Is there a Black List?

[bobbysamd]

Hiring profile

During this time, [SkyWest] hired at least two former Riddle instructors. One was a young lady with whom I (and others) had clashed.

Originally posted by Hugh Jorgan
Bingo.

Not necessarily. In my case, I had been applying and updating with SkyWest for the three years prior to when she was hired. I had applied there before I met this young lady. I knew nary a soul at that airline and nary a soul at that airline knew me until this gal and my ex-student were hired.

Please share with us that profile, because I've done some close observing and I sure can't see it. All ages, races, backrounds, sexes, you name it.

I would disagree strenuously about age. The regionals most certainly reject career-changers who are at or above a certain age. I'm not talking about people near or over forty who've been flying for years and never had a chance; I mean those who decided later in life to take up flying and/or make a career of it than whe most professional pilots have taken it up. These people apparently don't fit the profile. H.R. sees their applications and do not know what to do with them, so they do nothing. I know, and I know people who also know. The regionals generally want younger people, i.e. 20-35, give or take a couple of years on either end. They are very arbitrary about that aspect of the "profile."

They give height requirements as "being sufficent to operate all controls," but they frequently discriminate against shorter people, even though these individuals indeed possess height "sufficient to operate all controls."

Shall I add that military flying experience remains preferable over civilian experience?

Finally, they still want saints. So many regionals use any transgression as an excuse not to hire you. Years ago, H.R. might encounter an applicant who did not quite fit their profile but was otherwise a good candidate and try to qualify him/her for the job - meaning they would go out of their way because that person had an upside. How times have changed. Now, H.R. mostly diss-qualifies (intentional) people who do not precisely fit their mold, desired "image," or whatever, no matter what upside that person offers. That is the truth, whether or not you could find anything else truthful in what I wrote above.

 

[eddie]

BJK - I think that it's a tacky way to run an hr department.

 

[jergar999]

You can call it a black list..

I call it a resume.

 

[mar]

You said it brother!

My resume could also be a blacklist of some real unsavory characters.

 

[jergar999]

I should probably have phrased it that my resume is as good as being black listed, based on the underwhelming response I have received every time I send one out.

 

[labbats]

There's no harm in calling and asking why you didn't get hired. It happens all the time in the real world so people can improve upon themselves.

 

[bobbysamd]

Post-interview critique

There's no harm in calling and asking why you didn't get hired. It happens all the time in the real world so people can improve upon themselves.

. . . but don't expect much of a response.

I interviewed with Comair in 1991 (on the very day that old George Bush invaded Iraq). The Chief Pilot of Orlando had interviewed me. I was not hired. It was my third rejection. I wanted to know what I could have done better.

I placed a call to Orlando and asked for the Chief Pilot, without really expecting that I would be put through. I was. I asked if there was something I could have done differently. I said up front I realized I would not be hired. He said it was policy not to tell an applicant why he/she was not hired. So much for trying to find out what happened to me, although I had my theories and hypotheses.

The rationale why they won't talk is obvious. What they say might be used against them, perhaps successfully through the legal system. So, don't expect them to be forthcoming if you ask why you weren't hired. On the other hand, a comment was posted recently about an interviewer who told an applicant that he was rejected after the interview outside of the interview venue. That, too, was tacky.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

Re: Hiring profile

The regionals most certainly reject career-changers who are at or above a certain age. [/B]

True. The age is 60.

I'm not talking about people near or over forty who've been flying for years and never had a chance; I mean those who decided later in life to take up flying and/or make a career of it than whe most professional pilots have taken it up. [/B]

This is flat-out not true. I have seen-in the last few years-former lawyers and a doctor change careers and break into the regionals coming from a CFI backround. Just because you didn't get hired, doesn't mean there are policies-(written, spoken or otherwise) in place to discriminate against those like you.

The regionals generally want younger people, i.e. 20-35, give or take a couple of years on either end. They are very arbitrary about that aspect of the "profile." [/B]

Again, this is fantasy. I'm seeing people of all different ages getting hired at regionals. I don't know where you come up with this.

