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".

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Occam...so what your really saying is...its about attitude??

 

[Thedude]

Pilot can make or brake a company and that usually depends on how the company treats their pilots. I have always laughed at those small companies that feel compeled to do those all day interviews. Maybe I just dont get it but I feel if the intervierwers know what they are doing they should be able to make a decsion in a couple of hours. I once did the all day interview with a company in the northern midwest and I was the only non-northern midwest guy there, so I got the spotlight. I almost felt like I was being single out and maybe even being ridiculed for applying for a job with that company. But then agaain it wasnt the good cop bad cop routine that CoTex used to pull in the mid 90's.

 

[FlyFlyFly]

Telling someone to bring a bag lunch to an interview is a screening technique. It has nothing to do with quality or skill of the pilot, they want the kind of person they can use as a doormat, so it is part of the screening process.

 

[FlyingSkip]

I agree w/ the first asertion, since I'm getting into this a little late. When I first left the military and took a sales position w/ a Fortune 50 corporation, they paid to fly me x-c to the interview, took me to a wonderful (read that as EXPENSIVE lunch) and generally treated me like I was a valued potential employee and that they wanted to impress me with how they treated their employees. Once I was onboard, it was even more of the same. Living in OH and training in Chicago, they flew me home every weekend to be with my family, paid for EVERY meal I ate during a 3 month training cycle, and put me up in a very nice long-term hotel with all the amenities.

Fast forward ten years and I decide to get back into aviation. I've had to b uy my own lunch while going to eat/meet with the Chief Pilot, DO etc at more than one potential employer, I've been expected to get paid NOTHING until I passed my checkride since THEY were taking such a risk hiring me, and I've stayed in establishments arranged through dispatch that would make a homeless person cringe. Why? Because like everyone else I haven't stood up and shouted "No More!" at the treatment!

As you said earlier, if you mention something like this you're likely to: a. be labelled a whiner, or b. told you don't understand the nature of aviation. What most of these rocket scientists don't understand is that there's nothing special about aviation that makes this happen, it's just a general "cheap" attitude by most employers and a "roll over and take it" attitude by most pilots. There's also an element of the same thing the military shows so many people---after an unpleasant event, those who have endured it view it almost as a badge of honor and tend to deride others who haven't undergone the same sort of treatment. "You haven't had to fly crappy stuff in terrible weather for little or no money? What are you, some sort of wuss?! Why, in the old days..." You get the point.

I'm not an airline guy, never have been and have sworn that I would go back to bartending or even digging ditches before I would ever subject myself to that sort of treatment. But is it much different on the charter side? Still trying to decide... I know it's not any better flying freight!

Every time you see/hear/read about people who are so intent on their future that they are willing to put up with anything in the present to get there (low-time guys working for next to nothing) and guys who are ONLY looking at the now with no emphasis on employee QOL, retention, long-term strategies or business development (the guys who are running most aviation companies large or small) then you can pretty much count on the outcome.

 

[pilotyip]

Free lunch when you interview at USA Jet Airlines, I hope you like Chinese buffets.

 

[GogglesPisano]

Free lunch when you interview at USA Jet Airlines, I hope you like Chinese buffets.

Only if the chef has a college degree.

just joshin' Yip

 

[wrxpilot]

Yeah, that's pretty amazing that you'd be expected to bring your own lunch to an interview. I've had several engineering interviews and never experienced anything like that. Pretty much without exception, it has been the company promoting why I should work there (and yes, a decent lunch is purchased). Also, I've always been reimbursed for relocation/moving expenses. I'd say 50% of the time I've been reimbursed for interview airfare.

I'm really becoming quite disgused w/ how crappy people are treated in aviation... There's no way I'd put up with a lot of the BS that goes on anyway. Maybe I'll just be one of those guys that does the CFI thing on the side, there's just too much SJS going on these days.

 

[pilotyip]

We don't want no chef with no college degree; we want one who has been to a good cooking trade school, with years of experience cooking in the finest restaurants. A person who can cook, not recite Plato, and Shakespeare

 

[NexPilot]

We don't want no chef with no college degree; we want one who has been to a good cooking trade school, with years of experience cooking in the finest restaurants. A person who can cook, not recite Plato, and Shakespeare

Most respected chef/culinary schools nowadays are accredited nationwide. That means they are college degrees-bachelors. But even with the degree, most good chefs haved at some point learned as apprentices early on.

No chef with no college degree means a chef with a degree; double negative there.

 

[pilotyip]

Nex, it was a joke since someone brought up the degree thing in the context of a free lunch. We don't need no stinkin degrees for anybody in this country. Translated it reads "We need all educated people we can get in this country to complete in the world market place". However, the degree has nothing to do with flying an airplane, it is only there to satisfy the HR dept

 

[Zekeflyer]

Therein lies the trouble with aviation careers. It doesn't surprise me that this kind of treatment resides in aviation.
Ever since I was 6, I've wanted to be an airline pilot. I couldn't afford to go to Riddle or any other flight school for college, so I went to a local college. I got a degree in engineering so as to better afford flight training (Highest Paying out of college~$55K/yr). It was only after I started flight training that I discovered just how terrible aviation careers can be. It has now made me wonder if I want to subject myself to the crap treatment it takes to become an airpline pilot.
When I was working at Mcdonalds during my high school years, I was bought a sandwich after my 10-minute interview. They had enough respect for me to at least offer me lunch even tough I was to work for minimum wage.

