is obviously better without them. I never rule anything out but with all due respect Sir, the next 20 years in this industry wont be anything like the last 20, and I have to live it.

"so your decision to leave might have been your disparagement for Southwest"

Canyonblue, where did you get "disparagement" from, reading what I read?
THE MAN STATED THAT HE WAS "ROOTING FOR YOU GUYS ALL THE WAY"!!!

What country you from Canyonblue?, What? , What aint no country I ever heard of,,,they speak english in What? What? English M... Fu... do you speak it? YES!!! Then you understand what I'm saying...........

JEEEEZ

 

[capt. megadeth]

If we can agree all airlines, to varying degree make mistakes in there hiring, then at least SWA is willing to reinterview you in the hopes that perhaps either you have changed your approach or perhaps a different set of interviewers will see it differently. No matter how you shake it, I think it is a better deal than like some majors who once they shut you down you have zero chance of ever getting another shot.

Auto*****,
I love ya and I agree with you although it is still annoying (the "you may be good enough the 2nd or 3rd time around")

 

[typhoonpilot]

I was hired by Don Ogden in the office of my former boss at a failing airline after about 20 minutes of one professional aviator shooting the breeze with another professional aviator. We each knew where the other was coming from, what we were discussing, and what it meant for each of us. It ended with a handshake and a May, 1971 classdate at UAL ( Don picked up the tab, as it should be ).

Shortly after, Pratt, Salazar, Cabeza, Benjamin, Tietjen, Hoyt, Hampton, Matter, Deakins, Everett, Steele, and Burk ( all from the same unfortunate company ) were given the same dignified, professional courtesy by a very fine gentleman who had some serious history behind his name and whose judgement could be trusted ( maybe someday you can make the same claim; today, however, is apparently not that day ).

From other sources came Welch, Van Oversheld, Cohen, Patterson, and others, fine gentlemen to a man. Your now #1 guy, Sprague, came along ( after a stint as an appliance salesman at Sears ) from the same non-sked as I was leaving SWA in early '73. I helped him find his first apartment in DAL. He's an absolutely first-class guy, and always was.

I have followed the history of SWA with a very personal interest and rooted for you every step in the process. I cut my teeth in aviation with these guys and they are my heros. I am proud of them and am glad to see them hang in there and reap the rewards they earned. You, my friend, walk on their shoulders. Not the shoulders of some batch of paper shufflers who expect you to show up with a certified copy of your parent's marriage license to prove you're not a bastard, and then tell them your best "...there I was, when all of a sudden..." story. Real aviators don't need this monkey motion to size up one another; they just know because, when you're the guy they want, it's obvious even without your parent's certified marriage license.

As evidenced from your posts, you have a lot to learn. Get humble, Junior, because the taller that high horse you're riding, the longer and more painful your inevitable fall to the ground will be. And, in today's airline biz, you can NEVER rule that out.

And, no, I did not invent the internet.

Thanks Bafanguy, that is almost exactly how I would have pictured it.


TP

 

[Resume Writer]

Luvchild is correct as to why HR is involved in the hiring process. The legalities of hiring are very complex.


To say that HR screws up the hiring process is inaccurate at best. To also say that airlines are the only business that has HR involved is also untrue. While a person might be "interviewed" for an accountant position by a department manager, I can assure you that HR was involved in the process from the beginning to ensure the qualification requirements were met. HR is also the department that conducts background checks in most companies. This method is valid for government positions, private and public companies and non-profit organizations.

The chief complaint I hear from HR folks is that the department managers have to constantly be reminded not to ask illegal questions. It is these managers that get companies in hot water legally because they ask illegal questions.

Further, in many companies, the hiring process involves what is called a "stakeholder" interview, which is in essence what the airlines conduct. Stakeholders are anyone that will have direct contact with the potential employee. Most of the time it involves a frontline employee, a manager and the HR representative. This can be with everyone in the same room or three separate interviews.

The reason SWA and other airlines have a "standard" interview process is to ensure that it is fair AND legal - no matter which person conducts the interview.

