Comparing hiring practices--Who is doing it right?

[bafanguy]

To part one of your question, I would say none of them. They all have some pretty serious flaws. Southwest doesn't do a sim ride, neither does jetBlue. Fedex and UPS require inside help. Not sure about Airtran, but the director of training told me I have a job there anytime I want it so they can't be too bad .

Unfortunately in this day and age the Human Resources department has taken on too much authority in the hiring process. The best hiring practice that an airline could do is to have a guy come and do a short sim assessment followed by a little sit down chat for about 30 minutes to an hour. If the guy can fly and hold a decent conversation then he should be hired, if not then toss him. The USAir hiring process in the late 80s was exactly that. Once a person got through that there was some more stuff, but essentially you were hired based on that first morning's work and then you could only get unhired by doing something really stupid over the next day and a half.

The dominant carriers of the late 80s and early 90s, excepting USAir and maybe a few others, had some pretty weird practices. Delta had the psychologist that himself ended up commiting suicide. American had the three days worth of poop samples and the astronaut physical. Northwest in the mid 90s had the morning of written tests that had nothing to do with flying and eliminated about 90% of applicants. Of course with UAL you had to be something other than a white male to even get an interview.

To go a little further with the flaw of a jetBlue or Southwest style of interview. There are people who can fly and are great to get along with in the cockpit, but who can't for the life of them tell good stories on the spur of the moment. These are the people who do their job well and then forget about it. I.E. someone who doesn't make a big deal about going that extra mile and who does it as a matter of course. Southwest and jetBlue are getting guys who can tell a good tale about the one or two things they did in their career that were good. They can keep telling that tale until it takes on a life of it's own and makes them sound wonderful, but how do you know they can fly an airplane ?


TP

Typhoonpilot,

As usual, you have brought the voice of reason and experience to the discussion.

I still say that they should take the applications of the people who are obviously qualified, stand at the top of a staircase and toss the bunch of 'em down. Hire the ones who made it to the bottom. The long term results will be equal to the "...tell me about a time when..." HR folks who appear to be running this current pilot-employment freak show. But, what do I know ? My last interview was January, 1973...and I don't expect to have a repeat performance anytime soon.

I'm pretty sure that's how I got hired. By the way, I didn't get interviewed by the shrink who "offed" himself, but his partner who was one of the weirdest people I've met to date. I was crushed I didn't get to sit in the famous rocking chair.

I think the industry has completely lost its mind. By the way, why are furloughed SwissAir pilots being temporarily hired by Emirates ?

 

[typhoonpilot]

Thanks Baf,

I think the industry has completely lost its mind. By the way, why are furloughed SwissAir pilots being temporarily hired by Emirates ?

I just saw something about that on Pprune, but I think it is a deal with Etihad not Emirates. Emirates official policy is that a new hire must resign from their previous company so I doubt we'll see any temp workers unless they really can't find anybody.

TP

 

[bafanguy]

Thanks Baf,



I just saw something about that on Pprune, but I think it is a deal with Etihad not Emirates. Emirates official policy is that a new hire must resign from their previous company so I doubt we'll see any temp workers unless they really can't find anybody.

TP

TP,

The pprune posting said "Emirates and Qatar...", but that doesn't compute. You guys must have people knocking down the doors to get a job there. The world is crawling with well-qualified pilots so why would Emirates take SwissAir guys as "temps" ? Must be a pprune misprint.

 

[typhoonpilot]

The pprune posting said "Emirates and Qatar...", but that doesn't compute. You guys must have people knocking down the doors to get a job there. The world is crawling with well-qualified pilots so why would Emirates take SwissAir guys as "temps" ? Must be a pprune misprint.

I saw the same post. It did say Emirates, but that is more wishful thinking than anything. I wouldn't say people are knocking down the door right now. The situation in Europe is quite good and applicants from there have dried up. Indian aviation is exploding and they have a pilot shortage of their own. Right now we are getting guys from Asia. Heck we are even taking guys out of Singapore Airlines. If they would just open up the doors to the U.S. RJ pilots they would have an unlimited supply of pilots to choose from.

