Comparing hiring practices--Who is doing it right?

[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.