They give height requirements as "being sufficent to operate all controls," but they frequently discriminate against shorter people, even though these individuals indeed possess height "sufficient to operate all controls." [/B]

Are you short too? I've seen nothing to corroborate this either. We have a pilot at my current carrier who is 4'10" who wears shoes with extra-thick soles and carries an extra pad so the controls are sure to be reached. Again, I have seen heights vary as much here as anywhere else. This is becoming a stand-up act.

Shall I add that military flying experience remains preferable over civilian experience?[/B]

Well, you may as well, so long as it's an aspect of your hiring profile that you have no control over. Again, poppycock. Most military experience is looked upon favorably since it's a known quantity, but not any more than prior 121, 135 or corporate time. Sure, it's gonna carry a little more weight than your average CFI, but that's about it.

The Finally, they still want saints. So many regionals use any transgression as an excuse not to hire you. Years ago, H.R. might encounter an applicant who did not quite fit their profile but was otherwise a good candidate and try to qualify him/her for the job - meaning they would go out of their way because that person had an upside. How times have changed. Now, H.R. mostly diss-qualifies (intentional) people who do not precisely fit their mold, desired "image," or whatever, no matter what upside that person offers. That is the truth, whether or not you could find anything else truthful in what I wrote above.

I believe that you believe this to be true. But if it were, who would they hire? Upon what evidence do you base your theories? I base mine upon actual people who I've seen walking and talking in the job. I've yet to meet a saint. I know I'm no saint, and didn't pretend to be in any interview I've had. Heck, next thing you know, Bobby will tell you they won't hire bald guys either. I'm very lucky that's also not true. I've yet to meet any who haven't had some problem along the way that they have had to overcome. Again....in the last two years....it would take me more than two hands to count all the people I've known who have been hired at regionals and majors with failed checkrides, DUI's, other arrests, flight violations, etc. None of these people were saints. All of them were able to admit their shortcomings and deal with them honestly. None of them blamed their problems on others.
I have seen great folks (one guy specifically, an apparent saint, with military experience, not old or short) who have been overlooked by nothing more than being lost in the shuffle. And I'm talking about this happening at a smallish outfit. Sometimes the stack of resumes is just too big and even with lots of reminders, recommendations, good records, etc... good folks get overlooked. That's where good folks looking out for good folks comes into play...unfortunately, there will be a few who inevitably slip through the cracks. This may have happened to Bobby. Or he may have fallen victim to the unofficial negative recommendation that comes when names are tossed out there. Somebody knows, but all I can say in this day and age is that I can't see something like age/sex/race/height/military or not making a hill of beans.
All of this nonsense paints such an impossible picture on the prospects of getting on in the airline business. To get on in this business, one should go out, get as much experience as they can, get an education along the way, and have fun. Be excellent to everyone as best you can. Because, to bring this back closer to the original point of the thread, those are all the same people who are going to make/break you in this line of work by helping you out with recommendations. You can follow this advice or Bobby's, in which case, there's probably nobody here who is hirable anywhere.

 

[350DRIVER]

The example that I have posted should have illustrated many points about the hiring that does go on. Saints.? I do not think so by anyone's wildest imagination. The airline that I will probably end my career at for example had a wide range of ages during the interview. Having just turned 25 I was the youngest, high end was 48 or 49. There were quite a few people in there 40's, mailnly UAL and Airways furloughed guys. Age really is not so much a factor as some would like to believe it to be. The airlines that are hiring in fact are more concerned about "experience" versus the "age" factor....

3 5 0

 

[bobbysamd]

Hiring profiles and insitutionalized discrimination

I'm seeing people of all different ages getting hired at regionals. I don't know where you come up with this.

From first-hand experience, that's where.

