Originally Posted by flensr

I had a lot going on and had just hit what I had been advised were a few "magic" numbers like a year on the job, 500 hrs, that sort of thing, so I had worked with 2 separate groups on resume and application quality.

When I got the Delta interview I took the first available interview date which left me no time to get any company specific interview prep. Instead I read everything I could find online and talked to my friends/peers who were at Delta. I wasn't scared, at the time there seemed to be a cyclical backlash against prep anyhow and everyone said just be yourself. Well, apparently myself looks like a 2.6 GPA knuckle dragger who hates school and considers any formal overall gradesheet score of 1 (unsatisfactory) to be a "failure" and that almost defines the polar opposite of what they were looking for. Interview prep may have let me turn it around to present myself as a 2.6 GPA striver who loved school but kept reaching just a bit too far, and perhaps ask clarifying questions about what they consider to be a "failure" instead of simply giving them every single time I had failed to meet required progression standards for the training I was in at the time. I had never had to apologize for or explain my academic performance, because my career progression and evaluations had always answered those questions for me. And I came from a background where failure and failing forward was expected because if handled properly it accelerates the learning curve. That's not at all what they were looking for, and I walked right into it. Kablooi.

A week later, I was updating all my other apps and saw I had a new button in the SWA app to "schedule your interview" but I hadn't gotten an email. I immediately scheduled actual interview prep while contacting SWA HR to sort out my email malfunction, and this time since I had missed the email notification the only available interview dates were 2-3 weeks out. That gave me plenty of time to identify typical emphasis items, failure points, and my personal weaknesses (obviously I had some, otherwise...) and see what I could do to present not just myself, but the best myself. I know for a fact that at least two coaching tips they gave me helped, and the entire experience was completely different. Of course, with SWA they were far more interested in finding out if I actually liked flying than in my GPA or how much time I spent volunteering outside of my job and family life. And the only questions about training were something about if I had tabbed my checkrides in my logbook for reference, and an apologetic query from HR to verbally confirm on the record that I had not failed any checkrides. I honestly think that if I'd shown up for the SWA interview cold with no formal prep, it would have been a bit more stressful but probably would have still felt about the same and had the same result because it felt like what they were looking for, I've been working to be that guy since I was 16.

Finding a good fit can be important. The people taking me to task for not owning up to my failures are completely missing the point. Delta was not a good fit. The landmines laid out to navigate through simply highlighted the fact that they're looking for someone who is not me. SWA on the other hand totally wanted me. Like I've told my kids in the past when trying out for sports teams, sometimes instead of pushing to get onto a top team where the coach doesn't really care about you, consider rostering with a team where the coach really likes you and truly wants you on the roster.

Originally Posted by flensr

Landmine 1 was Delta using high school and college GPA to determine if you hated school or not. I had low GPAs, but my course load and specific courses taken were significantly higher/harder than average. My story should have been that I was very interested in the classes even though all of them could have been considered "stretch" courses such as taking AP physics before taking AP Calc, however I learned a lot and kept going back for more which is why I kept having the same Cs and Bs. My senior year was more "normal" workload and I got an unweighted 3.85, weighted to 4.1ish, which reflects how I performed with a more typical course load. In college, I took one of the hardest majors (comp sci) in the entire school, so I alternated between Deans list and academic probation my entire 4 years depending on the specific classes. Again, I loved the courses and although I had the option every single year to drop to a basic academics degree or an easier major, I stuck with it because I simply enjoyed what I was learning. Also, when they got to my MBA it was through correspondence and was only a 3.95 because I requested early graduation before completing my capstone project because the USAF pushed my promotion board up by 3 years so I had to have the degree finished halfway through the final semester. When they scoffed at it and tossed the transcript away like it was toilet paper, I could have picked it back up and pointed to the courses I completed while at Osan AB Korea while wearing full chemical warfare MOPP gear, typing away on my laptop in the bomb shelter instead of sleeping between my 18 hour shifts. So that was one landmine. I didn't have a clear story to tell during the 20-25 minutes they spent going over my high school transcript.

The first landmine could have been avoided. The second landmine... If the interview prep had told me to lie about the training failures I simply would have not gone to the interview. I had enough options that I didn't have to lie to get a job, even with Delta.

Originally Posted by flensr

I
Finding a good fit can be important. The people taking me to task for not owning up to my failures are completely missing the point. Delta was not a good fit. .

Originally Posted by FangsF15

Knowing (or at least suspecting) that's what they are likely doing is 95% of the battle to stay calm.

Originally Posted by flensr

I am a fan of interview prep for a couple of reasons. One of those reasons is to identify those HR landmines to come up with specific strategies to get past them.

At my Delta interview I stepped right on at least 2 and possibly 4 HR landmines. It made the entire interview extremely unpleasant over things that weren't even a thing. I don't know if Delta-specific interview prep could have saved it, but if I'd known the nature of the interrogation I was facing I'd at least have had the choice of having a better story to tell, to simply not go at all, or punt Delta to the end of my interview schedule after other options.

Originally Posted by bluespoon

You’re in a room at an airline interview talking about your grades, not diffusing bombs. I never understood why some airlines take the stress approach rather than having a normal human interaction with you in an interview. Wouldn’t it be great if prep was not allowed and you actually had to be yourself? I guess not many pilots would be hired. This profession already attracts a certain type of person that’s the opposite of modest, we already know that, there’s no reason to tap dance around it by seeing if you’re the type that can be modest in-front of interviewers stressing you out. The normal human interaction approach is better for actually seeing what the person is about.

Originally Posted by Meme In Command

How else would you catch an individual with a stellar resume on paper but a horrendous attitude that creates a toxic flight deck?

Originally Posted by Meme In Command

Because if I'm an interviewer looking to find and weed out the A-holes with fragile egos, this is an easy way to find them. And chill conversation allows the people easily hide their true personalities and save face. Most people can slap a smile on and pretend to be agreeable for an hour or two. Throw in a stressful question or a little attitude and it becomes harder for the untrained actor to act. A bit more of your true self comes out. It's not perfect, but it works.

How else would you catch an individual with a stellar resume on paper but a horrendous attitude that creates a toxic flight deck?

Originally Posted by Meme In Command

Because if I'm an interviewer looking to find and weed out the A-holes with fragile egos, this is an easy way to find them. And chill conversation allows the people easily hide their true personalities and save face. Most people can slap a smile on and pretend to be agreeable for an hour or two. Throw in a stressful question or a little attitude and it becomes harder for the untrained actor to act. A bit more of your true self comes out. It's not perfect, but it works.

How else would you catch an individual with a stellar resume on paper but a horrendous attitude that creates a toxic flight deck?

Originally Posted by bluespoon

By not having a system that encourages being coached to interview? Of course you’re not just having a “chill” conversation, you’re still answering questions that can be difficult. I’d argue that you can spot an A hole or insecurities very quickly. Especially if you are a trained interviewer. Just like you pretty much know what it’s going to be like flying with the person next to you within the first 10 minutes of interacting with them.