|
Originally Posted by DontLookDown
(Post 2968098)
Out of curiosity, what does everyone think will happen to the flow program if an AA airplane ever crashes and it turns out the pilot flying it had a criminal history, a few checkride failures and only a high school education?
Then the media goes on to explain how that pilot wouldn’t have been hired at Delta or United, but AA has a “flow” program set up that allows pilots with those kinds of backgrounds to still get hired. That could be a PR nightmare. I think AA is counting on the fact that once the flow program gets established it will take a pilot 8-10 years to flow. Being able to explain that a pilot has to prove themselves by maintaining a clean record for 10 years would restore everyone’s faith in the AA hiring practices should the worst ever happen. I think that AA will always try to balance making the flow process as long as possible, while keeping it just quick enough to still be an effective recruitment tool |
Originally Posted by HW1018
(Post 2968339)
I would venture to say, that pilots WITHOUT a criminal record and WITHOUT check ride failures have crashed airplanes too...just study the accidents involving major airlines over the last 50 years, I am almost certain a majority of those pilots did not have a criminal back ground, check ride failures, and had 4 years degrees...but they still crashed an aircraft too. Just because someone has had set backs in their careers, doesn't mean they will crash an airplane or be any less compentent.
|
Originally Posted by ItnStln
(Post 2968891)
How does only having a high school education or having a criminal history correlate to being a bad pilot? I can see a few checkride failures, but that can just be someone who was nervous or a bad test taker.
Ive come to understand that doesn’t matter though. Public perception matters more than reality. The traveling public needs to think that the person driving their airplane is very intelligent, always responsible and highly competent as a pilot. That’s why companies prefer to hire college educated folks, with clean backgrounds and no checkride failures. It eliminates potential headlines should anything ever go wrong. |
Originally Posted by DontLookDown
(Post 2969228)
It doesn’t correlate.
Ive come to understand that doesn’t matter though. Public perception matters more than reality. The traveling public needs to think that the person driving their airplane is very intelligent, always responsible and highly competent as a pilot. That’s why companies prefer to hire college educated folks, with clean backgrounds and no checkride failures. It eliminates potential headlines should anything ever go wrong. |
Originally Posted by DontLookDown
(Post 2968098)
Out of curiosity, what does everyone think will happen to the flow program if an AA airplane ever crashes and it turns out the pilot flying it had a criminal history, a few checkride failures and only a high school education?
Then the media goes on to explain how that pilot wouldn’t have been hired at Delta or United, but AA has a “flow” program set up that allows pilots with those kinds of backgrounds to still get hired. That could be a PR nightmare. I think AA is counting on the fact that once the flow program gets established it will take a pilot 8-10 years to flow. Being able to explain that a pilot has to prove themselves by maintaining a clean record for 10 years would restore everyone’s faith in the AA hiring practices should the worst ever happen. I think that AA will always try to balance making the flow process as long as possible, while keeping it just quick enough to still be an effective recruitment tool |
Originally Posted by Varsity
(Post 2970175)
Why would a regional crashing with the same credentials be any different? Passengers have no idea that the subcontracting circus at the regionals exist. "operated by go jet" means nothing to them when they buy a ticket on united and see a united paintjob.
Doesn't really work like that. Everyone knows of the "Colgan" crash and the "Comair Crash". The airlines are quick to disassociate from the mainline carriers and the media follows suit. |
Originally Posted by daOldMan
(Post 2970177)
Doesn't really work like that. Everyone knows of the "Colgan" crash and the "Comair Crash". The airlines are quick to disassociate from the mainline carriers and the media follows suit.
|
Originally Posted by Flyinguy
(Post 2968499)
Though this may be very true, it wouldn’t surprise me if AA attempted to blame the “flow” as Amazon tried to blame the guy who crashed and “lied” to them. But the reality is they passed the companies check rides, and that is a legal/PR cop out.
But having so many flow pilots on property, it would look bad if AA threw them under the bus, so I kind of doubt they would. |
Originally Posted by PiedmontFlyer
(Post 2970081)
You're not wrong about perception, but the media could just as easily obsess with whether the college educated hypothetical pilot in the hypothetical accident was going through a divorce, was in debt, ate Wheaties for breakfast....it's a wide, deep rabbit hole.
