SWA letters of "Thanks but no thanks, see ya next year.

[Jetjockey]

Albie, that was a good post. Bad things sometimes happen to good people. You learn from it, move on, and find the next oppurtunity. Since my 'rejection' from SWA, I've had 2 interviews, and 2 job offers. I have another interview with a carrier lots of people would like to get hired with. Sure SWA would have been great, but it's not the only fish in the sea. The point is you just move on.

 

[G100driver]

As far as the type requirement goes, we have nearly 5000 pilots that acquired the type before being employed here. I think a majority of the pilot group is fine with the requirement for employment.

CR

Just like franternity hazing.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

G100,

Hazing? Please explain. While your at it explain the shortcut in training SWA gains by hiring pilots with a type. At one time SWA received a break on insurance for having both pilots typed but I am pretty sure that is no longer the case. BTW, not every pilot hired at SWA had a type. The only difference in their training was an FAA inspector or a DE present for their upgrade sim.

You can point to a lot of things that everyone has to do in the interview process that is BS. At leat the B737 is one of the cheapest types out there.

CR

 

[TheDogsBollocks]

To require a type rating just to get an interview is a little excessive in my opinion. I understand that Southwest hires a personality type. That is an excellent way to staff any company. However why does EVERY personality type have to shell out $6,000 for a 737 type rating just to get an interview? If a type rating is required for the job, then hire someone with the understanding that they need to get the type prior to starting ground school or give them a time frame in which they need to have the type rating by and then put them in the pool for a class date.

I would love to work for SWA but I do not have a spare $6,000 dollars to give to Higher Power or any other sim center just to get an interview where I have a 20% chance of getting the job. I do not like those odds. Batting .200 for a career in baseball will not get you in the Hall of Fame.

Here,here! Could not have said it better myself. I know have last three people who have bought their "type" just to push their resume further up the interview, get that interview and regretfully did not prevail.

In regards to the PFT argument, when you need a type just to get more favorable interview status, that certainly is PFT in my book. I don't recall any other airline requiring that "type".

I recall reading in "Nuts" that SWA hires for attitude and trains for skill, be that the case it seems pilot applicants may be exempt!

 

[Chest Rockwell]

You will be hired as a SIC, which requires only a commercial certificate. If the carrier requires an ATP to interview/hire, is that PFT?

 

[RocketDog]

I agree that having to go and buy a type rating to work for SWA is PFT. I feel SWA is a great company, but this is the one and only reason why they never received my application.

My thought process has always been that it was my responsibility to have the requisite certificates up to and including the ATP, as this demonstrates the required skill level and tenacity to be successful in the airline environment. However, it is the company's responsibility to train me (on their dime) on their specific equipment. I view SWA as PFT, but that's just my take on it. . .

 

[Victor120]

Thanks 4 the info P3...

 

[PurpleTail]

G100,

Please explain. While your at it explain the shortcut in training SWA gains by hiring pilots with a type.

CR

Ahhh Bevis... the short cut is called 'Recurrent Training' instead of 'Initial Training' after being hired, which do you think takes longer and costs more? ~DING~

You got to hand it management though, its not like there is a shortage of applicants at SWA. It is there way of keep training costs down and running a business model that is profitable.

The fact is...it is what it is. You either don't like it and don't apply or you suck it up, shell it out ($6k to be exact...ouch!) and roll the dice. I think the SWA pilot group is one of the best in the industry but being that I am a Texan myself I am a little bias. But it is different strokes for different folks...If I had to fly a 737 domestically my whole career I would hang myself...but thats just me

 

[Chest Rockwell]

Ahhh Bevis... the short cut is called 'Recurrent Training' instead of 'Initial Training' after being hired, which do you think takes longer and costs more? ~DING

~

Purple,

Everyone hired at SWA goes through intial training that is required by the FARs as if they had no type (I believe you would have to have currency within 2 years anyway and virtually no one has that.). If the type went away tomorrow, SWA would not have to change anything in initial training. If you think that the type is too much to ask, that is totally understandable.

 

[NEDude]

Can some of you SWA=PFT folks please explain it to me.

PFT at least used to be, when the term originated, meant having to pay your employer for the cost of your initial new-hire training and you received no rating or certificate for it. As far as I know, nobody is paying SWA (and many aren't paying anyone at all) for the type, nobody is paying for their own new-hire training, and everyone is getting an FAA issued rating.

IF SWA is PFT for requiring a type, then FedEx and UPS are PFT for requiring you to pay for your FE written. Just because the cost of the FE written is less than the 737 type doesn't make it any different - at what dollar amount does the cutoff occur? And it is a VERY thin line from there to every airline being a PFT operation for requiring certain certificates.

The term PFT is being thrown about these days the same as the term scab. If you don't like someone in aviation these days, they're a scab. If you don't like an airlines hiring practice, they are a PFT outfit. The terms are not being used in their real context.

If you don't like the fact that SWA requires a 737 type for employment that is fine, don't apply there. But don't use a term that means one thing and apply it to something different.