Regarding UAL Troubles

[Kid Charlemagne]

Seeing the continuing problems UAL faces got me to wondering....

I'm sure we all remember UAL's hiring practices in the '90s. Many of us were completely disgusted by them. If you had 5,000+ hours and multiple type ratings (plus lots of PIC) but were a white male....you had a very small chance. But a minority or female with 1,200 hours and no PIC or turbojet time? They couldn't wait to hire you!! Seeing this go on, blatantly year after year, I made the decision not to even apply at UAL (even though I was highly qualified). Why would I even want to work at a carrier like that?? And looking back now, boy am I glad I made that decision!!!

I don't know how the senior pilots let the travesty continue for as long as they did. Guess they just turned a blind eye - the old "I've got mine" kinda attitude. So now it's interesting to see that United is in the worst shape of anyone and facing possible liquidation. Don't get me wrong - I don't want to see anyone out of a job, I now how bad that s-cks. But if any particular airline HAS to go under, I would say let it be the one who practiced the disgraceful hiring that UAL did in the '90s. All that mattered to them was PC, not fairness or even safety.

I would be interested to hear others' opinion on this topic. Did UAL bring this down on themselves? Will other airlines and their hiring depts. learn from this mess? And what will these now unemployed female and minority pilots do now - remember they are still relatively low time and have little to no PIC.

 

[furlough-boy]

I don't agree

Does it feel good to pat yourself on the back?

Your post makes no sense.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

What are you talking about??

Xxpress1 said:

After the turn around, expect the repeal of the Air Line Deregulation Act of 1978. This will allow for the return of excess with no need for profit. Southwest Airlines and the other "LCCs" will either fail with in one year or go out and by a bunch of 747s and fly them half empty to all corners of the world.


Xxpress,

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. SWA and other LCC buy 747s? That is complete nonsense. Never happen.

If you wanna post another reply, try this time to actually make some sense. And maybe try to address the topic at hand - namely, what led to the abomidable UAL hiring practices of the '90s and how did it affect the airline.....and what lesson other airlines should draw from this.

P.S. Did you used to fly for Longhorn? I see you flew the Jurassic Jet and your screen name made me wonder....

 

[fragglerock]

kid charle

Really intelligent sexist and racist remark. Who are you a captain for, again? I'm sure they would like to hear your views.

 

[luvthedc10]

I sit here and wonder why Uniteds troubles have anything to do with their hiring practices. The fact that they favored certain groups over others really doesn't mean much because in the whole grand scheme of things, I bet the % of minorities/women is relatively low in the United system despite popular belief. When you want to talk about unfair hiring practice why not talk about how sons of captains got three shots at a sim ride by the time they were 28, why not talk about how interns got two guaranteed interviews, why not talk about how Cecil at AA would give an interview to a guy that would cut his grass. Why not talk about how one of my friends got an interview with an airline cause he met some manager at a wedding??? You know, it is Uniteds choice in how they wanted to hire. Speaking as a person who has had all United mentors, all of them were white males, one of them is a 777 LCA at age 43, the rest got hired in their late 20's early 30's. One of my friends was also hired by United in 99 at 28 years old--no military, no intern, no family. I assume you must not have any friends working over there, however, if there is one generalization I can make, they are a fine group of people. So, did United practice disgraceful hiring, I'm sure it wasnt all fair, but then life is not fair either.

If you didn't apply at UAL, that was your decision, I respect that. However, to make a statement like there were no qualified white males hired in the 90's is obsurd. If you get a chance, look at the seniority list and count the amount of women per class. Speaking from a personal standpoint, I interned over at United when they were hiring in droves, each class contained a few women, a few minorites, a handful of regional guys and a handful of military guys. I went there too with the idea that United was more into unfair hiring yet I was pleasantly surprised to see the caliber of the ones that made it. Most all of them had captain time or military time, the ones that didn't were lucky, but were certainly the minority. Most of them made it through training just fine, they are safety orientated pilots just like anyone else.

I normally don't care that much about comments such as this post, but because I was treated so well over at UAL by their people i need to comment. There wasn't one time where an instructor didn't offer to take us in the sim for a couple of hours............those were all white males..............or let us jumpseat with them to observe ops...............those were all white males, or write a letter of recommendation................those were all white males. So, personally, I am glad to see how United hired pilots because most of them are really great and give back to others rather than take on the "I've got mine" mentality that you seem to think they have.