It’s illegal to inquire about a persons marital status, much less the quality of their marriage, when making hiring decisions. An airline could perform a credit check and factor that into things, but that would be an ineffective discriminator. They can’t realistically expect someone to have a Commercial pilot certificate and a bachelors degree without also having debt. Military personnel and people born into rich families are the only ones who can pull that off. |
Originally Posted by DontLookDown
(Post 2970688)
The difference is that a company can’t be hung out by the media for things that can’t be used as discriminators during hiring.
It’s illegal to inquire about a persons marital status, much less the quality of their marriage, when making hiring decisions. An airline could perform a credit check and factor that into things, but that would be an ineffective discriminator. They can’t realistically expect someone to have a Commercial pilot certificate and a bachelors degree without also having debt. Military personnel and people born into rich families are the only ones who can pull that off. |
Originally Posted by DontLookDown
(Post 2969228)
It doesn’t correlate.
Ive come to understand that doesn’t matter though. Public perception matters more than reality. The traveling public needs to think that the person driving their airplane is very intelligent, always responsible and highly competent as a pilot. That’s why companies prefer to hire college educated folks, with clean backgrounds and no checkride failures. It eliminates potential headlines should anything ever go wrong. |
April 2020 Piedmont pilot flows to American:
EO -date of hire at Piedmont July 2015 DR -date of hire at Piedmont July 2015 BS -date of hire at Piedmont July 2015 JA -date of hire at Piedmont July 2015 WA -date of hire at Piedmont August 2015 MV -date of hire at Piedmont August 2015 APC post from July 2015: daOldMan: It is possible in the future to flow to a major in 5 years, but there is absolutely no way that any airline that is growing can have a flow such as this. APC post from October 2014 chrisreedrules Most new hires coming on property in 2015 will never see the flow. Let's take a look at the numbers: 400ish pilot group by early 2015. 30ish flowing yearly and probably losing another 20 to 30 to attrition. So for ease of math's sake we'll say losing 50 p/year. That's still 6 to 8 years before the prospect of a flow would affect a new hire. Who knows what the heck will be happening with PDT that far out. What's happening "that far out" is a 4 year, 8 month flow, exactly as American predicted. (P.S. - if chrisreedrules worked for Piedmont in 2014, he'd be at AA by now...) |
Keep in mind, for a long time, the marketed flow time wasn't five years, but "three to five years". A flow time that is hovering right at their advertised worst case scenario isn't something to brag out.
But enjoy your opportunity to post about sub-5 year flows while you have it. Your time is limited. I have a feeling we're going to hear a lot less from you about a five year flow when we start flowing the '17 hires. |
Hired in 2015, flow to American in 4.8 years is “worst case scenario”??
Really happy for you guys, congratulations. Sorry to see MV go. |
Originally Posted by AlphaTango69
(Post 2986280)
What's happening "that far out" is a 4 year, 8 month flow, exactly as American predicted. .) AA said 3-5 year....so their “worst case scenario” was the best case scenario, and that only lasts 6 months. After that, it goes up quite a bit. But the company referral email is still trying to push a 4y7m flow if hired now....at a shrinking airline mind you. That’s faster than those at a (formerly) growing airline. |
Originally Posted by AlphaTango69
(Post 2986280)
What's happening "that far out" is a 4 year, 8 month flow, exactly as American predicted. (P.S. - if chrisreedrules worked for Piedmont in 2014, he'd be at AA by now...)
The guys flowing in August 2015 had been there many many years. That was the case until not very long ago at all. You can drudge up old posts by guys who were speculating back then, but the fact of the matter is that even the guys who struck gold and are flowing now in under five years were speculating. It could have gone much differently. I was one of those guys but didn't stick around for the flow. Would have worked out great even if I did. We looked at the situation and made an educated guess. It was a gamble and we took it based off our own opinions and calculations. What's happening here is you are swallowing it all, hook line and sinker. You aren't thinking for yourself and coming up with your best educated guess and making decisions, you're looking at an ad for the Brooklyn Bridge and writing a check. And publicly exclaiming the brilliancy of your purchase. I for one am entertained |
American - 1
Skeptical pilots - 0 |
Originally Posted by BRubble
(Post 2986699)
American - 1
Skeptical pilots - 0
Originally Posted by BRubble
(Post 2986296)
What's PSA's flow time for new hires right now?
