Southwest Window

[SWA Bubba]

Because that's what the SWAholes around here do. Apparently your indoctrination didn't quite take.

Wrong.

The only reason "SWAholes" like myself argue this, is because calling SWA pilots "PFT" is what people use to denigrate them, despite its inaccuracy or inapplicability. It's actually a little funny, that the worst thing they can think of to insult Southwest, isn't actually true.

And by "people," I mean people with an ax to grind against Southwest in the first place. Which, for some reason, seems to apply to Delta pilots on particular on this board. And of course, the General, but in his case it's probably pathological. And everyone knows that your hatred of all things Southwest colors your perspective on every post you make here, but due to your checkered past, you can't use this particular insult. Too bad for you.

Whatever SWA does, you have to defend it to the death. Doesn't matter how wrong or stupid it is. If SWA does it, it's perfect.

Wrong again.

I don't think I've seen one single SWA pilot on this board defend, let alone "to the death," this particular minimums requirement. We may explain its historical context, posit the company's motivation for it in the first place, or most often explain why it's not actual PFT. But we don't defend it. Most of us think it's a pretty dumb requirement as well. And indications are that eventually, and hopefully sooner rather than later, it will go away. And good riddance.

Nah, SWAPA should address it in bargaining. It's a disgrace that SWAPA hasn't done something to end this by now.

Wrong yet a third time. Wow, the trifecta of wrongness. But then again, that's the story of you life, huh, PCL?

A union's job is to protect and enhance the careers of its members. To get the best contract it can, and defend its integrity. That's pretty much it. You can argue the merits and responsibilities of pattern bargaining for the entire industry, but in a microcosm, protecting and career-enhancing its actual members is the key.

On the other hand, a union's job is NOT to do anything, and especially NOT to expend money or negotiating capital, for the benefit of people who are not actually members of the collective (i.e. prospective applicants). In fact, you could actually argue that spending the members' money for the benefit of non-members would be a breach of fiduciary responsibility and actionable in court.

You know, one would think that a good "union thug" would know such things. So what does that say about you?

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

I don't know why you are arguing this. He is right. The 737 type requirement is not industry standard. It is a burdensome expense on those who want to work for SW but don't have the type already. And it may cause SW to overlook terrific candidates who simply can't afford to invest the time or money in the type.

Whether or not it is PFT is irrelevant. I paid $10,000 for the privilege of flying a Jetstream for Chautauqua in 1996 and it hasn't harmed my career. (I do that pretty well on my own). Sure wish I didn't have to do it though!

I don't know why the type requirement exists but I think we can all agree that it should be retired. Here's the catch. Nobody asked us what we thought. The company has no incentive to end the requirement. There are still plenty of people lined up every time a window opens.

I think the laws of supply and demand will have to address this particular business practice.

Hey, I agree it's a burdensome expense. Like I said to PCL, you won't find Southwest pilots defending the company having this requirement. However, it's their company, and their requirement. They also require more hours, and more PIC hours in particular, than most of the majors used to. But the short answer is, if you don't want to work for a specific company, than don't waste time and money on meeting their qualifications. If you do want to, then you do what it takes. That applies to Southwest, and Delta, and every other airline out there. It's really pretty simple.

Hell, many guys spend literally thousands of dollars on professional interview preparation prior to interviewing. Other guys don't. It's all in how badly you want a particular job, and what it's worth to you for a shot to get it.

And you're probably right that "supply and demand" will eventually cause the requirement to go away. There's even indications from the company that that's the case in the future. I agree that it'll be good, and for exactly the reason you mentioned--that it might cause the company to overlook terrific candidates otherwise. Here's hoping that it's sooner rather than later.

Cheers.

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

Then what is the rationale for requiring, specifically, a B-737 type rating?

A B757/767 type rating will not suffice, nor a DC-9 (MD-80), or an A320 type either. One would imagine that being typed on a similar aircraft would be an equal prediction of success, no? So, if it is not a financial advantage, nor a predictor of success - then what is it? A 737 fetish?

If you really want to know, it's a remnant of the days when Southwest was small, underpaid, and not a "first choice" employer for many pilots looking for a career. The theory is, that getting your own type rating demonstrated that a prospective newhire pilot really, really wanted to work at Southwest specifically, and was less likely to jump to another carrier when and if the opportunity presented itself.

(Ironically, this is the same argument that Gen'l Lee and others use when railing against Southwest--that if a different airline interview board is aware of your type rating, they "know you really wanted to work for Southwest instead of them.")

So there you go--it's a legacy, a remnant, a leftover from earlier times. And we all agree the sooner it goes away, the better. However, as FurloughedAgain correctly pointed out, it's not up to us to determine the company's minimum standards.

Bubba

 

[SpauldingSmails]

Thanks ...and now as an employer of choice, people have not resisted shelling out for those 737 types. Oh well, hopefully common sense will prevail sooner than later in the pilot selection department.

 

[redflyer65]

Wrong.