To make this post germane to the thread, the Emirates interview was quite good. They take a couple of days to do a thorough job and look at a guys flying skills and personality to make sure he'll fit in. If you can fly and play nice with others then it usually goes well.

TP

 

[AlbieF15]

...we think airlines want safe pilots who are fun to fly with, but they really don't. What they want are:

--aviators who don't waste training dollars..

--aviators who are safe and prudent on the line and COMPLY with company instruction and mandates

--aviators who do not waste chief pilots time by saying "I cannot fly with XXXX or XXX" or calling in sick when certain people end up on their schedule.

--aviators who do not chronically pi$$ and moan ruining morale at an otherwise productive institution

--aviators who will work and want to work extra hard at the company...not spend their time off on side businesses, the Reserves (law says this cannot be held against you) or your completely messy personal life. Married or divorced--they don't care, but if you are the type who has restraining orders placed on you they have concerns

--healthy...so you come to work and keep health premiums low

--presentable...so you are not am embarassment to your company by your appearance or your actions in public

Those HR monsters running the interview? They ask targeted questions to get you to REVEAL what they cannot ask. Are you healthy? Do you get along well with others? Are you a motivated worker who wants to fly or is this just another side gig? If they ask the questions directly they may be crossing lines, plus they know they'll get a pat answer. But when they ask "...tell me about a time..." now they can listen closely and read between the lines.

Just my opinion...but I have helped a couple folks through the process...

 

[canyonblue]

There are people who can fly and are great to get along with in the cockpit, but who can't for the life of them tell good stories on the spur of the moment.
TP

The least intricate part of the overall eminence of a pilot, and for the life of them they can't communicate well. I really do not want to be sitting next to this chud going from BWI-LAX. No job for you, come back one year, NEXT!!!!

 

[typhoonpilot]

Albie, if they want "aviators" then they can only look at guys from the Navy.



TP

 

[typhoonpilot]

The least intricate part of the overall eminence of a pilot, and for the life of them they can't communicate well. I really do not want to be sitting next to this chud going from BWI-LAX. No job for you, come back one year, NEXT!!!!

You missed the point. Telling a tall tale in an interview versus having a conversation in the cockpit are two entirely different things.

TP


P.S. I've never interviewed at SWA .

 

[bafanguy]

Those HR monsters running the interview? Are you a motivated worker who wants to fly or is this just another side gig?

Just my opinion...but I have helped a couple folks through the process...

Sir,

I might have been born at night; it just wasn't LAST night.

"Are you a motivated worker who wants to fly or is this another side gig ?"

One must ask why you support this now standard HR line of unadulterated, store-brand baloney as the proper way to hire pilots.

One might have to wonder if, perhaps, it's because YOU profit from prepping people to wade this this vat of misdirected crap.

A "...side gig ?", Sir. You appear to have one of the factors that would make one an inappropriate pilot candidate by your own accounting. Yet, you seem to have landed on your feet nonetheless. Good show.

 

[TonyC]

One must ask why you support this now standard HR line of unadulterated, store-brand baloney as the proper way to hire pilots.

I won't speak for AlbieF15 (he's quite capable of doing that himself) but as a reader of his post. I did NOT gather from his post that he "supported" or "condoned" the philosphy, he just explained it.


When the company is looking for a new airplane, they're looking for a piece of equipment that will fly where they want to go, carry the stuff they want to carry, do it inexpensively, and do it reliably. They don't want a part-time airplane, or an airplane that will break and require a landing short of the destination, and they don't want a gas hog or a hangar queen.

I think they're looking for the same things in pilots. They want guys and gals that will perform the job safely every time, and not give the company any trouble. They don't care about the number of kills you had in the Gulf War, they want to know you'll never call in sick. They don't care about your marital status, they just want you to NOT annoy the other employees with your personal problems. They want PRODUCTIVITY, period. How they go about assessing or predicting those qualities is the focus of the interview.


And like AlbieF15 said, that's just MY opinion. (No, I don't charge, but I don't have a money-back guarantee, either! )





.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

Thanks to all for the info.