Example: I applied to most of the same regionals to which my ERAU colleagues had applied. They had interviews and were being hired. They were mostly twenty-five (25) and under; I was pushing forty (40). They had no qualifications that would give them an advantage, such as turbine, 135, freight time, etc. I applied to plenty of others to which they did not apply, but never heard from them, despite repeated application and update efforts. I had documentation from magazines and hiring reports that these airlines were hiring people with lesser quals than me who were younger than me.

Example: I had a friend at ERAU who was a little light on multi time, but had Ameriflight freight and ditch tours experience. Far better quals in the big picture than me. She was close to my age. No one was calling her.

This lady had applied to Horizon for years, with no success. The FAA in Portland eventually hired her. Eventually, she met two Horizon bigshots who received and screened applications and hires pilots. They offered her a job, which she turned down. She told them right to their faces, flat-out, that she never understood why she never was given an interview after trying for years, but she was amazed that now they were interested in her. They admitted they understood how she felt. Those morons had it coming.

Example: I have a friend who attended a regional interview a few years ago. Our birthdays are within days of each other, meaning he was in his mid-to-late forties when he was interviewed. He was told he was rejected because of his age. Very stupid of them and probably illegal. See, link to the Age Discrimination and Employment Act, below.

Sometimes the stack of resumes is just too big . . . .

. . . which makes it soooooo easy for them to find their "perfect" applicant and not to bother with someone who is good but does not exactly and precisely meet their "profile." The airlines have their profiles, and with the piles and piles of resumes it is easy, and very little bother, for them to select these candidates. It is far harder and requires far more brainwork for them to attempt to qualify someone else who is good but is somehow a little different than their "perfect" candidate.

You mention, Hugh, that people are overlooked. Probably. But how can one be overlooked after submitting numerous applications and updates to the same companies over several years?? Applying and updating every few months, as the experts have recommended, over a period of years should get someone's attention. If it were me, I might call that person and speak with him/her for a few minutes. But that's just me.

The various non-saints who have been hired obviously were able to clear up any concerns about themselves at their interviews. How can one clear up concerns without getting an interview? It's really hard to be given the chance to present your story without benefit of the interview. And it's hard to get the interview when your materials are consistently "overlooked," as you put it. I prefer another verb and/or institutionalized practice.

Is there another way to garner that interview and have the chance to present your story without going through the traditional means of preparing a resume, cover letter, application form, transmitting them and/or maybe having someone walk them in for you? Of course there is, and we all know what it is. It is a three-letter abbreviation and a subject that is frequently discussed here. You don't need good qualifications, high moral fiber and in-house references for it; you only need a checkbook.

[A]ll I can say in this day and age is that I can't see something like age/sex/race/height/military or not making a hill of beans.

Then maybe Age Discrimination and Employment Act and other anti-employment discrimination laws listed on the page and the 14th Amendment should be repealed and the EEOC disbanded.

All of this nonsense . . .

. . . to whom? Do not call it nonsense until you have walked in the other guy's shoes. Just reread what I wrote above. I have no doubt that others have suffered similar experiences. They just aren't coming forward to relate their experiences as I have.

I, for one, have never said that it is impossible to get on in the airline business. But, for a certain class of people, it will be tougher than for others because of institutionalized forces that work against them.

Finally,

Originally posted by 350DRIVER
Having just turned 25 I was the youngest, high end was 48 or 49. There were quite a few people in there 40's, mailnly UAL and Airways furloughed guys. Age really is not so much a factor as some would like to believe it to be. The airlines that are hiring in fact are more concerned about "experience" versus the "age" factor....

(emphasis added)

I cite this as a point of clarification. My beef is with those regionals who ignore and/or flat-out discriminate against older career-changers, i.e., those who took up flying later in life and who are offering the same credentials as those who took it up at a much younger age, i.e. flight instructing only, as I wrote above. The folks 350 met at his interview are already members of the club. I do not believe that regionals or others discriminate against them, nor do I believe that they discriminate against pilots in the same age bracket who have been flying for years already and offer credentials commensurate with their experience.

 

[Publishers]

Now Bobby

Now Bobby,

I think that times have changed for different reasons.

In the olden days, majors of course wanted individuals in a certain age bracket. It was an economical decision. Training costs X and we want to amortize the investment in training over a longer number of years.

Over the years this changed with demand. In the early days, companies like Netjets when they were EJA wanted all military personnel. Some other companies did not want fighter pilots as they tended to be independant thinkers.

The fact is that this is subjective selection. While the legislature may try adn legislate employment rules, the fact is I for one fail to see why the employer should not be able to pretty much hire who he wants for whatever reasons they want.

From the outside, if you do not get the job, you will always wonder why. Very rarely will you really be told the reason. What you need to accept is that the person who did get the job sold himself better than you. Sure he might have had a friend at the company, sure maybe Dad owned the place, Sure maybe he came from the same home town as the recruiter, Sure Sure, Sure. \

If you enter business and think that it is all fair and equitable, you will not last long.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

Re: Hiring profiles and insitutionalized discrimination

From first-hand experience, that's where.[/B]

And your experience is how recent? From what I can tell, your failure to get hired was around 12-15 years ago. Times change, I can only speak for the reality I see now. Heck, there are people I sit next to daily who would not have been hired 20 years ago, still others who couldn't have used the same bathroom as me 35 years ago. Your experience appears to be dated and no longer true based on what I've seen in the last couple of years.

They offered her a job, which she turned down. She told them right to their faces, flat-out, that she never understood why she never was given an interview after trying for years, but she was amazed that now they were interested in her. They admitted they understood how she felt. Those morons had it coming.[/B]

I bet they are still losing sleep over that one.

You mention, Hugh, that people are overlooked. Probably. But how can one be overlooked after submitting numerous applications and updates to the same companies over several years?? [/B]

I've seen it happen to others and I've seen it happen to me. My stuff had been WALKED in repeatedly to one particular airline by several different pilots. The stack is huge, the interview slots slim and the chief pilot is a busy guy. After several years and persistence, I got that interview. It wasn't discrimination, it was a case of being overlooked. I've seen it happen to others. It's not unusual.

The various non-saints who have been hired obviously were able to clear up any concerns about themselves at their interviews. How can one clear up concerns without getting an interview? It's really hard to be given the chance to present your story without benefit of the interview. [/B]

Horse-hockey. None of the bad stuff ever comes out until the interview. Did you think people put down the number of failed checkrides on their resume?

And it's hard to get the interview when your materials are consistently "overlooked," as you put it. I prefer another verb and/or institutionalized practice.[/B]

Anti-Bobbyism

Is there another way to garner that interview and have the chance to present your story without going through the traditional means of preparing a resume, cover letter, application form, transmitting them and/or maybe having someone walk them in for you? Of course there is, and we all know what it is. You don't need good qualifications, high moral fiber and in-house references for it; you only need a checkbook..[/B]

You are absolutely, off your fukking rocker! Any credibility you had up until this point is history. Now you are suggesting that the checkbook is a good way to get an interview. PUHHHHLEEEEAASE!

Do not call it nonsense until you have walked in the other guy's shoes. [/B]

I have. Tried for a federal job in which I was too old. It's a published age. They even interviewed me. but I was too old....by law. It felt pretty lousy to look at these screwballs and know I was as qualified as any other and in a heck of a lot better physical condition than most of them, but that my birthday fell too early for me to be qualified for the job. It just ain't happening at the regionals, though.