The only reason "SWAholes" like myself argue this, is because calling SWA pilots "PFT" is what people use to denigrate them, despite its inaccuracy or inapplicability. It's actually a little funny, that the worst thing they can think of to insult Southwest, isn't actually true.

And by "people," I mean people with an ax to grind against Southwest in the first place. Which, for some reason, seems to apply to Delta pilots on particular on this board. And of course, the General, but in his case it's probably pathological. And everyone knows that your hatred of all things Southwest colors your perspective on every post you make here, but due to your checkered past, you can't use this particular insult. Too bad for you.

Wrong again.

I don't think I've seen one single SWA pilot on this board defend, let alone "to the death," this particular minimums requirement. We may explain its historical context, posit the company's motivation for it in the first place, or most often explain why it's not actual PFT. But we don't defend it. Most of us think it's a pretty dumb requirement as well. And indications are that eventually, and hopefully sooner rather than later, it will go away. And good riddance.

Wrong yet a third time. Wow, the trifecta of wrongness. But then again, that's the story of you life, huh, PCL?

A union's job is to protect and enhance the careers of its members. To get the best contract it can, and defend its integrity. That's pretty much it. You can argue the merits and responsibilities of pattern bargaining for the entire industry, but in a microcosm, protecting and career-enhancing its actual members is the key.

On the other hand, a union's job is NOT to do anything, and especially NOT to expend money or negotiating capital, for the benefit of people who are not actually members of the collective (i.e. prospective applicants). In fact, you could actually argue that spending the members' money for the benefit of non-members would be a breach of fiduciary responsibility and actionable in court.

You know, one would think that a good "union thug" would know such things. So what does that say about you?

Bubba

Awesome post Bubba. And your exactly right on all the points that you made.

I wish it was gone, but it's not MY requirement. It's laughable that PCL said we should use negotiation capital to make it go away. That might be the second dumbest thing he's ever said. He's on a real roll recently. And no, not dinner roll...but I could be wrong there too.

 

[Scoot 11]

Awesome post Bubba. And your exactly right on all the points that you made.

I wish it was gone, but it's not MY requirement. It's laughable that PCL said we should use negotiation capital to make it go away. That might be the second dumbest thing he's ever said. He's on a real roll recently. And no, not dinner roll...but I could be wrong there too.

That's usually where they put pork!
It's looking more and more like genital is getting his bad info from PFT 128!
But at least PFT 128 is a pilot, and not a Skywest dispatcher.

 

[waveflyer]

I actually disagree.

Artificial impediments to competition for pilot labor give leverage to management in bad times.

Look at this lost decade-

Why did pilots accept, however begrudgingly, the massive cuts in pay and QOL?

If you felt you were on a sinking ship at united, could you leave?
It's already a huge seniority loss-
Combine that with poverty wages and pilots have to- they'd do anything to keep from starting over-
Make first year pay an adult wage representative of what that pilot is doing and one could actually introduce some competition for pilots-
And give pilots a LOT more room to make a stand when we need to.
Besides, no pilot showing up at any major isn't worth $100k from day one.
None.

The type, I don't begrudge- it was an easy business decision for me too- but I would like to see it gone -

 

[General Lee]

Good God, General, were you drunk when you posted this rambling, incoherent excuse for a reply? You didn't actually address anything that has to do with my post.

Yes, you're correct in that there's no guarantee that you'll get hired by Southwest if you buy a type rating. True enough. But there's also no guarantee that you'll get hired by Delta if you buy an ATP rating (not to mention a college degree), now is there? You obtain the minimum requirements for whatever airline you want to apply to, and take your chances in an interview.

And I have no idea "what to tell an unsuccessful applicant"; I'm not an interviewer. However, lots of guys have interviewed at more than one airline, not got hired at one (including Southwest), but later hired at another. Do you really think that airline hiring boards/interviewers really don't know that their applicants interview at numerous airlines in addition to their own? Trust me, they're not as dumb as you.

So, is that really what you're going to use as a PFT argument now? You're slipping, General.

Bubba

You asked for an additional argument, and I gave you one. An ADDITIONAL problem with your PFT is what happens IF someone is turned down. Questions will arise in any interview as to why the person has an unused 737 type. You know that would come up. Just try to say that isn't a consequence.

You're welcome, and I'm correct, again.



Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[JT12345]

General,

You can say the same thing when a swa pilot shows up for a Delta interview in general. Many HR reps would have a problem with that. Leaving a great company for another fair weather fan type stuff.


Btw General....

What is your credit cap overthere and average credit per month? They get that socialist crap outta your contract yet?

 

[SWA Bubba]

You asked for an additional argument, and I gave you one. An ADDITIONAL problem with your PFT is what happens IF someone is turned down. Questions will arise in any interview as to why the person has an unused 737 type. You know that would come up. Just try to say that isn't a consequence.

You're welcome, and I'm correct, again.



Bye Bye---General Lee

Just as I thought... drunk as usual.

Bubba