Regarding UAL Troubles

[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.