The way I see it, the problem with aviation careers are as follows

1. Incompetent management.
2. Unions. In any other non-unionized careers, you can leave one employer for any reason and get a job somewhere else making MORE money. With the unions and their bullcrap seniority system, if after 20+ years with a company and you leave for another employer, you start at the bottom of the pay scale. This discourages high turnover rates and a major incentive for management to improve working conditions is lost.
3. Lack of self-respect on part of pilots. If pilots are willing to work for 18K to 25K per year after spending $30K+ for training, then they deserve to be treated accordingly...Most people will take such a job and even pay for their own on the job training to "Pay their dues". This is a major reason why pilots will always be treated as "cogs" y management.
4. Over supply of pilots. There simply are too many of us and let's face it, the job that we do is not particualarly difficult. Almost anyone can become a pilot, and in practice, there really is no way to measure how pilot quality impacts the bottom line. Management and pilots know this.

 

[Publishers]

There is considerable difference between a corporate job type situation and one of these group type interview processes. In some of the group processes, you are given time for lunch out. There may or may not be a place near so maybe it is all right to give you a heads up.
In most more personal type interviews, this is not the case. In less personal situations more like cattle calls (group interviews) there is little personal touch unless you get past the intial parts.

 

[bssthound]

Remember the commercial a few years back where kids would say something like "I wanna be a yes man" or "I wanna be a brownnoser" to make a point about growing up to realize not everyone is gonna be Superman? A lot more kids say "I wanna be a pilot" than "I wanna be Assistant District Sales Manager." Face it, flying airplanes is a lot more fun than crunching numbers and making sure "we're making the numbers." Also, how many people aren't qualified for desk jobs because of a physical?

Couple that with the fact that the airlines are in business to make money; regardless of the oceans of red ink they're now bleeding. Mgmt naturally wants to keep costs down, hence the nickel & diming with employees' wages. Obviously we're in a tight spot because they know we enjoy flying and that quite a few pilots could do well in other fields but are in the cockpit due to said love of flying.

Also, mgmt knows most pilots are rather type A. Most pilots are going to get out on time despite incompetence in other areas, such as slow fueling, pax/bag loading, etc. That's why intentional slowdowns are so effective. Mgmt has factored into the schedule our tendency to "make it happen."

At my airline the vast majority of the Captains are great pilots and great people to be around. By the time someone has the seniority to hold Captain he's flown with many such Captains and has the necessary flying skills, temperament, and decision making abilities to ensure a flight's success. The training dept does a fine job, but it's the majority of the line Captains who groom an F/O to be a good Captain.

To answer the original question, as much as I'd like to say pilot quality affects the bottom line, I don't really think it does to a large extent. In my opinion there just aren't many bad pilots flying airliners.Airline flying is, for lack of a better expression, "choreographed." It's the business of moving people, it just happens to be in airplanes. My opinion, which I know is like an unpleasant part of my anatomy, is that pilot satisfaction weighs much in the equation.

 

[avbug]

I want a chef that can quote Shakespeare.

What yoke through yonder eggshell breaks? Tis a chicken, and this pan the sun. Fall therefore, liquid chick, and bake yourself yet anon. Good stuff.

I've found that an evil kinevil lunchbox works at less formal interviews. For a formal interview, I like something contemporary, such as spiderman or spongebob.

Then there's the question of what to eat during the interview. I prefer something light, and I like to bring something for the interview panel. I was always told it's not polite to eat unless you bring enough for the whole class. What works well is a buddy burner in the brief case. Set that up on the table while they're explaining the sim session or asking questions about approach charts, and then you can have smores while you discuss weather, radar, and regulations.

Try it. You'll really impress them with the cooking, AND shakespeare. Smore! I dip thee, I dip thee, I dip thee! Alas! Poor Marshmallow! I knew the well! Of what, lady interviewer? of speaking honourably? Is not marriage honourable in a beggar? Is not your pilot applicant honourable without hiring? I think you would have me say, 'saving your reverence, a pilot:' and bad thinking do not wrest true speaking, I'll offend nobody: is there any harm in 'the heavier for a smore-smoking pilot'? None, I think, and it be the right pilot and the right company; otherwise 'tis light, and not heavy: ask my buddy Wilber else; here he comes.

I don't care if an interviewer buys me lunch. Doesn't impress me in the least. But an interviewer that's got a trout pond and offers free bait and a hook while I'm waiting for the interview...now I'm impressed.

I long ago gave up submitting to an interview. When called to one, I interview the interviewer. Try it...you might be really surprised how well it works.