Originally Posted by BRubble
(Post 2936330)
College degree required to flow?
|
Originally Posted by sanicom3205
(Post 2986715)
Did you decide on a regional yet?
PSA flow is way too long Republic doesn’t have a flow, but running a good operation. Probably won’t do enough flying there. Prefer to be on the East Coast, so no Sky West Worried about the stability of CommutAir |
Originally Posted by BRubble
(Post 2986794)
Not Trans States
PSA flow is way too long Republic doesn’t have a flow, but running a good operation. Probably won’t do enough flying there. Prefer to be on the East Coast, so no Sky West Worried about the stability of CommutAir |
Originally Posted by BRubble
(Post 2986794)
Not Trans States
PSA flow is way too long Republic doesn’t have a flow, but running a good operation. Probably won’t do enough flying there. Prefer to be on the East Coast, so no Sky West Worried about the stability of CommutAir I have to say I have a problem with people coming on here and talking about things they have no idea about. This post below was in response to your cheerleading earlier, and you don't even respond. Numbers laid out, vs you regurgitating what makes you feel good/justifies your decisions.
Originally Posted by Bluetaildragger
(Post 2962455)
I will show some very simple math and basic reasoning as to why you are completely bonkers if you believe this stuff. 700 (pilots) - 60 (lifers) = 640 pilots who want to flow 640 (pilots) / 6 (flows per month) = 106.6 months or 8 years and 10 or 11 months. We all know that's not realistic with people leaving for other opportunities. So let's take a look at your number of 4 years and 7 months (55 months). To make that math work, an average of 11.63 people would need to leave Piedmont every single month to make the most basic of math equations true (640/55). Does that sound anywhere close to what you're seeing with your own two eyes? Sure isn't what I've seen. How about the "low attrition" calculation of 5 years and 8 months (or 68 months)? 9.41 departures per month. A little bit closer to reality, but again this is just the most basic and flawed understanding of calculating flow times. Why is it basic and flawed? Because these calculations assume that these 10 or 11 or 12 people leaving a month are ALL senior to you. So when your seniority is number 100, 11 people are still leaving in front of you. Does that sound anywhere close to what you're seeing with your own two eyes? The reality is that the higher you climb up the list, the less likely that people leaving will be senior to you. In other words, the lower your seniority number, the lower the attrition senior to you. Attrition senior to you is the only thing that matters. By my non-scientific estimation, for an average of 11 people senior to you to leave the list every single month, Piedmont would need to be absolutely hemorrhaging pilots at a rate or about 18 a month and I think that's being conservative. Again, no basis in math here but if you understand my logic up to this point then you see where I'm coming from. Come up with your own number if you wish but rest assured that would have to sit well above 11 to be realistic. There are already new guys quoting your crackpot estimations here. People who are brand new to the airlines and make decisions based solely off stuff they read here. You owe it to them to at least try to be transparent and present the facts as they are, rather than spew propaganda as if it's fact. |
[QUOTE= By the way, I recently talked to a PSA flow who spent 4 years and 10 months there before his number got called. Why can you rationalize why that isn't going to be the case for someone hired there today, but are unable to apply that same logic when it comes to Piedmont?[/QUOTE]
Not rationalizing. PSA is advertising a 6 to 7 year flow for someone hired today. By your logic,it would be 8 to 10 years. Either way, too long when there are other options. |
Originally Posted by BRubble
(Post 2987227)
Not rationalizing. PSA is advertising a 6 to 7 year flow for someone hired today. By your logic,it would be 8 to 10 years. Either way, too long when there are other options.
|
Originally Posted by IFly145
(Post 2988454)
You realize that you don’t have to wait to flow. Plenty of pilots leave prior to the flow. The difference is that if you go to an United Express or Delta Connection carrier and you don’t land a job out of your preferential interview, you have reduced options.
BINGO!!! If Piedmont is offering a quick upgrade then do it and apply to all the carriers. Hell people have been hired outside the flow to American. Nobody is promised a job at a major. This flow is that promise in your back pocket when all the other carriers don't hire you. It's a win win. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:45 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands