Quote:
Pilots have to be weighed in terms of asset/liability. If what the pilot brings in line flying is less than what it cost to train him, they're a liability. If they bring in more, they become an asset.
What is it you don't understand about that simple equation?
First, don’t be a tool. Originally Posted by Packrat
Why? There's a financial cost to hiring and training a pilot. It doesn't make sense to hire a 64 year old who may only give you 6 months of line flying before he ages out.Pilots have to be weighed in terms of asset/liability. If what the pilot brings in line flying is less than what it cost to train him, they're a liability. If they bring in more, they become an asset.
What is it you don't understand about that simple equation?
Second, it’s not the equation. It’s that people like you have a “rule of thumb” that says we need 2 years or more. Or in other terms; 63 and under are fine. How many applicants do we get that don’t fit this very selective “rule of thumb?” Do we have a stack of 64 year old applicants trying to come to Spirit so they can be on first year pay and then retire.
So yes, it’s a stupid rule of thumb because it essentially doesn’t rule anyone out and perhaps your “rules of thumb” should include things like “clean record,” “good personality,” flight experience” etc.
Focus Packrat, focus.
Wait, do you even work for Spirit? Or are you that arrogant that you answered a hiring question specifically for one airline, and you work for another, and then share your “rules of thumb” for another airline?
Haha. Pack, come on man