Originally Posted by
Macjet
Call it what you want but you are wrong. That's a fact. The OP tried to claim that our attrition was '25%'. I showed that it wasn't. Another tried to prove their case with a link that further showed our attrition wasn't '25%'. Now you're trying personal insults because you don't like the numbers. That's cool too but it doesn't make you right.
Our attrition is less that 5.5%. That is a FACT. Lying to try and improve our talking points gives you less credibility.
Now, additional facts are that our training department is running at capacity. That will require either an increase in training capacity, a reduction in growth, or an increase in retention. An additional fact is that the quality of our new hires is pretty poor. We are seeing an alarming number of guys fail training from all backgrounds but there is a trend with 2000 HR regional guys failing the program. This isn't a scare tactic to try and disturb the training pipeline but if you're a relatively low time guy you need to know that your peers are struggling and failing. Maybe you're the exception but you need to know that facts and weight the risk against your own career.
Looking objectively, it appears there are really two sets of numbers that "should" be discussed. But as said earlier, and this is the way I have always heard it: "statistics lie and liars use statistics." The problem I'm seeing (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that we are using numbers muddled together. What should be, IMO, is two sets: What is the
new hire attrition, and
overall attrition.
If you are using a number for the amount of people being hired with a total number of people leaving (overall), that's where there the percentage is askew. I would want to know for all of the new hires (those still under a year seniority), how many of those have left within that same time period of within one year. That may paint a different picture as to is this place an intermediary stop before going to the legacy carriers (or SWA). JMHO