Go Back   Airline Pilot Central Forums - Find your next job as a Pilot > > >
 

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-25-2019, 01:03 PM   #81  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Jul 2018
Posts: 52
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LunkerHunter View Post
So are you a senior O-5 or a full bird?

If you believe that us getting more PEs under the new system is a bad thing, please apply somewhere else.

But thanks for telling us how bad our new process is, since you’re an expert on this sort of thing.
Weird flex, but ok... No idea how mil rank even enters this discussion as a relevant question.

Oh, and thank you for the warm welcome to apply elsewhere if I have questions about the system - that I brought up and asked on the Airline Pilot Central FedEx discussion forum... (no barriers to innovation/creativity here folks, move along - the irony is thick on this point). I hope the 'outsiders' you fly with are treated a bit better when they ask questions and try to understand the old-guard line of thinking.

If anyone thinks I was insulting FedEx pilots, that is literally as far from my intent as possible but maybe I miscommunicated, that's clearly on me if people feel that way. Diversity of thought (which often translates directly into innovation) comes from people with many backgrounds, that was my point.

My questions: Can you explain how more endorsements allowed by each pilot is better? What is your rationale? Does that really translate into more FedEx pilots getting their top men an interview? Do you think it reduces the value of each endorsement? If so, why are so many for it? The verbiage states that the more an applicant has, the higher he is racked. Reading between the lines, that probably means having one isn't valued the same as it was before. The old way gave you a golden BB, if the person was qualified they would very likely get an invite because a pilot can only use one every ten years, they were extremely valuable and pretty rare. Are they 1/5 as valuable now because there will be 5x more in the system?

Thanks in advance for your insight and experience. I'm trying to understand the process and your thoughts through an adult conversation, not toss grenades and insult anyone. Obviously a touchy subject.

Last edited by LJ Driver; 03-25-2019 at 01:19 PM.
LJ Driver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2019, 04:22 PM   #82  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 206
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LJ Driver View Post
Weird flex, but ok... No idea how mil rank even enters this discussion as a relevant question.



Oh, and thank you for the warm welcome to apply elsewhere if I have questions about the system - that I brought up and asked on the Airline Pilot Central FedEx discussion forum... (no barriers to innovation/creativity here folks, move along - the irony is thick on this point). I hope the 'outsiders' you fly with are treated a bit better when they ask questions and try to understand the old-guard line of thinking.



If anyone thinks I was insulting FedEx pilots, that is literally as far from my intent as possible but maybe I miscommunicated, that's clearly on me if people feel that way. Diversity of thought (which often translates directly into innovation) comes from people with many backgrounds, that was my point.



My questions: Can you explain how more endorsements allowed by each pilot is better? What is your rationale? Does that really translate into more FedEx pilots getting their top men an interview? Do you think it reduces the value of each endorsement? If so, why are so many for it? The verbiage states that the more an applicant has, the higher he is racked. Reading between the lines, that probably means having one isn't valued the same as it was before. The old way gave you a golden BB, if the person was qualified they would very likely get an invite because a pilot can only use one every ten years, they were extremely valuable and pretty rare. Are they 1/5 as valuable now because there will be 5x more in the system?



Thanks in advance for your insight and experience. I'm trying to understand the process and your thoughts through an adult conversation, not toss grenades and insult anyone. Obviously a touchy subject.

I understand the point you are making. The way I see it is that being able to give more endorsement as previously able to makes it more probable that more applicants get one or more. The way it was before, it would be good if you were that ONE in ten years person who got one. From a FedEx pilot’s perspective, it’s better for us to be able to have more chances to endorsing someone we think would bring innovation, ideas, diversity, whatever.

Maybe you were one of those that had one of these once-in-ten-year- endorsements and thus the reason why you don’t like having others get a chance of now getting one and competing with you? So I could see how the old system helped the few who were lucky enough to get one. If you were one of those, I understand why you wouldn’t like the change. But if you are not one of them or you are a FedEx pilot, this is a change in the right direction.
FXLAX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2019, 07:12 PM   #83  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Apr 2018
Position: MEM HSBY
Posts: 63
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LJ Driver View Post
Weird flex, but ok... No idea how mil rank even enters this discussion as a relevant question.

Oh, and thank you for the warm welcome to apply elsewhere if I have questions about the system - that I brought up and asked on the Airline Pilot Central FedEx discussion forum... (no barriers to innovation/creativity here folks, move along - the irony is thick on this point). I hope the 'outsiders' you fly with are treated a bit better when they ask questions and try to understand the old-guard line of thinking.