I can tell you that I conduct interview presentations every three months at Career Expos. This is a topic I have researched and discussed with candidates for many years.

In addition, I apply for positions and go out on interviews every six months. There is a method to my madness. In order to be an effective resume writer and interview prep coach, I need to know the process my clients will go through. I am one of the few, if not the only, resume writer and interview coach that does this.

No airline or any other company has the "perfect" interview process - not even SWA. They have high turnover in some departments - namely the Customer Service Agent and Ramp Agent positions. Is that a product of the interview process? Maybe, maybe not. I think it is the fact that they pay people about $8.50 an hour to work thankless positions. One of the highest stations for turnover in the SWA system is BWI. I am sure the people in that area can probably make more money on welfare than SWA - or any other airline - can pay them. However, this is true for any airline and these positions - not just SWA.

The latest trend is screening individuals prior to the selection for a telephone or face-to-face interview. JetBlue does this, as does Eli Lilly pharmaceuticals. They ask questions and require the potential employee to share stories in written form to ascertain whether they have the qualifications necessary to meet their business requirements. Believe me, how you answer these questions does make a difference.

Just my two cents on the subject.

Kathy

 

[CapnVegetto]

If the company wants to require a type rating as a condition of employment, that's fine too. But I think it is lame that you basically won't be called for an interview without one, so you get one and then they turn you down anyways........lame. I think that SWA HR has gotten a little full of themselves since they all of a sudden have all these pilots wanting to work there and I find that to be a turnoff. You all can get all pi$$y with me if you want, but I am entitled to my opinion.

I agree with megadeth on this one. Why the hell should I go out and spend $6000-$10000 of my money for a SHOT at SWA? I know it's a good place to work, but it's not THAT good. How many guys out there have spent that money and SWA has said 'sorry!!", or have not even called them? I don't have a problem with them requiring a 737 type to work there, but I do have a problem with them requiring it for an interview. As far as I know, they technically don't, but the only way I would ever spend that kind of money was if I had already been hired and were on my way there.

 

[bafanguy]

Last time I checked I was entitled to my own opinion whether popular or not.

CB,

Agreed 100%. If I appeared to snap at you, I apologize.

My point in this "discussion" ( and it's merely a discussion since nothing material comes from it) is how sad it is to see the employment practises deteriorate from what they were to what they are...that's all. Both parties entering the employment/inteview transaction with shields full up, lawyers figuratively in tow, and jumping through silly hoops is an unfortunate arena in which to begin what's supposed to be a lifelong, trusting relationship. No amount of support or lament from any quarter is going to change anything, but it's a subject worth exploring for its historical perspective, if nothing else.

Of course, each person who gets hired thinks that particular process must be an absolute stroke of genius. After all, they got hired so the system must be wise and all-seeing in all aspects !! These days, I would think the feeling is closer to a benign form of Stockholm Syndrome that an objective assessment of the process.

This is waaay off subject, but as willowrunvortex mentioned, I have cheered on the company full tilt and have nothing but warm, enthusiastic feelings for SWA for a couple of reasons: I want to see all the people I know there doing well because they have earned it. It's nice to see good things happen to good people. Second, SWA is the last hope to prove to other airline management groups that MANAGEMENT is the key piece of the puzzle ( not that they'll notice, acknowledge, or act on it but they have been shown the truth that only management can create the environment which avoids the current crisis of trust that has a major part preventing the legacy carriers from saving themselves. This demonstrates the counterproductivity of relationships begun in distrust. ).

Even further off subject would be my reasons for leaving or Bob's reasons for staying. As a further bit of historical perspective, in '73, DL was about the size SWA is now ( pretty close pilotwise...my original number was 3,000-something ) and while it was certainly quite different from what I'd known owing to scale effects, it was still a pretty collegial, pleasant, stable place to work. The pilot group was actually quick to espouse respect/trust/support for management, and visa versa. There was usually a bit of head-butting around contract time but it seemed more symbolic than heart-felt. One of the founders of ALPA, Charlie Dolson, actually went on to become CEO. So, all things considered, as a consolation prize it turned out OK.