Good luck to UAL.

 

[trainerjet]

I believe xXpress1 was being sarcastic in response to your ridiculous post.

 

[FedEx]

I Don't want to have to agree with Kid, But,
he does have a point. Yes we all have friends at UAL, and there are a bunch of great guys and gals there. But how in the hell can they have a hiring practice like they did??? You can say that there are a bunch of White Males there, but what really pissed me off was that they had different qualifications depending on what your Race and Gender was. Tell me that wasn't blanted discrimination. How come all the females appilacations competed against only female applications? If my name would have been Racquel, I would have had an interview years ago. Don't get me wrong, I do not want to see UAL liquated. But it chapped my A.. to know that they had different hiring qualifications depending on your Race, Color, and Gender. That is Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[250scp]

Kid Charlemagne and FedEx,

You two clowns have got to be kidding me! Must have either been a couple of failed interviews or you received some "don't call us, we'll call you" letters. As a middle size white guy who got hired and subsequently furloughed by UAL, I'm here to say my class had 6/24 women and we were all causcausian. What does that mean? Probably not a lot but diversity was evident while I was at TK.

UAL will rise again and this board will again be looking for insights on how to get on with the company. Contracts are in place and their performance leads the industry.

Until you find the time to mature and finish waxing your pole, go finish your homework and get ready for H.S. on Monday.

 

[Ty Webb]

Their preferential hiring practices were ridiculous, but I think it was more a result of their chowder-headed management team, not a cause of it.

As for the PC dolt who threatened to "expose" the thread starter to his employer because his viewpoint doesn't agree with yours- what an idiotic response. Do you run to management anytime anyone says something in the cockpit that you don't agree with?

If you can't take the heat, stay off the message board.

Last, to anyone who really wants to believe that UAL didn;t have some egregious policies in the early and mid 1990's, consider the case of K.S., a female who graduated from my University in 1990. Hired with 450tt, and no experience in anything bigger than a piston twin, she was hired when there were a ton of former Braniff and Eastern pilots applying. . . . . . now, THAT made perfect sense. If you want more examples, I sure have 'em, and what I saw made me NOT apply, so don't even bother going there. . . . . .

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

A few more points

FedEx,

Right on my brotha! I agree with you, there is no excuse for UAL having a two track application and hiring system. I had no "in"....no father who was a captain there, no internship, etc. My dad was a plumber and my mom was a housewife. I worked mu butt off coming up through the ranks, it was quite a feat paying for a college education and flight training...then building all the hours, etc. But I know I am preaching to the choir, most of you reading this paid similar dues. I'm not griping about that - but it just frosts me that after all that dues-paying UAL penalizes me just for being a white male!! It's blatant discrimination and it's wrong.

Luvstoflythedc10,

Your experience of UAL seems completely removed from mine. But I respect your opinion and the fact that you posted a lucid, reasonable reply instead of the usual sarcasm on this board. But let me ask you a question: Why do so many in the industry have this view of UAL's hiring practices if it aint so? You see, I am not the first to say these things - it has been very obvious to many for years now. So why is that if there is no truth to it? And you can't accuse me of sour grapes, remember I never even APPLIED to United and truthfully I wouldn't have taken a job with them had they offered it to me.

Also, regarding your experience of how kindly you were treated by UAL folks - again, I have to disagree. I'm sure there are some folks there who are quite professional and couteous...I just haven't met them yet! Real quick example of what I'm talking about:

1. I get a United 737 in Chicago, trying to jumpseat home a few years ago. The flight is only half full. I'm standing up in the cockpit with my bags in hand, politely ask the female captain for a ride home. She looks at me like I'm some kinda nutjob and says "But we already have a jumpseater". I look over my shoulder at the 60 or 70 open seats and ask if there's any way she can help me out. She says no and KICKS ME OFF THE AIRPLANE! It leaves half-empty and I'm left standing at the jetway. Right there I resolved to never go out of my way for any UAL employee.

2. A co-worker of mine was jumpseating on United. The captain checks his ID, then insults my airline and our pay/benefits package. Totally unprofessional and uncalled for!