And I make them bring their own lunch.

Trouts are optional.

The fish, is the thing.

 

[NoahWerka]

If the paying public, regardless, airline or corporate, knew what goes on in the "cockpit" they would never get in an airplane again. Those of you who do this for a living know what I am talkng about. Quality of the pilots is a non-issue. Why spend say $20,000(WAG) in training costs, on an an "EXTREMELY' qualified pilot who is fifty-five, who can only werk five years when you can spend the same $20,000 on a 25 year old "pilot" with 250 hours who can werk for 25 years and hope he doesn't wreck an airplane. You do the math. I actually heard of a CEO at a "Major" Regional Airline say that, to paraphrase, it was "cheaper to pay off a crash" than it was to do "otherwise". Figure that one out. So, what has QUALITY have to do with the "bottom line"? Nothing.

 

[CFIse]

Does pilot quality affect the bottom line?

This fact is going to upset a lot of professional pilots - but here goes.

All an airline pilot has to be is adequate. Anything beyond that is not valued by the company. There is no value in passing a checkride "better" than anybody else - you pass or you fail. If you pass you're adequate. If you fail you're not.

Why is that? Most piloting is very routine, sometimes, very rarely, it requires supreme piloting skill so resolve a very dangerous situation. If you could choose those moments and assign your best crews to those moments then there would be some value in having identified your better pilots. But you can't, so you have to train all your pilots to a level that should allow them to resolve almost any situation. Those pilots are adequate.

So in the same way that when there is a labor shortage Burger King has to pay more than minimum wage and has to offer employee referrals and signing bonuses etc. the airlines woud have to woo their pilots if there was a pilot shortage. There is no pilot shortage - so airlines sift through piles of applicants, choose those they think can be adequate and move on. If some group of pilots doesn't want to apply because they have to bring a packed lunch, so be it, plenty more where they came from.

Who knows what he airline business model is, but that's their pilot hiring model. :crying:

 

[avbug]

If the paying public, regardless, airline or corporate, knew what goes on in the "cockpit" they would never get in an airplane again. Those of you who do this for a living know what I am talkng about. Quality of the pilots is a non-issue. Why spend say $20,000(WAG) in training costs, on an an "EXTREMELY' qualified pilot who is fifty-five, who can only werk five years when you can spend the same $20,000 on a 25 year old "pilot" with 250 hours who can werk for 25 years and hope he doesn't wreck an airplane. You do the math. I actually heard of a CEO at a "Major" Regional Airline say that, to paraphrase, it was "cheaper to pay off a crash" than it was to do "otherwise". Figure that one out. So, what has QUALITY have to do with the "bottom line"? Nothing.

What an absolute crock of BS.

You aren't by chance the 25 year old pilot "werking" at the "major" regional airline that heard "of" a CEO who claimed it's cheaper to pay off a crash than train, are you?

I don't know any airline that refuses to train pilots because it's too expensive...it's regulatory and it's required, and everybody trains. Period. Do YOU know of any airline that quits training pilots when they reach age 55 because they've only got five years left?

Twenty grand for training is nothing, and companies know this. Big, big bucks get spent on training.

What exactly is your point?

 

[waka]

No chef with no college degree means a chef with a degree; double negative there.

Actually, it is a triple negative; "We don't want no chef with no college degree..." so, it retains the originally intended meaining! :laugh:

 

[NoahWerka]

Dear avbug,
I have been in the business over twenty-five(for those of you that can't read),25 years. I have seen it more than once that that a younger pilot with less experience has been hired over an older pilot with more experience. Since the company pays for the training, the only conclusion I can come to is, that over a period of time, the cost per year of the low time less experienced low time pilot outweighs the experience of the older more experienced pilot. IOW they get more bang for the buck by hiring younger pilots whose werking life span is longer than an old pilot.

IE: 60-55=5; 20,000/5= 4,000.
60-25=25; 20,000/25=800
60= current retirement age.
Depreciation does count.

 

[100LL... Again!]

Pilot quality can affect the bottom line in many ways.

Unfortunately, they can be difficult to measure.

What about all the untorched enigines, the ublown tires, the undinged wingtips? What about all the placated passengers, the careful use of costly resources?

Most people don't like paying for insurance, but that's exactly what a quality pilot is. A quality pilot is insurance against:

1) Unintentional damage to aircraft
2) Giving passengers the impression that your operation is unsafe
3) Unnecessary expenditures due to inefficient operation and poor decisions
4) A million other things

The problem is age-old: How do ou convince someone to buy quality if the have no understanding of the consequences.

I'll explain this way:

Everyone knows that ultra-cheap tools can break in the middle of a job, thus stopping work.
What is hard to get people to understand is that a poorly-designed tool might not break, but can almost imperceptibly lower the speed and quality of work that is performed.

GOOD managers understand quality and are prepared to pay for it, since they understand that in the end it costs less.

Right now, I think there are very few 'good' managers in the airline business.