But, things can sure change; it's that type and scope of change you guys need to watch out for. Once past the initial few years of your history, you haven't been in any struggles for survival and haven't been tested in that way. Maybe you'll break the mold and not have to take that test.

P.S. Thanks for the financial advice. You don't need to hold any telethon for me, but I'm not too proud to accept contributions to my worthy cause.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

A few reasons why I think SWA hiring is done the way its done.

Low Cost--

For SWA, the 737 type saves SWA some money. FAA approved academics that are shorter (I think) and more of a review for new hires. It ensures military hires good enough to handle a fast paced 2 week type program. Few if any failures on upgrade to Captain. Maybe cheaper insurance.

Culture (Esprit de corps)--

This is a biggee for SWA. Pilots have something in common. They talk about their type class. It's a rite of passage. You feel closer to your new hire and line brethren. You have to be highly motivated to spend $7000 to make yourself look more competitive. They not only want but need you to get along with other company employees. If the pilots aren't hired to fit into the culture, why should any other department be held to that standard?

Culture = Lower Cost

I believe there is a synergistic effect here. With a definite and positive culture, you feel closer to your fellow employees. You don't want to leave, less turnover. You want to come to work, more productive.

Any of you work somewhere with a pervasive negative attitude in the air? Whatever the reason, it stinks. That environment makes people want to find employment elsewhere, work less and degrades the quality of the work they accomplish.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

bafanguy,

Amen.

"in '73, DL was about the size SWA is now...it was still a pretty collegial, pleasant, stable place to work. The pilot group was actually quick to espouse respect/trust/support for management, and visa versa. There was usually a bit of head-butting around contract time but it seemed more symbolic than heart-felt...But, things can sure change; it's that type and scope of change you guys need to watch out for. Once past the initial few years of your history, you haven't been in any struggles for survival and haven't been tested in that way. Maybe you'll break the mold and not have to take that test."



This above is very instructive. I hope the spirit of trust and teamwork continues forever at SWA.

 

[xtwapilot]

Resume writer, you just made my point for me. What I was trying to say is that HR's function should be only to do the background checks and other admin duties, they should never have the authority to say yes or no to an applicant, that function should only belong to the department that is hiring. And BTW, I have several friends in other professions such as doctors, business people, engineers, and every time we talk about this, they are amazed at HR's role in pilot hiring. Their respective departments don't defer their authority to HR. After all, who knows what makes a good pilot and coworker, the HR rep who has never been a pilot, or a CP or someone with piloting experience that can seperate within the first 2 minutes the BS from the truth. HR's function in the pilot hiring process should strictly be to act in an admin role, no authority to make the decision to hire. Many airlines give the HR rep an equal vote to hire or not, to me, that is simply wrong.

 

[jetexas]

xtwapilot
Agreed! I have always thought it an insult that non-pilots bear so much weight in hiring pilots. They have not seen what a pilot sees. They don't have the same thought processes. All they do is look at 'numbers', without looking at the soul or spirit of a person. So and so have such and such time...great, call them in! Well, how did they get that time, etc?
I feel also that if it becomes too much work, they just move on. Ie, if someone has a long address history, instead of verifying, they just find someone who has not moved. Long employment history? Same thing. Non-pilots don't understand what it can take..the moving around, the chain of jobs to get there, etc. They haven't seen the weather, night flying, emergencies, diversions, unruly passengers, on time demands, etc, etc. It's hard to understand someone if you have never walked in their shoes, much less to be able to judge them as a worthy employee.

 

[YGBSM]

The best thing about this industry is the lack of ego.

 

[TAZ MAN]

The best thing about this industry is the lack of ego.

I agree. Many humble, respectful people in this profession.

 

[mar]

So, back to the original question...

Disclaimer: I'm biased.

As some already know, my 'airline' interviews were at Cathay, Alaska and Atlas in that order.

I got hired by Atlas so naturally I think Atlas 'got it right' and here's why:

Atlas isn't just looking for pilots. They're looking for employees.