3. Just recently, I had a UAL jumpseater on my flight. I had multiple jumpseaters on this flight, so if I applied UAL's own policy from point #1 above...I wouldn't even have let him on the airplane!! But nice guy that I am, I let him on. So what does he do? He asks me how much our FO's and captains make!! I don't know about you, but the way I was raised you don't ask a stranger how much money they make - it's just rude. So I tried to be noncommittal....and he asks again, this time wanting to know our exact hourly rates!! Needless to say, I told this jack--s to grab a seat cause we were ready to go. In hindsight, I really wished I had kicked him off.

So to sum up, I am so grateful I decided I would never go to work for a dirtbag company like UAL. And while I don't wish liquidation on them, I have to say if it's gonna happen to somebody there's nobody better than United Airlines.

Sorry for the long post, had to vent a little. Just my 2 cents...

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Question for 250scp

250scp,

You stated there were 6 girls in your class of 24. Just out of curiosity, how did the qualifications of the girls compare to the guys?

Just wondering.....

P.S. I think you'll be waiting a long time for a call-back from UAL (if they avoid chapter 7)....but good luck to you and your family in whattever path you choose.

 

[cl-65link]

I once knew a captain who's first name was Shannon(white male). He received a call from a major airline(not UAL) to schedule an interview. The caller asked to speak with Shannon and he said you are. There was a bit of a silence on the other end and the HR person then said "oh", end of conversation. Obviously, the rocket-scientist on the other end did even read the app, just the name. A sad but, unfortunately very true story.

 

[trainerjet]

Whether you agree or disagree with UAL's hiring practices, to suggest that this somehow has anything to do with their current financial situation is just assinine. Even more assinine is hoping that they fail because of it. So, I guess that proves you are nothing more than an a$$. A sad, bitter a$$, worthy of no further thought or comment. I'm sure that these attributes will serve you well throughout what's left of your career.

 

[Skank]

Kid Charleflame bait, I'm not biting. The old "I was just wondering what you all think about..." is getting old.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Stupid management tricks

trainerjet and express1,

If the bonehead UAL management was foolish and reckless enough to institute a PC-based hiring policy, don't you think they would make equally boneheaded decisions in many other areas? And that these decisions might have led them to their present predicament? As far as them being brought up on charges, you and I both know that's ridiculous. If they had been discriminating in favor of whites/males I'm sure they would be on the losing end of all kinds of lawsuits....but discriminating against the dreaded white male? No problem!! Bottom line - its BS no matter how you slice it.

Also, I'm sure everybody has a UAL story that relates either to themsleves or a friend. Here's another one. A certain female and minority individual is booted out of the military cause she can't fly her way out of a paper bag. She was given twice the number of chances to pass a checkride anyone else was (cause she got a lawyer and threatened to sue Uncle Sam for sexual and racial discrimination). She still bombed out and in return for not suing, she was allowed to honorably resign the service instead of fulfilling her committment. She promptyly applies to UAL and is immediately hired. Think about that next time you or a loved one flies on United. Sad but very true.

 

[bottomfeeder]

Like it or not white males are the only race/gender that gets LEGALLY discrimaneted against today. The only ones exempt from this are Board Members for Major Airlines. From what I understand, U had a lawsuit against them because there were not enough minority pilots working for them. They caved and agreed to change that. Which is when their hiring mins changed to 350 hours. I don't blame U as much as I blame the current system. The courts would rather have less experienced pilots flying their planes just to make a quota. Is it fair that United hired minorities with 350 hours of piston time when there were pilots with 1000's of hours of transport experience? Absolutely not, but it is legal.

 

[buzzer]

Real simple. UAL was forced by the EEOC to "hire" minoritys because they had a pratice of not hiring them and got caught twice. The position UAL is in today has nothing to do with this.

 

[SWA/FO]

I have a friend at UAL (like everyone) she was flying the 747-400. I consider her a sharp pilot. She does not have the time (PIC) to apply to FED EX or us (SWA).

I wonder how much longer UAL can hang on? Its a sad story.

 

[thebluto]

WHAT REALLY IS THE SITUATION WITH UAL?

All controversy aside, what is the situation with UAL (besides being in CH. 11 since last December)? Are they that close to Chapter 7? Are there any major deadlines/goals they have to meet to avoid liquidation? What could cause the "final verdict" to be read? How soon could the "other boot" drop?

