Those hiring practices don't require anyone to be hired that isn't qualified. The question is are they "less qualified". I'm saying that Mr. CATIII doesn't have enough information to prove that anyone "less qualified" is being hired, nor does he actually know what makes a person "more qualified" at every particular airline. As long as you have the time and ratings, you're "qualified". What else a company looks for in its employees is entirely up to them. Otherwise why would anyone care if you had internal recs or volunteer hours?

And why are people having trouble hiring? Idk, maybe lack of new candidates due to high education costs, absurdly low starting pay and no clear path for progression..?

 

Oh stop the NDB talk. It's like the guys in the 40's telling us in the 70's about 'flying the null'. For almost ALL of the flying we do it doesn't apply.

We're flying RNP's into valleys we wouldn't have dreamed of 20 years ago. NDB talk is dead.

Guys STILL struggle trying to figure out what level of automation they should use. I saw it this year, the plane starts turning left, when it should be turning right, and a 10,000+ hr guy starts looking down at the FMC to see what it's doing. Who cares... just make it turn right with a lower level of automation OR hand fly it. And yes, he was part of the NDB generation. It didn't help him in this generation.

 

The law, back in the 1980's or 1990's, decided that 250 hrs was "qualified". Today it's "1500 hrs". That's it.

"Qualified" doesn't mean 'good', 'acceptable', 'strong', 'impressive' etc. It just means "qualified" to get hired or pass the simulator phase.

 

When the company appears to have certain standards, but appears to make exceptions for certain candidates, it appears that a different level of "qualified" or "competitive" is being used.

Friend's son got hired. Zero TPIC. Friend acknowledges that his son got hired by hanging onto his dad's coat tails vs. the other guys getting hired, or not hired, who have TPIC on their resume. He admits that his son is "less qualified" vs the other guys getting hired. Unqualified? No. Less qualified? Yes, when compared to the other new hires.

 

it comes down to situational awareness skills, and spacial awareness skills that are no longer as important when all that automation works... but having had at least one occasion where 2 IRS' (and the remaining one drifted 44 NM without DME/DME - this was pre-GPS primary) went out on an A330 and the airplane reverted to Class I Nav, I can tell you those skills are still important even if the odds are you may never need them.. more a point about the quality of "airman" we are putting out today than anything else.

I mean engineers use computers and not slide rules or long hand math to design but yet they're still made to learn 4 semesters of calculus for engineers, differential equations and linear algebra (at least when I went thru in '94)..

 

You missed your calling .. should have been a lawyer as you're brilliant at parsing words... try to stick to the big picture a minute. Do you deny that more "airplane" qualified pilots who are otherwise a mystery in terms of the other requirements you mention are being overlooked for interview in favor of women (and other minorities to a lesser extent) who are less "airplane" qualified?


Also, how does anyone really confirm or prove if someone is volunteering? Does anyone really check this? On the other hand, you can (and under law are required to) check FAA training records.. that is OBJECTIVE and material to the act of being a pilot.

 

Appearance of standards isn't enough. Unless you know exactly what they're looking for in an individual, you can't really know if someone is getting shafted. I'm not sure what their excuse is (people with internal recs are a better fit for the company..?) Also not sure if this person's son was a minority or not, but companies have been doing this for years. And historically I'm sure that minorities and women haven't been enjoying such practices as long as the majority.

I'm curious why some are so bent about it now.

 

That's a tricky issue to quantify. Is some of it that the recent stagnation increased the average experience level lower tiers would get as new hires? And now they're reverting to the norm? So they mistakenly thought the previous decades was typical when they actually might have been above average? IDK.

Or is there something at the lower level of training that is getting missed? Or not being taught? IDK.

I've spoken with a couple of former MIL guys that went the RJ route before getting a job with a major. They've been impressed with the training they got at the RJ carriers. So the current low times guys are probably getting better formal airline training/experience vs. what the current generation of 'old timers' got 30 yrs ago. But we might have gotten a greater variety of flying. That's a learning curve from the school or hard knocks. Compare the different backgrounds and which prepares one better for the job at a major today? IDK.

 

I thought we went over this. I don't confirm or deny anything, because I don't have any evidence. Do you? Also there are other things to consider than "airplane" qualifications. Do you seriously believe that's the only thing people look at when they are hiring somebody? Why would anyone consider hiring a "mystery" pilot? Try to stick to reality.

As for your other question, I imagine it's quite easy to make a phone call to whoever you volunteer with to confirm, just like they call your references.. But I don't personally know, because I don't get paid to check other people's backgrounds.

A question I would pose to you: How does anyone know the hours in your logbook are genuine? Do they investigate every single hour you've flown to make darn sure a hobbs meter was turning for you to log those hours?? Don't over-complicate this lol

 

His son wasn't a minority so that's not a player. Dad's a great guy and great employee. His son is benefiting from that.

Internal recs have typically been a 'insider track' to getting hired. I'm in favor of it when the candidates are qualified. I'm not in favor of lowering standards to give a 'favored son', a company employee, or other special criteria, a head start. Companies have had issues with that in the past.

It's been an issue for decades so guys aren't 'bent' over something new.