Reply to Yaaak:
The subject at hand is piloting jobs, not management-puke jobs in "any other industry". But for the sake of debate, I'll play along for moment and live in an imaginary dreamworld somewhere in Texas where you can indeed compare apples (piloting jobs) to oranges (management jobs); <ahem> Why yes TXCAP, a college degree is needed to be competitive to be hired. That's why I have one, and in aviation no less.
My point is that lots of people on this board think aviation should be considered apart from any other business. It is not, and I figured that thinking about it another way would help you see the light, as it were.
Now, using your own comparison, this college degree is all I should need to join the SW cult. If not, why can you, for the sake of allegory, equate apples to oranges, but I can't conversly equate oranges to apples?
Unfortunately this isn't what I said. In another industry, to be competitive for a job, I have to have already gone out and done a lot of work on my own. I do not expect my employer to pick me and then give me ALL OF MY TRAINING FROM DAY ONE. In other words, I have to show up with something in my hand already. More on this below...
Actually, it's quite common for a company in the private sector to pay for higher education classes and degrees for their employees if that education is directly related to their job and improves their skills, moving them up the ladder. I'd say training a pilot in the type of aircraft (a 737 for instance) they will be flying on the job qualifies in this regard.
The 737 type may indeed fall into this category, but SWA holds themselves to a higher standard. This would be similar to a law firm saying "you must have already passed the bar exam before being eligible to work for us". Some require it and some don't.
I see we are still in that imaginary world, but this time it's one where the FAA doesn't exist or mandate that we have a pilot's license to fly, even in non-commercial pursuits. To connect that to your flawed apples-to-oranges argument, now you add an additional false premise; that the aforementioned "need" for a college degree to be considered competitive as "a manager in some other industry" somehow equates to a governmental mandate, just as a pilots license is (or are they issuing managers lisences now?). So now, not only does your argument compare apples to oranges, it also straddles the the fence between the physical and metaphysical worlds. Bravo! I'm very impressed by the mental somersaults. Let's not confuse them with logic, however.
Someone has already pointed out the flaw in this argument. The government does not require and ATP or a Type Rating to be SIC. Your argument is now teetering.
"Infinitely regressive"....Wow, such big words. And from a Texan? Unbelievable. I guess someone turned off "Walker" today and picked up a dictionary!
Walker was kind of a dumb show - I never watched it. What I mean to say is that if you contend that a company should give you all of your training beyond what the government requires - then all you should have to do is show up with a multi commcercial ticket.
This, in sum, is your position:
1) An airline should have to provide all of these things to its employees:
1) a college degree
2) a type rating
3) an ATP
4) all of the required hours of flight experience
This is what I mean to say by infinitely regressive.
The whole fractional industry proves you wrong. They make money whether the airplane is flying or sitting. In fact, they make more if it sits. Now that all the airlines are adopting SW's "pax are cattle, pilots are chattel" model, no doubt business travelers will continue to flee like they are now from the "airline experience" as if it were the plague, and take their money with them. Ahh! Just imagine, soon we can all enjoy being relegated to living in the 8-turns-a-day-bring-on-the-flip-flop-crowd Hell ushered in by SW.....and pay for the hoop we have to jump through just to interview! WhoooPeeeee! Gee, where do I sign up?
1) Fractionals are about selling ariplanes, airlines are about transporting people - you are mixing apples and oranges (ironic isn't it?).
2) You have locked yourself into a business model or mindset that requires business travelers to be profitable. If SWA can be profitable without them and this niche needs to be filled, someone else will create a business model to satisfy them. The point is, SWA is answering the market while you seems to be blind to it -
one segment of your passengers does not make up the whole marketplace! Your statement above shows that, I think.
Yaaak, my first point is that pilots tend to be insular in considering their industry. When you think in bigger terms, any other job in the rest of the known universe rewards you for showing up more prepared than the next guy. Why should this be any different???
The other point is that you have to answer the market and SWA is doing that while others are trailing. If you have a better model, go for it. Competition only make the marketplace better.