I see a give and take in the hiring process. I also see cultures that were started and nurtured before we arrived on the scene.

IMHO.....HR wants to have their input and the pilot group wants their input. Upper management puts their stamp on the process too. Money is always a player and a company wants to spend the least in the process of obtaining good employees.

Good employee is a relative term. One can argue, like Albie, that a good employee is a cheap and productive employee.

I like to compare the different styles of ensuring good stick and rudder skills. A sim check can be practiced and is but one day. Only a small snapshot.

A personal recommendation from a trusted employee tells you if that applicant is good every flight. High PIC time tells you someone has been trusted to command for years somewhere else.

 

[h2oskier]

How about looking at the results? I've now been with JB for just over a year, and so far 99.9% of the captains I've flown with have been great. Sure, a few always slip through the cracks. That happens everywhere. All have been professional, competent, and the trips enjoyable. So, I'd say JB is doin' just fine on the interviews. As for any others, I will say that all the pilots I know that have made it to SWA have been top notch as well. As far as not having a sim check, take a look at the experience of the thousands of applicants on file. JB pretty much assumes that at the experience levels they are seeing, that the ability to fly is there. Just my 2 cents....

 

[canyonblue737]

Truth hurts dude. Ask anyone that took out of their savings just to have a shot, then got the "thanks but no thanks, maybe you will be good enough the second time around". PUHLEEEAZE.

know and love ya capt. m. but on this one i simply can't agree.

EVERY, EVERY, EVERY airline turns down good ones and hires bad ones. i believe SWA hires more good ones than the rest because of some of their practices and attitudes which include being very picky, to the point they end up not hiring some great guys and girls because they were being overally cautious. the people department at SWA freely admits this, but IMHO correctly feel that if they loosen things up they will hire good people, but also get more bads ones. clearly UPS turns people down too... and i bet some are good ones to. we both know people that should have been hired at SWA but weren't but from my experience on the line i think the percentage of "good folks" is through the roof here so they have to be doing something right.

as for the type well that is what it is. it saves the company a bunch of insurance money to have both typed and it goes right to the bottom line cost savings of the company. i have seen people hired without the type (pending it of course) but they are the minority. while SWA is loathe to say it, perhaps there is some truth that SWA like seeing some folks (although if you have a type from your previous job that excellent) gamble on the type and interview, because in a sense every employee they hire is a gamble on the very future of the company... we can destroy this place after all. but EVERYONE who gets a type has to know this: do not think getting the type will get you hired, what happens in the interview and what your peers think and say about you after the interview will get you hired. you should be comfortable with that knowledge before you decide to purchase a type if that is your situation.

i know you wanted to be here at one point and i am sorry you soured on it from what you have seen, but for those doubters out there... once your here it still is IMHO is the best place to work in the airlines to work for as an employee, QOL, pay and simply fun enviroment all summed up.

 

[canyonblue737]

I understand that you don't HAVE to have a '73 type to get an interview with SWA, although I bet it would be quite unlikely. Say, less than 1 out of 500 get selected that way.

way more than 1 in 500. i would guess when i interviewed and the time around it at least 1 or 2 of the 16 interviews each day didn't have one. the chances to be hired for them once at the interview were IMHO equal to the rest of us. having the type simply made it more likely to get the interview.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

way more than 1 in 500. i would guess when i interviewed and the time around it at least 1 or 2 of the 16 interviews each day didn't have one. the chances to be hired for them once at the interview were IMHO equal to the rest of us. having the type simply made it more likely to get the interview.

I can vouch for this one. Some of my mil buds had applications in for SWA, pre 9/11, without types. I put mine in after 9/11 with type. I was called earlier than they were. Is it fair or right, I don't know. Just is.

In '99 and '00 the type had become optional for interviews and many, many folks were interviewed without them. After 9/11 competitive interviewing quals changed. And after the interviewing stopped from '02 until early '04, it got even harder.

Each hiring cycle is different. Even in the same cycle some get interviewed and hired at the beginning and others at the end. I'd rather to stack the cards in my favor and get interviewed in the beginning.