If anyone thinks I was insulting FedEx pilots, that is literally as far from my intent as possible but maybe I miscommunicated, that's clearly on me if people feel that way. Diversity of thought (which often translates directly into innovation) comes from people with many backgrounds, that was my point.

My questions: Can you explain how more endorsements allowed by each pilot is better? What is your rationale? Does that really translate into more FedEx pilots getting their top men an interview? Do you think it reduces the value of each endorsement? If so, why are so many for it? The verbiage states that the more an applicant has, the higher he is racked. Reading between the lines, that probably means having one isn't valued the same as it was before. The old way gave you a golden BB, if the person was qualified they would very likely get an invite because a pilot can only use one every ten years, they were extremely valuable and pretty rare. Are they 1/5 as valuable now because there will be 5x more in the system?

Thanks in advance for your insight and experience. I'm trying to understand the process and your thoughts through an adult conversation, not toss grenades and insult anyone. Obviously a touchy subject.
How does mil rank enter this discussion? - since you dodged the question I’m going to guess that I was right. Here’s the rub: instead of leading with genuine questions (like the ones in your latest post) you gave a lecture about innovation, and our process, and second/third order effects, etc.

You still seem to be wrapped around the axle regarding “innovation and creatvity”... well, that’s not our number one job here as pilots. In fact, I would venture to say that it’s not our second or third priority either. The top priorities are things like airmanship, CRM, and decision-making to name a few, and we strongly believe that we have useful input when it comes to recommending people we know and/or have flown with. At 3 am on an ILS in the weather, I don’t care if the pilot I’m with is ‘innovative’, or ‘diverse in thought’ or whatever- I want that person to be a disciplined aviator so that we arrive alive. That’s why we do a CRM exercise as part of the interview process, not TMAAT you creatively innovated. This is line flying at FedEx, not Apple or Google.

Under the old system, the ‘golden bb’ you speak of was not that at all- many people submitted a PE only to find out a year later (or more) that their guy didn’t get called because he still didn’t have enough “points” on his application. So again, it was never honored as a guaranteed interview for someone who met the minimums. So now not only do we have more options in PEs to give, but they are also channeled through line pilots who can give meaningful feedback to the endorser. This was non-existent under the old system- current pilots could talk to pilot hiring via ‘appointment only’ to check up on their endorsee.

To be clear, the new system values legacy endorsements above the other three. Are you going to opine now on the dangers of nepotism? I hope not- as others have already stated, focus on what you can control.
LunkerHunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2019, 11:39 PM   #84  
Not a real airline pilot
 
DirtyPurple's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2016
Posts: 137
Default

The new PE construct, like the old 10-yr chit, is not a negotiated benefit.

Therefore, its value is worth precisely what HR decides on any given hiring cycle. Given the recent history of PE usage in the selection process (read this thread history), that will most likely be a numerical zero in the applicant’s composite app score, thereby retaining HR’s full hiring authority while minimizing pilot impact.

It’s the sad truth. PEs at FDX are a puff of smoke, not a silver bullet.
DirtyPurple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2019, 02:17 AM   #85  
Bourgeoisie
 
MEMFO4Ever's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: 787 SO
Posts: 569
Default

It is their company. They can hire who they want, almost always without any input from their contractor pilots. We just move their metal for a decent amount of scratch. Their management does not value our opinion and most of us are fine with that.
MEMFO4Ever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2019, 10:44 AM   #86  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Anthrax's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Posts: 214
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MEMFO4Ever View Post
It is their company. They can hire who they want, almost always without any input from their contractor pilots. We just move their metal for a decent amount of scratch. Their management does not value our opinion and most of us are fine with that.
True dat! Ya’ll need to shut the he// up and review your procedures. and limitations. and fom. and fars. and contract. and investment funds. and for god’s sake, do a push up or two and skip dessert.
Anthrax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2019, 08:54 AM   #87  
Gets Weekends Off
 
BluePAX's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Posts: 184
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PAOFlyer View Post
Hear anything from this? Trying to figure out the retiree legacy endorsement as well.
Make me the third interested party in this thread. Thanks for any info
BluePAX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2019, 01:50 AM   #88  
Gets Weekends Off
 
CAVOK84's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Bus
Posts: 106
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LJ Driver View Post
My take on this is that it's good - but only for people that get an endorsement. And pretty much terrible for everyone that doesn't... There is about to be a deluge of literally 1000's of endorsements, and if you don't have one, looks like you're SOL?
Considering that in the past you had to have a sponsor or some sort of executive endorsement, and that we neutered said sponsorship with the once in a decade endorsement only later to (presumably) reinstate a modicum of its importance—I’d say considering yourself ‘SOL’ is a gross exaggeration. It also dismisses the effort many of our pilots demonstrated in networking.

