I think you’ve summed up your views quite succinctly. I don’t think you’re alone in that view, but I do think you are (ironically) in the minority. My point was that I think UAL management is betting on that being the case.

I agree with your first statement 100%. As to whether that creates a “confusing hiring metric”, I’m not with you. A person’s skills & knowledge should be commensurate to their experience. When you’re hiring a zero experience guy, you can only assess his general aptitude to being taught/trained. When you’re hiring someone who’s already been trained & has real-world professional experience, his technical skills & knowledge are very much germane to assessing his overall aptitude. It would be ludicrous to evaluate a zero-experience prospect & an experienced 121 pilot by the same metric.
I don’t know why you think I’d be able to speak specifically to a second-hand rumor from a UND text thread, but obviously I have no ability to verify or invalidate anything you’re claiming. I can only point out that I never claimed to know that UAL is not hiring under-qualified candidates. I’m not a hiring or a training guy & I’m not connected to either of those worlds. I only ever said that it is possible to have diversity initiatives without compromising safety; and I’ve taken issue with people who claim safety & diversity are necessarily mutually exclusive. Perhaps you’ve misunderstood me to be speaking specifically when I was making more general claims? I’ve frequently stated that if UAL is hiring measurably unqualified candidates in the name of diversity that I’d be as upset as anyone else.

In just 2 posts, you've proven you have the writing skills of a 10 year old. I sincerely hope your flying skills are better than your writing skills, otherwise your "safest pilot" argument completely falls apart.

In an industry filled with legacy hires and family connections, it's hypocrisy to claim that you all want "merit-based" hiring.

Who cares if someone got their experience through Aviate, or Daddy's Bonanza. Help is help.

As long as they are trained to proficiency, then it's all the same.

Maybe in places like San Francisco and other blue cities of liberal thought, but not in America as a whole. But who knows? your opinion could be the majority but I really doubt it.

forced?? word choice in some of the comments is illuminating.

phase one - cast and advertise a very wide net for good candidates starting at zero hours (military does similar) and one not relying on applicant’s access to family plane, family connections to airlines, etc etc

phase two - train and vet those successful candidates thoroughly to meet and exceed our own standards and expectations

phase three: profit!! (sorry, South Park reference) - get well qualified pilots who have come from a much larger applicant pool than one typically finds AND avoid falling victim to a diminishing pipeline of qualified candidates from military and regional background

on what planet is this a bad thing?

Bump

I haven’t heard anything. Any ideas?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

22nd


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aviate big change… Feb 22nd
 

Pilot rumor mill is in full swing…

Rumor:

1. Aviate will be changing to a flow (for all) at certain carriers.

2. No further interviews required.

Looking for thoughts and insight on this as a possibility.

Any talks of reducing the requirements?

For which component?

Hours / length of service / degree… etc. Figured if they’re lowering standards for their traditional applicants that they might as well apply the same standard to Aviate

No idea, but since there are several tracks under the Aviate umbrella, I wasn’t sure what you were referring to. I haven’t heard that they were lowering standards for traditional applicants, though.