Originally Posted by waterskisabersw

...so why not just have the conversation? I can see the importance of the logbook in the future when we're becoming the FIRST airline (or professional establishment, I trust the hours as reported by the military) to review somebody's logbook, but right now it's just busy work. The applicant by definition has had multiple checkrides and has seen the FAA/military for at least one advanced turbine rating. If they were able to hoodwink the FAA with their falsified logbook, I very much doubt think that making them show that 1+3=4 and 3+1=4 as well is going to unearth their funny math. I wonder how many people have been disqualified by southwest for their logbook numbers ALONE. Not "didn't follow instructions properly", not "it was the last straw that I just felt something was off", but "this person was great and then I realized they falsified their logbook". I used to do interviews at another carrier, and I only ever disqualified one person on their logbook alone, and even that person's issues were not malicious. Caveat: we were also the first airline to look at their logbook before the faa/APD would have reviewed the logbook for their ATP. We also didn't have an automated system like pilotcredentials (important point as explained below).

The applicant has already jumped through tons of hoops at this point, filled out a ton of paperwork to the specifications demanded by southwest. Do we really need one last hoop with somewhat confusing directions to catch this individual? Why somewhat confusing? Because the paperwork says to be prepared to review the numbers listed on the paperwork, it does not say "have them pre-calculated". Why does that matter? Because pilotcredentials has almost all of those numbers already calculated and reported to the company. It is reasonable to assume you're going to review the numbers as you've already calculated and put into the company's application process, and not realize what you're actually being asked is to "show your work" like on a math test.

In all my decades reading these forums, talking to other pilots, conducting interviews, and talking with management, I have (with the one exception of somebody who made a mistake on their first airline application, as stated above) only ever heard of people being made to sweat during this part of an interview.

In my opinion, if seeing how they operate under pressure, seeing if they can follow instructions, and getting to know them are the only real reasons for this portion of the interview, then it's redundant and a waste of time. All of those things are already done at MULTIPLE other points in both the interview and the application process, and could also be incorporated into the panel interview by just having somebody peruse their logbook while they're answering a hundred TMAAT questions. If we're serious about streamlining this process like so many of you (and swapa) have indicated is important, we're going to need to look at this part of the process. There are many major airlines who don't look at your logbook at all, and it shows in the speed of their turnaround time from initial application to job offer being months shorter than our process.

I couldn't care less about fact checking a logbook from somebody with multiple types and is coming from the airlines or military. All of their checkride failures/dates/etc are already obtainable through FOIA and PRIA as well. When we start interviewing people who have never flown a jet/worked for an airline/military/corporation (I.e.: no Pria/faa reportable logbook review)? I'll admit I'll change my tune on the validity of having a logbook review at all then, but will still think the way we're asking them to break down the numbers is redundant and just ends up making the interview process unpleasant.

Originally Posted by waterskisabersw

If we're serious about streamlining this process like so many of you (and swapa) have indicated is important, we're going to need to look at this part of the process. There are many major airlines who don't look at your logbook at all, and it shows in the speed of their turnaround time from initial application to job offer being months shorter than our process.

Originally Posted by IA Moose

I get that you feel this is a redundant step in the interview, although I’m not sure I agree on every point.
What I am definitely not seeing though is how the logbook review is somehow delaying job offers. We’re not delaying sending out invites in order to buy ourselves (and the applicants) time to parse through numbers, nor are we spending time after the interview ends on it. So worst case one can argue that the logbook session itself is costing us 30 minutes of time that could be spent extending CJOs…..if one really wanted to make that argument.
Having shared stories with dozens if not hundreds of friends from other carriers about some of the characters they’ve flown with I feel pretty comfortable saying on the whole our interview process has served us well in bringing the right types of people onboard. If we had a better contract then we wouldn’t be talking about tinkering with something that has historically worked, so I don’t see a need to advocate fixing something that’s not broken just to relieve pressure on management.

Originally Posted by Champeen07

Absolutely no one is getting rejected because of what’s actually in their logbook and if the numbers are right... what’s in your logbook has literally nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by waterskisabersw

I agree completely. So why go through the bother of it? Why not just have another 30 minute 1 on 1 with the reviewer instead of making it some sort of thinly veiled test?

Originally Posted by Champeen07

... what’s in your logbook has literally nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by waterskisabersw

That strongly implies that meetings were had, deliberations were made, and decisions had to be agreed upon. All of that takes time from management/PD personnel; time that could otherwise be spent screening and extending interview invitations to other applicants.