I happen to think I'm your average run of the mill pilot but I'm a pretty god dang good employee.

Who knows about Cathay? But I definitely busted the sim at Alaska. At Atlas the sim ride was more about how you brief the other guys and include them in the ride. There was very little emphasis on instrument flying. As for the interview it lasted all of 10 minutes. And apparently that's all they needed to determine if they could spend 10 hours with you.

What I'm trying to say is that if you looked at my resume (with a bunch of SA227 and DC6 time) I'm immediately excluded from the vast majority of airlines out there.

But ironically, someone out there thought I'd be an asset at a company that operates 747s.

Who would've ever thought that? Not Cathay. Not Alaska. Go figure.

Bottom line: it's their company, they make the rules. We get angry and frustrated because the stakes are high, we've sacrificed a lot and it's really competitive. But every company uses a method that provides the 'type' they seek.

Personally, I never applied to United because I knew I'd never fit in there.

I have many friends at Atlas, they're all freak shows, and I fit in. It's a good fit. So in a weird way Cathay and Alaska did me a favor. Thank you Atlas.

Cheers.

 

[Resume Writer]

Resume writer, you just made my point for me. What I was trying to say is that HR's function should be only to do the background checks and other admin duties, they should never have the authority to say yes or no to an applicant, that function should only belong to the department that is hiring. And BTW, I have several friends in other professions such as doctors, business people, engineers, and every time we talk about this, they are amazed at HR's role in pilot hiring. Their respective departments don't defer their authority to HR. After all, who knows what makes a good pilot and coworker, the HR rep who has never been a pilot, or a CP or someone with piloting experience that can seperate within the first 2 minutes the BS from the truth. HR's function in the pilot hiring process should strictly be to act in an admin role, no authority to make the decision to hire. Many airlines give the HR rep an equal vote to hire or not, to me, that is simply wrong.

I am going to agree and disagree with you whether HR should have a vote or not. Pilots are inherently a technical bunch. I equate pilots to the same type of communication style as an engineer - just the facts. However, in order to work as a team, everyone has to be able to communicate.

Let me give you an example. I interview prepped a pilot that had an SWA interview coming up. He told me about a previous experience he had at SWA about five years before. When the HR person asked him a "tell me about a time when" question, his answer was VERY technical. (I forget the exact question) The response from the HR person was something to the effect of "I have no idea what you just said, but I am sure it was impressive."

What that pilot did was make it look like he could not talk with the FAs, rampers, gate agents, etc., (i.e., people that did not know his job). I can also assume that they took into account the future PAs he would make to passengers explaining a mechanical issue. Sometimes you have to be able to get out of the "technical speak" and be able to communicate with the "non-technical" people.

If that same answer had been given to the pilot that was recruiting, he/she would have most likely understood the information. The point is, as a pilot, there are many other people you have to communicate with that are NOT pilots. This is where I believe the HR department input is valuable.

As for the HR department making the final decision in aviation, that is not the common practice across the board. Once input has been provided, the pilot hiring board makes the final decision - pending successful completion of a background and drug test.

In government hiring, department managers can choose the people they want on their "hiring committee." These people often have nothing to do with the department that is hiring for the position. If Joe Manager in Parks and Rec wants to hire, he may have Bill Manager from the waste water department sit on his hiring board. In some ways, this is similar to the pilot hiring process, with the waste water manager providing input like an HR person. Sometimes individuals in one department are too close to the situation and need the input of other people to make a good hiring decision.

Once again, just my thoughts.

Kathy

 

[bafanguy]

bafanguy,

Amen.

"in '73, DL was about the size SWA is now...it was still a pretty collegial, pleasant, stable place to work. The pilot group was actually quick to espouse respect/trust/support for management, and visa versa. There was usually a bit of head-butting around contract time but it seemed more symbolic than heart-felt...But, things can sure change; it's that type and scope of change you guys need to watch out for. Once past the initial few years of your history, you haven't been in any struggles for survival and haven't been tested in that way. Maybe you'll break the mold and not have to take that test."