 

[goflyme]

250cp.

What really scares me about this thread is that 250cp thinks United will rise! United will be lucky not to be liquidated, I would predict fragmentation comming soon. Anyone furloughed from UAL will most likely never return to UAL.

 

[Redtailer]

THE ANSWER

Ok, lets separate fact from fiction.

Here is your answer: THE REASON UNITED MADE A CONCERTED EFFORT TO HIRE MINORITIES WAS THAT THEY HAD TO!!!! THEY WERE UNDER COURT ORDER BECAUSE IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS IN WHICH YOU NEGLECTED TO LOOK AT MINORITIES WERE ALL BUT BANNED FROM THOSE JOBS NO MATTER WHAT THEIR QUALIFICATIONS!

They didn't do it out of the kindness of their hearts, nor gave in to any public outcry, but because of a COURT ORDER. Now try to imagine how bad it was for a court to tell United to hire more minorities, and it wasn't due to a lack of qualified applicants.

There is your reason, now to dispell the rumors.

At the time United had lower hiring minimums than today's standard for EVERYONE. You were separated in to different stacks. If you had 2000 hours then you were not in competition against someone with 1000 hours. There was roughly a total of 15 different stacks you could fall in to and minorities had a stack on their own. So YOU WERE NEVER IN COMPETITION WITH ANY MINORITY.
If you didn't get the job it's because you failed against your peers, not because some female took your job.

Lastly to those who look at a black person and think that he has taken your job remember this. There are over 90,000 airline pilots flying today of which only about 2000 of them are black. So if you don't get the job, what are you going to do? Blame it on a segment that makes up less than 2.5% of the industry? Get Real.

These are real numbers and facts. If you didn't get the job and you are searching for a reason then all you have to do is look in the mirror rather than trying to blame it on someone else.

 

[Ty Webb]

Re: THE ANSWER

Ok, lets separate fact from fiction.


I read your entire post, but what I saw was almost all fiction and very little fact.


I am in favor of hiring qualified candidates- regardless of color or plumbing, and so are most pilots I know. What we don't like is for someone to piss on our heads and tell us it's raining, which is what you are trying to do:


At the time United had lower hiring minimums than today's standard for EVERYONE. You were separated in to different stacks. If you had 2000 hours then you were not in competition against someone with 1000 hours. There was roughly a total of 15 different stacks you could fall in to and minorities had a stack on their own. So YOU WERE NEVER IN COMPETITION WITH ANY MINORITY.

You could also separate the 10,000 applications into 10,000 piles, and then say, "You were only competing against yourself" but that doesn't make it true. Nice try, though.

If you didn't get the job it's because you failed against your peers, not because some female took your job.

Give me a break, Ms. Goebbels. There were plenty of females and minorities hired between 1990 and 2000 who were not competively qualiifed. In fact, after they had depleted the pool of qualified minority candidates, they eventually had to do away with the sim check altogether, as many of the "preferential" candidates were washing out. That is a fact.

There are over 90,000 airline pilots flying today of which only about 2000 of them are black. So if you don't get the job, what are you going to do? Blame it on a segment that makes up less than 2.5% of the industry?

Nice try at playing the race card, there, Ms. Cochran, but no one is suggesting that at all. What we are saying is that there are a finite number of interview slots available, and to put someone on the list at a much lower experience level means that someone else (at a higher experience level) had to be removed from consideration. . . . . which is discrimination, too, although since it affects white males, I doubt you are willing to see it.

 

[Redtailer]

Distorted

Ty, I simply would not know where to begin explaining how distorted your logic and facts are.
So I'll just pick on a couple of things.

I am in favor of hiring qualified candidates- regardless of color or plumbing, and so are most pilots I know. What we don't like is for someone to piss on our heads and tell us it's raining, which is what you are trying to do:

#1: Who are you to judge who is Qualified? That is the job of HR. You have no clue what the people walking in to those interviews had for qualifications. All you have is rumor and a couple of 2nd hand stories.

#2: Once again the minimums at United were different than what it is today. NOBODY interviewed below those minimums including minorities.

I]

You can separate the applications into 10,000 piles, and then say, "You were only competing against yourself" but that doesn't make it true, it just gives credence to that old line "Figures don't lie; but liars figure".

Sorry, those are not twisted figures that's the way it was done. If you are in Stack #1 you in no way were in competition with Stack #2.. It was that simple. What stack you fell in to was determined by your qualifications and minorities had a stack of their own. Anything different is a lie. END OF STORY.

Give me a break, Ms. Goebbels. There were plenty of females and minorities hired between 1990 and 2000 who were not competively qualiifed. In fact, at one point, it got so bad, they had to drop the sim check, because too many "preferential" candidates were washing out. That is a fact.

You have got to love half truths. The sim check was taken out but not for the reason you are claiming. It was done because it was being scored by a computer which didn't care if you were off even 2kts of your A/S. It eliminated GREAT pilots from the process not just the "preferential" canidates. The humans in the sim were not allowed to alter the score to reflect what the true performance was. Along with other changes in the HR dept. at the time this was one of the things that were thrown out. Lastly, the sim was thrown out in 2000. By that point many "preferential" canidates had already hired, so it did not help that group as much as you would like people to believe.

If you didn't get the job and you are searching for a reason then all you have to do is look in the mirror rather than trying to blame it on someone else.

I could probably say the exact same thing to whoever it was that filed that EEOC complaint that started all this BS.

No, you could not. The original complaint against United dealt with the hiring of BLACK pilots. The white females benefitted the most from the lawsuit. Out of the approx. 4000 pilots United had at the time only 9, yes I said 9 pilots were black (less than 0.3%). Some carriers had NONE. The numbers spoke for themselves about United's hiring practices. This wasn't something that was pulled out of thin air. Keep in mind this was a MAJOR airline, imagine what the commuters were like.

If any one of those pilots was not competitively qualified on their merits, and displaced you for an interview slot, then I would say that you have a valid gripe. It really doesn't matter what the percentage is . . . not when it happens to you!

So you are saying out of 35 people that get selected for an interview, 1 or 2 who happen to be a minority shouldn't be there because they are taking your job? Once again, stop trying to blame your not being able to get a job on minorities. That is an excuse for the inept, you really should be worried about the other 33 people.

 

[Ty Webb]

Re: Distorted

Ty, I simply would not know where to begin explaining how distorted your logic and facts are.
So I'll just pick on a couple of things.



#1: Who are you to judge who is Qualified? That is the job of HR. You have no clue what the people walking in to those interviews had for qualifications. All you have is rumor and a couple of 2nd hand stories.[/i]

You don;t have to be an HR Guru to understand the concept of "competitively qualified", it's pretty simple, really. A 450tt piston twin driver is not competitively qualified. Can't you just concede that obvious point? And it's not a "second-hand story", I can name names of half a dozen I know personally. My College had a UAL internship program, so believe me, I saw this crap firsthand for four years.

#2: Once again the minimums at United were different than what it is today. NOBODY interviewed below those minimums including minorities.

350tt was the minimum then. So what's your point?

Sorry, those are not twisted figures that's the way it was done. If you are in Stack #1 you in no way were in competition with Stack #2.. It was that simple. What stack you fell in to was determined by your qualifications and minorities had a stack of their own. Anything different is a lie.

Anything else is "a lie"? So much for debate and discourse. Obviously, with you it is just a waste of time, since everyone else's opinion is "a lie"?

Gotta love this last part, though:


So you are saying out of 35 people that get selected for an interview, 1 or 2 who happen to be a minority shouldn't be there because they are taking your job?

Uh, no, but evidently you feel the need to put words in my mouth. Nice try.

Once again, stop trying to blame your not being able to get a job on minorities. That is an excuse for the inept, you really should be worried about the other 33 people.

I'm not worried about anyone. Well, I take that back. I am worried about you, a little. Do us all a favor, and have a little face-to-face with a mental health professional, would you? Be sure to bring up your need to demonize those who disagree with you, and your deep-seated hatred for white males . . . . .

 

[banned username 1]

The theory of cause and effect of the hiring practices and the recent series of events at UAL is laughable. If the situation that UAL finds itself in were the result of numerous accidents and incidents based on flight crew incompetency, there might be something to talk about. But there isn't. So why are you?

Will UAL make it, as one poster asked? Yes.

