Those turnover numbers are astounding. I was hired when BK was in charge and never heard of anything like this. I don't know if I just didn't hear about it then or if things changed in the selection process.

Either way, I don't think anyone else fires nearly that many newhires.

I don’t doubt he said that but I would guess it’s not true, at least anymore. The 737 fleet at one point got to 44% but that has dropped back down to around 17%. I understand that it’s just one fleet and so when that was high, combined with the 320 and 757 it could have gotten to 60% but I would be willing to bet that’s not what it is now.

If this "retrain" rate is true then it's higher than anytime in the history of UAL. This includes when we used to have to "build" the airplane through orals and such.

Basically I have a really hard time believing those numbers and would ask what "retrain" means and how many are unable to complete in the required number of hours.

The FAA does monitor all approved training programs and when the recheck, exceeding hours required and other "retraining" issue happen they put the program under the microscope. The FAA also has the opportunity/ability to step in and take over the program if it is having problems.

Again, especially considering the experience level of today's new hires, I really have difficulty believing this. The LCA probably heard it from a F/A who's boyfriend/significant other/husband/wife told them.

Agreed, as I said, the 737 is currently around 17%... and just to clarify, In TK lingo a retrain is an extra training event to prepare for a validation and technically can happen on any lesson. A retrain doesn’t necessarily mean that a validation was UNSAT and most frequently does not occur on the validation itself....

It means that 60% are requiring a repeat of at least one training event. While high, I don’t find that number unbelievable.

Exactly. A repeat of a particular lesson isn’t uncommon, nor a big deal.

It’s when it becomes a repetitive pattern in the trainees performance and has to be kicked up to a higher level that it becomes something to worry about.

How bad are these attitude problems for CAs to report the person? How much weight do CAs have in reporting such pilots?

What’s worse are the deniers that will come on here and emphatically repudiate this well known but buried topic.

First part, second part, or BOTH PARTS?

Private parts.