This above is very instructive. I hope the spirit of trust and teamwork continues forever at SWA.

FBJ,

Well, I certainly hope so too. What I can tell you, from my recollection, is that the sense of common purpose was present very early on. From my experience, it was born from the ties of common struggle rather than the heady wine of abundant success. Even though Goliath was there and was trying to kill us, every day at work ws a rip-roaring good time and working with my pilot heros was just icing on the cake. If that same atmosphere still exists, it's amazing.

As I told Chase last year, as good as my 30+ years were following SWA, none of them had that same feel to them inspite of my new home being pretty darned good ( until recently). That's no slam on the major, but just the way it was. I attribute this to the scale effects I mentioned; they were just frikkin' huge compared to that little 3 airplane operation over there in DAL. But, they, too, had several decades of success on the books and a very good labor/management relationship cementing it all together. But, things can change in what seems a heartbeat now that I look back on it.

Taking a pounding from serious, negative, outside forces combined with pilot missteps, and stupid, greedy, management excesses can undo decades of harmony so fast, you just can't believe it. That perfect storm of factors can create damage you won't live to see repaired despite those previous decades of bliss. That's what makes the concept of "corporate culture" so iffy in my mind; I've seen firsthand how it gets undone and it makes you question its existence in the first place. I sure hope you guys can avoid all that.

I have to admit, telling Don Ogden I was leaving was one of the most difficult things I've done in my career, second only to bailing on my career carrier four years early because they were no longer worthy of trust and had become a clear and present danger to my longterm well being. That feeling has been, and is being, echoed by droves of my contemporaries.

No hard feelings/bitterness here, I can assure you; just a slight disappointment I couldn't have completed the four years I signed on for 30 years earlier. It was still a fantastic ride no matter how you slice it. Either way I'd have gone...I've have been right. I think I've used up my lifetime supply of luck !!

 

[xtwapilot]

Kathy:

Are you suggesting that the CP or someone else within flt ops is not qualified to make a decision on whether a pilot can communicate well with other non-pilot types? I feel, and I am sure many will echo this, part of being a good pilot is being able to make good decisions and communicate effectively. I dont' think HR reps are the only ones qualified in determining who can and cannot communicate effectively with others. Again I feel HR should have no input what so ever in the pilot hiring process, the fact that there is an HR rep on a pilot reveiw board and every board that I know of has to have a concensus to hire a pilot, the HR person can very well be the reason a pilot is not hired. This entire thinking that somehow HR is the only department that can make the determination that a pilot will be a good employee is simply wrong. HR does not have any special skills that somehow make them better at determining the value of an employee vs. a department head. Keep in mind the original function of the HR department was to be strictly administrative, i.e. process paperwork, do employee background checks, place ads, and at the direction of the respective department head, call potential candidates. They also normally take care of benefits, leaves etc. I'm sorry but I think we'll have to agree to disgree about the function of an HR rep in the pilot hiring process.

 

[Freight Dog]

I agree with xtwa pilot. A panel interview should consist of a department head (Chief Pilot), an instructor and a regular line pilot. They are perfectly qualified to see a potential of a pilot:

Chief Pilot - whether or not a guy has an attitude problem or anything. Review logbooks, etc.

Instructor - see whether a guy is trainable, and screen him for potential training issues/CRM skills.

Line Pilot - what the potential candidate would be to work with on the line.

Each take notes and then at the end compare the notes.

An HR person is qualified to judge the candidate's suit, shoes, grooming, etc. Following a pilot getting hired, chances of him or her running across that HR person is fairly remote. I haven't seen any HR girls I dealt with since I took my pre-hire physical at Aloha, yet I'd regularly deal with my interview panel - the 2 instructors did my recurrents, and I've flown trips with them. The Chief Pilot is another instructor and flies the line occasionally. Those guys are perfectly qualified to make a determination as I work with them regularly.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

.

An HR person is qualified to judge the candidate's suit, shoes, grooming, etc...

