Just a note of caution for SWA interviewees.

[TheDogsBollocks]

Interviewed last month at SWA, unfortunately was not successful at this time. However my misfortune is inconsequential compared to one of my fellow interviewees who got a call and then a couple of days later got a rejection letter!

Upon following up with the people dept. he found out they made a "mistake" in putting him on the call list. So a guy who was on cloud nine is now devastated because the job offer has been rescinded.

While I don't doubt that this was an innocent mistake on the part of SWA, its consequences to the affected individual are not. Although apolagies were issued in my opinion I feel the honorable thing for SWA to do was to have stood by their original offer of employment.

Moral of story: although unlikely to happen again, if you get the call don't chuck in your day job yet!

 

[SWA GUY]

Whoa. Bummer!

I still think if we chose not to hire the person, then we shouldn't hire them on the basis of a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes from time to time.

The last guy that was perfect got nailed to a cross ( if you know what I mean).

 

[Lolikoka]

Offer + Acceptance = Contract, but....

Offer plus Acceptance is a contract in the eyes of the law. BUT, while on probation we are essentially "at will" employees and can be fired at any time for any reason, rational or not. While SW has probably committed a breach of contract by now rescinding the offer, there is not much that can be done about it, and no real damages to be compensated. I feel for the guy - this really blows. I wish him luck.

 

[FatesPawn]

Offer plus Acceptance is a contract in the eyes of the law. BUT, while on probation we are essentially "at will" employees and can be fired at any time for any reason, rational or not. While SW has probably committed a breach of contract by now rescinding the offer, there is not much that can be done about it, and no real damages to be compensated. I feel for the guy - this really blows. I wish him luck.

Just FYI. SWA NEVER offers employment during these stages of the "process."

When I got the call, I was told "Congratulations, we'd like you to continue the process..." Then you do the pee test. Then you sit and wait for a class.

They are very communicative, but at no time did anyone ever OFFER ME A JOB which is how they cover their butts.

Fate

 

[SWA GUY]

When the CPO calls you it is a CONDITIONAL offer of employment, usually pending the outcome of your background check but not limited to that.

 

[TheDogsBollocks]

When the CPO calls you it is a CONDITIONAL offer of employment, usually pending the outcome of your background check but not limited to that.

I find it somewhat dissappointing that we have to get into "legalese" of what the job offer constitutes. As for myself I always thought SWA to have a higher degree of integrity regarding the treatment of its customers, employees and potential employees.

When reading the book Nuts, I remember a paragraph by Herb stating to the effect that "if we say something we do it" i.e we mean what we say. I also remember reading of a corporate culture that cements policy on a verbal agreement.

With the current state of the industry have the values of SWA changed? I hope not but this incident certainly has me wondering.

 

[pilotyip]

In the old days

10 year ago they most likely would have hired him in a heartbeat. Back then 500 hr DA-20 PIC were head of the line. Now they can be more chosey.

 

[Bobby Orr 4]

Upon following up with the people dept. he found out they made a "mistake" in putting him on the call list. So a guy who was on cloud nine is now devastated because the job offer has been rescinded.

While I don't doubt that this was an innocent mistake on the part of SWA, its consequences to the affected individual are not. Although apolagies were issued in my opinion I feel the honorable thing for SWA to do was to have stood by their original offer of employment.

Although it is an unfortunate mistake made by the PD, there have been instances in the past that when a candidate has been given the go-ahead yet did not make it to class for various reasons.

 

[OK3]

The guy may be a great guy who bombed the interview. He may be arrogant and hard to talk to. I don't know which it is but I think it is a stretch to say that they should have hired him because they made a mistake in calling him. If he is the latter, should they hire him and have to deal with the consequences for the next 30 years? This mistake doesn't say anything about the company, it's just unfortunate. I feel for the guy but don't think they should hire him over it.

 

[Lear70]

10 year ago they most likely would have hired him in a heartbeat. Back then 500 hr DA-20 PIC were head of the line. Now they can be more chosey.

Not really. Maybe 15-20 years ago.

10 years ago was 1997, I was flying PIC for Flexjet, and MANY of us were trying to get on with Southwest.

Very, very few people got the call. In fact, the majority of people who DID leave Flexjet went to AA, United, and Delta.

Weren't very many 500 hr PIC jet ANYONE getting hired on at SWA in '97.

That said, major, major bummer.

I agree with the previous advice. Until you are given a FIRM class date, I wouldn't tell ANYONE, and even then keep it under my hat except for giving 2 week's notice until my last day at work.

Crow pie sucks...

 

[bravodude]

I find it somewhat dissappointing that we have to get into "legalese" of what the job offer constitutes. As for myself I always thought SWA to have a higher degree of integrity regarding the treatment of its customers, employees and potential employees.

When reading the book Nuts, I remember a paragraph by Herb stating to the effect that "if we say something we do it" i.e we mean what we say. I also remember reading of a corporate culture that cements policy on a verbal agreement.

With the current state of the industry have the values of SWA changed? I hope not but this incident certainly has me wondering.

Then I guess you remeber the paragraph about hirring the right employees for the job. While its sad to see a mistake like this happen, sometimes $hit happens.

