How was the Delta interview??

[michael707767]

I realize how computers and automation have caused some unintended complaicency on my behalf..... I admit I have quite a lot of studying to do just incase they ever decide to call me.

I think we are all guilty of this.


someone once told me the definition of luck is when opportunity and preparation come together. Study a lot. Be ready when that call does come.

 

[tblosser]

Can anyone tell me?
1st- During training are you paid a guarantee rserve pay or some other sum?
2nd- How is the health insurance?
3rd- how long training (new hire) takes on the average?
thanks.....

1st If I remember correctly you are paid 70 hours at the new hire rate of 44.88.

2nd The health insurance is not what it use to be but is not all that bad. You have 2 choices depending on where you live and your personal situation. You and your eligible dependants are covered starting your date of hire.

3rd The initial training foot print on the 738 or M88 is about 30 days give or take a few days. Company indoc use to take about 2 weeks but it may be reduced this time around to save costs. There will be some time off as well so I would think that from date of hire to IOE should be no more than 2 months. This is just a guess.

Hope this helps
Todd

 

[Flyer1015]

Can anyone comment on the Delta physical? There was one required pre-9/11 when Delta was hiring. Is it as infamours as AMR's required physical?

 

[Caveman]

I'm curious as to why DAL is choosing to do a in-depth technical interview? If someone has the basic quals to apply and the experience to be competitive at this level why make them jump through all the hoops? I could understand a scenario based drill like SWA does. That reveals decision making and CRM skills. What's an ATP written exam going to reveal at this stage of the game?

I'm not picking on DAL. My comments apply to any major airline. I also don't think a sim ride proves anything. Everybody usually studies for the written and gets a sim prep. So what does either really prove other than you can prepare for a canned event? The face to face TMAAT or scenario based decison skills evaluation makes much more sense to me. At the major/legacy level it should be a given the applicants can aviate. The question is will they fit in with the company culture and are they good decison makers. It's their airline, they can do what they want. I just think it's unnecessary. A face to face interview should suffice. Just a comment, no flame intended.

 

[michael707767]

The question is will they fit in with the company culture and are they good decison makers. It's their airline, they can do what they want. I just think it's unnecessary. A face to face interview should suffice.

I once flew with one of the guys who was responsible for setting up Delta's hiring program in 96. He said the reason for the testing was threefold. First, to get an idea of your technical knowledge. Second, to see if you cared enough to get the gouge and show up prepared. Third, the results of the testing did give them a very good idea what kind of person you were and whether or not you would fit in.

 

[Caveman]

In '96 there may have been a valid reason to dig that deep. Everybody was hiring and the experience level was somewhat lower than it is now. These days to be minimally competitive at a major you need 5000TT and 2000TPIC and most folks looking for work have much more experience than that.

Your first two points are valid. The testing will reveal those things. I still maintain that based on experience alone you can adequately judge the technical knowledge and everybody preps for the canned events so it doesn't really weed anybody out.

I disagree that a technical evaluation will reveal 'what kind of person' you are. At least not in the sense I believe the interviewers are looking for. A written technical test won't tell me what kind of decision making skills you have. It won't tell me if you are confident. It won't suggest whether or not you have a sense of humer . It can't tell me if you support the principles of CRM.

It is true that a face to face will fill in the personality gaps left open by a tech eval so by an airline doing both they are acheiving the same objective. I just think that in todays hiring environment with the quality of experience of most competitive applicants a tech eval probably isn't necessary. Again, I'm not arguing with you about it. The tech eval is not unreasonable, just not necessary IMO.

 

[tblosser]

I'm curious as to why DAL is choosing to do a in-depth technical interview? If someone has the basic quals to apply and the experience to be competitive at this level why make them jump through all the hoops? I could understand a scenario based drill like SWA does. That reveals decision making and CRM skills. What's an ATP written exam going to reveal at this stage of the game?

I'm not picking on DAL. My comments apply to any major airline. I also don't think a sim ride proves anything. Everybody usually studies for the written and gets a sim prep. So what does either really prove other than you can prepare for a canned event? The face to face TMAAT or scenario based decison skills evaluation makes much more sense to me. At the major/legacy level it should be a given the applicants can aviate. The question is will they fit in with the company culture and are they good decison makers. It's their airline, they can do what they want. I just think it's unnecessary. A face to face interview should suffice. Just a comment, no flame intended.

[FONT=&quot]The short answer is “that is what we have always done…and it works”. I agree it may seem stupid but some people actually fail the test. When I interviewed at least one guy, on that day, busted the thing. Delta likes to say that they don’t hire pilots they hire people who fly airplanes. That is the underlying philosophy behind why the do what they do. They want to know if you are trainable and would they want to spend four days flying a trip with you. So first they use a rudimentary test to see if you possess the basic skills to successfully complete the training. Next they do the personal interview and pysc eval etc. I agree that if your qualifications are competitive you would pass this test with relative easy but some guys have failed. There may also be lawyers involved in how they screen their applicants.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Todd[/FONT]

 

[michael707767]

I disagree that a technical evaluation will reveal 'what kind of person' you are. At least not in the sense I believe the interviewers are looking for. A written technical test won't tell me what kind of decision making skills you have. It won't tell me if you are confident. It won't suggest whether or not you have a sense of humer . It can't tell me if you support the principles of CRM..

you are assuming all the questions in the testing are technical. They are not, or at least, were not when I interviewed.

Bottom line is the people who make these decisions at Delta disagree with you. What you and I think is irrelevant.

 

[PuffDriver]

In '96 there may have been a valid reason to dig that deep. Everybody was hiring and the experience level was somewhat lower than it is now. These days to be minimally competitive at a major you need 5000TT and 2000TPIC and most folks looking for work have much more experience than that.

Your first two points are valid. The testing will reveal those things. I still maintain that based on experience alone you can adequately judge the technical knowledge and everybody preps for the canned events so it doesn't really weed anybody out.

I disagree that a technical evaluation will reveal 'what kind of person' you are. At least not in the sense I believe the interviewers are looking for. A written technical test won't tell me what kind of decision making skills you have. It won't tell me if you are confident. It won't suggest whether or not you have a sense of humer . It can't tell me if you support the principles of CRM.

It is true that a face to face will fill in the personality gaps left open by a tech eval so by an airline doing both they are acheiving the same objective. I just think that in todays hiring environment with the quality of experience of most competitive applicants a tech eval probably isn't necessary. Again, I'm not arguing with you about it. The tech eval is not unreasonable, just not necessary IMO.

I would disagree. In '96, it was very similar to 2006, as far as who and how much hiring is taking place. The personality is reserved for phase two, and the H/R pilot interview. The tests given, IMO, were very similar to an AFOQT and a BATS test. Hand/eye coordination testing, and general knowledge/logic testing. FWIW, it was my 5th airline, and by far more difficult than ANY sim ride I ever took. At the same time, I had no time to prep--three days notice to interview--and did not feel as if it hurt me--performance wise. I would expect the testing to be similar this time.