Overall, it might still be a good practice even if it were to be an overall diminishing of individuals without an endorsement. Considering that there are finite jobs at Fedex available, and that people still get interviewed without an endorsement, is it really unreasonable that a recommendation from qualified experts already on property carry some weight?

While this new policy might not appear beneficial to you personally, that alone will be a difficult argument against the policy when speaking to fedex pilots—most of whom have a greater stake in the quality of the company’s pilot selection as compared to an individual who hasn’t already invested their time with the company in an industry where making a lateral move isn’t really possible.

Quote:
Ummm, ok... Care to explain? Potentially a less diverse pilot population from fewer backgrounds creates even more institutional momentum - during a time that innovation and ideas couldn't be more critical.
I would agree that having a pilot group with some diversity of experience can be beneficial to flight operations and within the cockpit. This diversity of experience in some circumstances may also translate to a broader realized benefit by the company, but still within flight operations (e.g., an individual moving to management or better ideas in training). While we certainly have some gifted individuals who become much more involved in the company’s operations, for the most part we are looking to hire pilots; and that is likely to be the realm within which a new hire contributes.

Despite this, I think the variation between individuals is much larger than the variation between categories of pilot (i.e., the difference in quality of aviator/employee is greater between individuals than between the crude brackets we casually assign pilots—and therefor these categories are highly unlikely to be causal in determining the quality of applicant. So, while we may find a correlation in certain attributes with respect to the 'category', we wouldn't want 'diversity' to be the most important criterion). Oh, this also assumes that the endorsements will elicit a homogenized pilot group, but I'll grant it would be more homogenized in all likelihood.

The reasons for this should be fairly obvious. Diversity of experience (in a crew environment like FedEx) should certainly be a consideration, but only if not at the expense of more effective techniques of analyzing an applicant’s suitability.
Your contention that institutional momentum is an effect of a more homogenized pilot group and that this supports your argument against the new policy is fairly odd to me.
-My confusion only deepens in regards to “during a time that innovation and ideas couldn't be more critical”. As an airline pilot, we work in a very highly regulated industry with much higher inertia compared to most other professions. The FAA, the union, aircraft manufacturers, the nature of the crew environment, the seniority system are, to name a few, forces that to some degree oppose innovation and new ideas; this is not to conflate good judgement, discretion, (i.e. airmanship) with what is typically meant in the business world as innovation and ideas.

Beyond that, are you sure this is a time where being innovative and having new ideas is more critical to being a pilot than 10 years ago? Why are you confident that these traits make for a more effective applicant than stick skills and an impressive working memory, or perhaps the ability to survive on coffee and popcorn for a week?

My point is that the selection of an applicant must be done fairly quickly and based on limited information. When making the decision as to which applicant should be prioritized for an interview, the tools for how effectively that distinction can be made should be utilized. And in this profession, that is fairly difficult; it certainly can’t be encapsulated with flight times or types flown alone. Enumerating, identifying and scoring all of the ineffable qualities a good aviator must possess isn’t practical, and is in my mind why an established peer’s endorsement is one of the more effective methods by which applicant selection can be made.

Let's say you're right about needing innovation and new ideas in our new hires. Even then, I don't think you'd really need diversity of flight experience. You'd probably want to emphasize the importance of the applicant's formal education and experience outside of flying, so something is going to suffer there...

Quote:
The 1/10 years system hypothetically created ~450 PEs per year.
- The 1/2 years hypothetically creates ~2250 PEs per year, plus the additional recs from legacy, professional, management.
How is that a good thing? 5x more endorsements means each endorsement is probably actually worth less than they are now, especially if there is a max ceiling of endorsements offered interviews
Well, I do think that the pilots here consider reputational costs when endorsing someone, so that hypothetical is probably unlikely, but I suppose it is possible it could devalue the endorsement to a degree. I still think it is much more reasonable than every 10 years.
Quote:
yes, I'm quite sure I am in the right place.

https://about.van.fedex.com/our-story/innovation/

FedEx was/is at the forefront of many logistics industry leading technologies; EFVS, GPS approach adoption, robotics, AI, self driving delivery, package tracking, vehicle tracking, etc.