 

[LUVChild]

I find it somewhat dissappointing that we have to get into "legalese" of what the job offer constitutes. As for myself I always thought SWA to have a higher degree of integrity regarding the treatment of its customers, employees and potential employees.

When reading the book Nuts, I remember a paragraph by Herb stating to the effect that "if we say something we do it" i.e we mean what we say. I also remember reading of a corporate culture that cements policy on a verbal agreement.

With the current state of the industry have the values of SWA changed? I hope not but this incident certainly has me wondering.

I'm wondering if we're getting the whole story here. Yes, SWA does the conditional job offers - conditional pending the background and drug check. That's been standard practice for several years now, and not just for the pilot group, either. It doesn't make sense to put candidates through the background and drug check until you're ready to hire them. Background and drug checks cost a great deal of money, so the goal is to put through as few of candidates as you have to.

The legalese does suck, but remember that SWA has to cover their legal rears, and you can't blame them for that. To not operate within the boundaries of employment law would be unprofessional and just plain stupid.

Having said that, I'm always a little suspicious of the "this happened to my friend" stories. I'd be very interested to know if it was a legitimate mistake on SWA's part, or if something came up that caused them to exercise those "conditional" employment terms. You'd be surprised at the things that people "forget" to note when it comes to criminal backgrounds, thinking that it won't be found because their lawyer told them it was expunged from their record and some other line like that. You'd also be surprised how the stories change when people's egos are on the line.

Just my personal observation.

 

[TheDogsBollocks]

I
Having said that, I'm always a little suspicious of the "this happened to my friend" stories. I'd be very interested to know if it was a legitimate mistake on SWA's part, or if something came up that caused them to exercise those "conditional" employment terms. You'd be surprised at the things that people "forget" to note when it comes to criminal backgrounds, thinking that it won't be found because their lawyer told them it was expunged from their record and some other line like that. You'd also be surprised how the stories change when people's egos are on the line.

Just my personal observation.

Just for the record the gentlemen in question is not a personal friend of mine, according to him he has no skeletons in his closet and I have no reason to doubt his integrity.

This is very unfortunate for him and I feel sorry for him. Hopefully no one else will have to endure this awful experience.

 

[DLax85]

As someone told me as I transitioned from the military into this business...

"You're not an employee until your sitting in class with an employee # on your company badge....and then you're on probation for 12 months!"

Never burn a bridge until you have to....and always have a plan B.

 

[scoreboard]

When reading the book Nuts, I remember a paragraph by Herb stating to the effect that "if we say something we do it" i.e we mean what we say. I also remember reading of a corporate culture that cements policy on a verbal agreement.
.

First, you answered your own question, "we mean what we say". When your "friend" was called, he was offered to "continue the selection process", he was not offered a job. When we say it, we do it. We didn't say it, please get of your "holier than thou" horse.

Second, this sounds like your "friend" has some skeletons in the closet. even though he denies it, you will never know. Sorry.

 

[TheDogsBollocks]

First, you answered your own question, "we mean what we say". When your "friend" was called, he was offered to "continue the selection process", he was not offered a job. When we say it, we do it. We didn't say it, please get of your "holier than thou" horse.

Second, this sounds like your "friend" has some skeletons in the closet. even though he denies it, you will never know. Sorry.

Holier than thou? far from it.

"continue in the selection process"=euphanism for "you got the job".
"not selected to continue in the selection process"=euphanism for"you did not get the job".

While I may never know, I do prefer to give the benefit of the doubt to the candidate.

 

[Tidewater]

Dogs Balls-

He's not even a "friend" of yours, yet you instantly have no reason to question his integrity...hmm....sketchy. I agree with the majority of respondees...unfortunate, but stuff happens. You either got the job on your own merits, or you got the job by mistake, eh? Your friend will be better off when he gets a job on his own...not because of a typo.

 

[TheDogsBollocks]

Dogs Balls-

He's not even a "friend" of yours, yet you instantly have no reason to question his integrity...hmm....sketchy. I agree with the majority of respondees...unfortunate, but stuff happens. You either got the job on your own merits, or you got the job by mistake, eh? Your friend will be better off when he gets a job on his own...not because of a typo.

I agree it is a very unfortunate mistake to happen. In regards to judging a person I do not know personally, I prefer to operate on the M.O. that they are of good character until proven otherwise-if that's considered a weakness of my own character that is something I can live with.

 

[scoreboard]

"continue in the selection process"=euphanism for "you got the job".

Sorry, Iit's not a euphamism. "Your hired, heres your class date"="you got the job". "Continue the process"= "we're still checking you out". It's not legaleeze, it's not pandering, it's not a euphamism, "we mean what we say", stop reading between the lines, there's nothing there. Again, sorry.

 

[TheDogsBollocks]

Sorry, Iit's not a euphamism. "Your hired, heres your class date"="you got the job". "Continue the process"= "we're still checking you out". It's not legaleeze, it's not pandering, it's not a euphamism, "we mean what we say", stop reading between the lines, there's nothing there. Again, sorry.

I will yield that the class date=job certainly has more of a finality to it I have one more question before I let this lie. What does in plain English "you were not selected to continue in the selection process" mean?