My beef is with those regionals who ignore and/or flat-out discriminate against older career-changers, i.e., those who took up flying later in life and who are offering the same credentials as those who took it up at a much younger age, i.e. flight instructing only, as I wrote above. [/B]

How do you account for those career-changers that I mentioned? Times have changed. Hiring has changed. One thing that hasn't changed: Those who don't/can't take responsibility for their shortcomings will still not be hired.
I've found hiring to be quite a fair process. Getting the interview is the hard part. It takes contacts at the carrier in question or meeting hiring reps at an airinc convention, or being in the right jumpseat at the right time, or the right party. In most cases, HR doesn't decide who to interview. I won't dispute the ineptness of many HR departments, but you give them entirely too much credit in the deciding who gets the interview department. It's amazing to me how much is left to chance even when one has contacts trying hard to help them out. In the end, the slightest negative comment by any pilot will most certainly get a candidate shot down. Or, you can just bring your checkbook. We all know that works.

It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

 

[bobbysamd]

OK, Pub

The fact is that this is subjective selection. While the legislature may try adn legislate employment rules, the fact is I for one fail to see why the employer should not be able to pretty much hire who he wants for whatever reasons they want.

. . . even if it breaks the law, is discriminatory and unfair?

I am not proposing quotas or more affirmative action than what now exists. I am just saying that everyone deserves a fair shake. Age, or whatever, should never impinge upon that, and, according to the Fourteenth Amendment, is unlawful.

What you need to accept is that the person who did get the job sold himself better than you. . . .

But what if he gets the opportunity to sell himself and you don't? There's only so much salesmanship in which you can engage on a resume, cover letter and app. You need the interview to sell yourself. You cannot do much without being given the chance for them to meet you.

If you enter business and think that it is all fair and equitable, you will not last long.

No doubt about that. It's called the College of Hard Knox.

 

[bobbysamd]

From first-hand experience, that's where . . . .

And your experience is how recent? From what I can tell, your failure to get hired was around 12-15 years ago. Times change, I can only speak for the reality I see now. Heck, there are people I sit next to daily who would not have been hired 20 years ago, still others who couldn't have used the same bathroom as me 35 years ago. Your experience appears to be dated and no longer true based on what I've seen in the last couple of years.

Originally posted by bobbysamd
Example: I have a friend who attended a regional interview a few years ago. Our birthdays are within days of each other, meaning he was in his mid-to-late forties when he was interviewed. He was told he was rejected because of his age.

This was about 1997-'98. That is recent enough for me.

Originally posted by Hugh Jorgan
You are absolutely, off your fukking rocker! Any credibility you had up until this point is history. Now you are suggesting that the checkbook is a good way to get an interview. PUHHHHLEEEEAASE!

Get real. That is not what I said today, or at any other time. Reread my previous comments about that subject. If there is anyone who is anti-P-F-T or anti-pay-for-interview here, it is me. I met the street qualifications on paper for any number of commuter jobs, many of which were P-F-T. They made a big deal about their quals. Face it, the only qual was ability to pay. It was an insult to the work I put in to build up my credentials, not to mention my sense of ethics. I basically curtailed most of my regional airline applications efforts when it was clear that my only chance was to P-F-T. No job is worth the price you might pay for it, in terms of finances, but more in terms of the cost to your pride and soul, not to mention to what it does to your fellow pilots.

I never heard of the "P-F-T" concept until I got into aviation. I never heard of such a thing. No, sir, in no way do I advocate, support, or believe in P-F-T.

Getting the interview is the hard part. It takes contacts at the carrier in question or meeting hiring reps at an airinc convention, or being in the right jumpseat at the right time, or the right party. In most cases, HR doesn't decide who to interview. I won't dispute the ineptness of many HR departments, but you give them entirely too much credit in the deciding who gets the interview department. It's amazing to me how much is left to chance even when one has contacts trying hard to help them out. In the end, the slightest negative comment by any pilot will most certainly get a candidate shot down.

Actually, I feel that I give them appropriate credit. H.R. is the department that screens and reviews resumes and apps, no? They have the power to turn thumbs-up or thumbs-down on an applicant. H.R. is the first gate you must get through. I agree with everything you say thereafter.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

My apologies, Bobby. I completely misinterpreted what you were alluding to. I thought you were suggesting that a bribe might grease the skids. I am with you on the PFT thing.