I couldn't help but chuckle at the above

Southwest does the one on one interview with three people. Two with Captains or retired Captains and one with HR. Maybe it is to average out the performance. Just in case one of the three went badly.

Odds are a pilot will eventually have to deal with a non-pilot. Maybe not as FO but definitely as Captain. Gate agents, TSA, Flight Attendants, LEOs, Emergency medical services and maybe even a PASSENGER.

Maybe all that HR stuff is geared toward the gruff ex-military types.

 

[enigma]

Disclaimer: I'm biased.

As some already know, my 'airline' interviews were at Cathay, Alaska and Atlas in that order.

I got hired by Atlas so naturally I think Atlas 'got it right' and here's why:

Atlas isn't just looking for pilots. They're looking for employees.

I happen to think I'm your average run of the mill pilot but I'm a pretty god dang good employee.

Who knows about Cathay? But I definitely busted the sim at Alaska. At Atlas the sim ride was more about how you brief the other guys and include them in the ride. There was very little emphasis on instrument flying. As for the interview it lasted all of 10 minutes. And apparently that's all they needed to determine if they could spend 10 hours with you.

What I'm trying to say is that if you looked at my resume (with a bunch of SA227 and DC6 time) I'm immediately excluded from the vast majority of airlines out there.

But ironically, someone out there thought I'd be an asset at a company that operates 747s.

Who would've ever thought that? Not Cathay. Not Alaska. Go figure.

Bottom line: it's their company, they make the rules. We get angry and frustrated because the stakes are high, we've sacrificed a lot and it's really competitive. But every company uses a method that provides the 'type' they seek.

Personally, I never applied to United because I knew I'd never fit in there.

I have many friends at Atlas, they're all freak shows, and I fit in. It's a good fit. So in a weird way Cathay and Alaska did me a favor. Thank you Atlas.

Cheers.

Mr. R, great post. Thanks for the wake up call. As some know, I've been trying to get on with SWA for almost a decade..............and I've got nothing to show for it but two failures.

On the other hand, Spirit called me in, gave me a one-on-one interview with ONE (I repeat ONE) pilot. We basically visited for two hours and he made the offer. In truth, that's my kind of company. (thanks Jack)

My Spirit interview consisted of a few questions to verify that my experience matched my resume, a few to verify that I had the required level of technical knowledge, a few to verify that I wasn't a scab, and a few to determine if I could pass training. I'm sure that he was continually evaluating me from the "can I stand to spend a month with this guy" perspective.

In my case, getting the interview was pure luck, passing it was easy. It was easy because I am an employee who shows up, doesn't call in sick unless I'm dying, stays late, studies my craft and gets along with most everyone. For their trust, Spirit got an employee who has shown up, only called in sick once (albeit for one and a half years, but that's another story) stays late, studies my craft and has very few enemies.

Sorry for being self centered and boring. I'm afraid that I'll have to stay that way because I'm still trying to get hired other places and I DANG sure don't want to pi$$ anyone off.

enigma

PS, the Spirit interview has changed since I was hired last century. However, I hear that HR has almost no input into the hiring decision. A Spirit applicant will get judged by his/her peers.

 

[Freight Dog]

"Tell me about the time you had a crush on your mother. How did you handle it?"

"Who do you like better, your mom or your dad? Why?"

"Do you still or have you ever fried an ant or some small animal with a magnifying glass?"

"If a captain showed up downstairs wearing a dress, what would you say?"

Then.. you have some hot HR girl who purposely shows off her perfectly augmented boobs and legs and then disqualifies you for scoping her out.

"So Mr. Peckerwood, what makes you a great candidate for XYZ Airlines given the fact that your suit went out of style 3 months ago?"

A chief pilot or a current line pilot can evaluate your people skills just fine. After all, it won't be your lovely Hooters-waitress-turned-HR-interviewer disciplining you (unfortunately) if you screw up. It'll be your hairy Chief Pilot with a bad breath. Hence.... I don't think HR people should be around for interviewing pilots.

But then again, that's just my .02 cents.