As far as the simulator issue and hiring: You are incorrect- as are other assertions and conclusions. But what the heck, you're entitled to your opinion.

This issue certainly allows people to display their true personalities, prejudices, and yes, occasional ignorance- kind lf like a good employment interview.

UAL78

 

[GuppyPuppy]

I was hired at UAL in '00 (yes I'm F'd now!) with about 4800TT and no turbine PIC. Now I know for a fact that there were many other candidates out there with far more experience than me who may have been more "deserving" (whatever that means) of an interview. I looked at it as being my lucky day when UA decided to grant me an interview. BTW....white male.

As far as the females in my class...I believe all four of them (24 total in class) were Captains at regional airlines. Well qualified, in my opinion.

I can't change the past and neither can any of you. Was it unfair to interview minorities/females with very low flight time? I would have to agree. But, that is in the past. For you to delight in the failure of an airline......aw heck.....I'm going to bed!

Good night!

GP

 

[Palerider957]

Didn't UAL have some kind of program for minorities that brought them from zero time to the right seat of a UAL aircraft, totally free? I remeber it being advetised and written about in "Flying" magazine a few years ago. If I'm not mistaken It was targeted at black females.

Class size was something like 12 at a crack, I don't know how often the classes ran or how many people were brought through. I do remember an extensive article though.

 

[P3-Adub]

Living in the past ???

UAL has not hired anyone in almost 3 years ! Who cares what happened in the past because EVERYTHING has changed.

Sure there were some undesirable practices in the past but one must consider how hard it must have been to get hired back in the 70s if you were not a "white male" applicant ? UALs minimums were raised to 1500 hours and the ATP written passed in 1999 or 2000. All in my class were well beyong those qualifications with experience coming from military, other 121 jet carriers, regional, and civilian backgrounds. The lowest time guy in my class, a white male, F-15 instructor pilot, had only 1,800 hours and was a very sharp individual/pilot. My sim partner was the one newhire that was a female out of 25, she was a great pilot and had captained for a regional. Every captain that I flew with, male or female was very professional and highly skilled. To suggest otherwise is to talk about things one has no first hand experience with. Then again, my slightly less than 3 years before furlough could have not been a good sampling, not so in my opinion. Bottom line if a newhire cannot pass the training they do not make it to the line !

Not really a big concern as it will be a long time before the majors start hiring again. A little surprised that this is still being kicked around given that the last thing UAL will be doing anytime soon is hiring pilots. Are there not a lot of other things to worry about these days ???

Kid Charly,

That UAL captain that denied you jumpseating was adhearing to COMPANY policy by only allowing one jumpseater. A policy that most pilots at UAL would gladly change if they could. To suggest that SHE was not bending in a way that you would have liked is to say that bending the rules at your airline is OK ??? Think about it. If the other jumpseater was an off line pilot that did not have a "write your own" to enable accomodating you, then there was absolutely nothing that captain could have done, sorry. Really, the world is not against you.

 

[buzzer]

Palerider957

No, they didn't.

 

[WyoHerkdriver]

I interviewed with UAL in 97 only because my father is a retired UAL Captain. Like most of my ANG buddies who also interviewed there, I was not hired. I elected not to go to a second interview for the following reasons (these are also the reasons why I could care less of UAL is liquidated).

1) I was treated like a total piece of garbage throughout the interview process by all those involved. The actual interview was so negative in nature that I knew within minutes I was not going to get a job offer. The Captain and HR guy were both arrogant a$$holes. It was a completely different story when I interviewed at TWA.
2) As a pilot working for United Express in Denver, I was looked down upon (as were my coworkers) by arrogant UAL pilots.
3) More times than not when I rode the jumpseat on UAL, I was treated like a second class citizen because I was a "commuter" pilot. On one occasion I was completely ignored by the Captain and FO. From that point on, I made it a point to avoid jumpseating on UAL.
4) Minority hiring practices at UAL - enough said. By the way, a good friend of mine used to work at the UAL training center and he told me some stories that made me shake my head. For example - giving women pilots extra simulator time to get through training (in some cases upwards of 80 hours in the simulator). This type of stuff HAD to contribute to the financial woes UAL currently finds itself in.
5) Many UAL pilots I know are arrogant jerks.

I hate to say it, but for the above reasons I personally don't care for UAL and do not care if they liquidate.