You and 4,500+ other dudes trying to get your buds on at the company? Really? If the discussion about whether a PE helped or hurt you was ever valid, it should be even more relevant now.
Is there a company that doesn’t self-promote its innovation? Honestly though, considering the sophistication of the technologies you listed and the tremendous expertise required to contribute within those fields—and that this supports an argument against the endorsement policy when selecting pilots is a fairly ridiculous stretch. Fedex would be better off hiring engineers and physicists, paying to train them to fly and garner the years of experience needed, and then stick them in the jet. That way they can work on AI and a fully sentient airbus during the layover… I just think there are more important criteria when pulling pilots out of the stack for only so many spots.

Quote:
If we’re being honest, yeah, I absolutely want to work at FedEx and I’m curious what this means in the big picture short and long term - both for dudes with and without an endorsement.
I wish the best to you, and my personal hope is that the endorsement be taken in consideration when selecting whom to interview, but I would not want to see its absence bar individuals from being interviewed, as I do think we gain something by going outside of the ‘network’. But yeah, I think we are all curious about what it means.

Quote:
Reading between the lines, that probably means having one isn't valued the same as it was before. The old way gave you a golden BB, if the person was qualified they would very likely get an invite because a pilot can only use one every ten years, they were extremely valuable and pretty rare. Are they 1/5 as valuable now because there will be 5x more in the system.
I don’t know that your assumption is correct. Plenty of people gave their 1 in 10 shot away, only to have the person not interviewed. A lot has changed with our hiring practices in a short period of time, so I don’t think any of us plebs can be confident. But like I said earlier, it is possible I guess.

Quote:
Thanks in advance for your insight and experience. I'm trying to understand the process and your thoughts through an adult conversation, not toss grenades and insult anyone. Obviously a touchy subject.
I think some people might have taken issue with (what appeared to be) dismissing the importance of experienced FedEx pilots' input on new crew members. I don’t think you intended to offend, but the affirmation that innovation, institutional momentum etc. trump the importance of the PE comes across as dogmatic and trite. I think guys would've reacted much better to "this new policy sucks for me b/c I don't know anyone at Fedex". But perhaps I'm wrong, and your real concern was for the health of FedEx.

Either way, I hope that if you want to work here you get a chance to interview. I would suggest not letting this policy discourage you from making every effort in applying and speaking to Fedex pilots whenever you have the opportunity. Once you get here, you can contribute to changing the policy for the better... That is-- when you're not developing AI, robotics and GPS during your hotel standby
CAVOK84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2019, 03:33 PM   #89  
Gets Weekends Off
 
CAVOK84's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Bus
Posts: 106
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LJ Driver View Post
My questions: Can you explain how more endorsements allowed by each pilot is better? What is your rationale? Does that really translate into more FedEx pilots getting their top men an interview? Do you think it reduces the value of each endorsement? If so, why are so many for it? The verbiage states that the more an applicant has, the higher he is racked.

Thanks in advance for your insight and experience. I'm trying to understand the process and your thoughts through an adult conversation, not toss grenades and insult anyone. Obviously a touchy subject.
Where did you go?
CAVOK84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2019, 05:50 PM   #90  
Gets Weekends Off
 
PurpleToolBox's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 675
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LJ Driver View Post
Yes, I'm quite sure I am in the right place.

https://about.van.fedex.com/our-story/innovation/

FedEx was/is at the forefront of many logistics industry leading technologies; EFVS, GPS approach adoption, robotics, AI, self driving delivery, package tracking, vehicle tracking, etc.

You and 4,500+ other dudes trying to get your buds on at the company? Really? If the discussion about whether a PE helped or hurt you was ever valid, it should be even more relevant now.

What airline out there DOESN'T have dudes or dudettes trying to get their friends hired?
That's the way this business works. Always has, always will.

You need to think about another line of work if this yanks your chain.
PurpleToolBox is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
 

 
Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pilots' personal use of electronic devices skytrekker Aviation Law 17 06-07-2014 10:59 AM
CFI endorsement training question RomeoSierra Flight Schools and Training 9 09-26-2009 02:29 PM
340A time and High Altitude Endorsement 340A Flight Schools and Training 10 03-03-2009 03:49 PM
High Altitude Endorsement CaptainTeezy Aviation Law 7 11-18-2008 02:05 PM
Personal Finance 747Dog Money Talk 0 03-11-2005 10:00 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:52 PM.


vBulletin® v3.9.3.5, Copyright ©2000-2019, MH Sub I, LLC dba vBulletin
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1