RedeyeAV8r

Excuse me, maybe I have had 1 too many single malts and am missing your point.

I sponsored a friend who got hired when I was only on property 6 months!
I sponsored 2 more who got hired in the next few years. i was a veteran then with 4 years at FedEx by then. Was I senior? Yes I was a senior 727 Second Officer I suppose. You think our hiring process is broken?

The only thing that was broken is when a former SCP refused to hire or even look at furloughed guys. That was FU imho.

As far as we "Hire too many Ex-military" Since when? Look at the data of our most recent new hires (granted it was 3 years ago) It was pretty close to 50/50 Mil/civilian. Look at the bulk of the Purple nuggets ( I still hate that term) , Most were from the regionals because they had Glass experience.

17 years ago (and prior) we hired pretty much exclusive military. That was also pretty much standard in the majors. Look at Delta back then, they hired almost 100% ex military. Was that bad? Back then there weren't regional pilots. There were commuter pilots who mostly only had Prop experience. That has all changed in the last 15 as the military pipeline has dried up and now Regionals fly RJs, not to mention the salaries aren't once they once were and many military pilots do not want to take the pay cut.

Personally, I like our hiring process. yes there is some politics but tell me where that isn't a factor. FedEx still has a pretty good hiring system. I'll take human choices over a computer picking candidates off a scanner sheet any day.

But that is just one man's opinion.

990Convair

I for one do believe our interview process is F'd up. First of all, you have to know AND have flown with somebody? That caters to the Military squadron ranks (no mil/civ bashing intended). So, if my neighbor is a 10 year regional Captain, I have to go fly with them to THEN recommend them? Idiotic, if they are flying at a 121 carrier or in the armed forces, then they should be able to fly.

Then you have the Sim eval, which is a joke. There is no approach, and no landing? ***? Oh, in my previous 7 years at a regional we got clearances like "climb at 500' feet per minute and turn 30 degrees left while slowing to 170kts. El stupido. How about seeing if the candidate CAN FLY (you know, train like we fly?).

And we can't forget the written test. Let me tell you, I am much safer with a guy/gal that knows the first 10 elements on the periodic table.

At least the infamous Doctor DT came up with the "situation eval". So you sit in a folding chair in a paper trainer while they tell you that a UPS plane crash landed and you low on gas, what to do! (heard that was discontinued).

I think our process is a joke and not commensurate with one of the largest and greatest airlines in the world.

I have a bud that just interviewed at American Eagle and it sounded like a much more professional process.....

1. First day was a technical eval with a standards check airman - do you know anything about flying and your current plane? Not limitations, more like hangar talk, situational stories.

2. Second day was a sim eval, a REAL one. With a take-off, approach, hold, ILS to a full stop landing.

3. Last day is the Captain's board interview with the VP of flight ops, system chief pilot, and a line captain, Eagle's version of the "personnel interview". Not with some dudes they grab from the flex department.

The decision is made by the VP. Sounds more professional than ours IMO.

And I agree with the previous poster, JL's "not hiring furloughees" was EL STUPIDO.

pipe

I don't dismiss much of what you say, but I do believe that the purple nuggets and the last couple of years of hiring are a misrepresentation of the group as a whole. As a matter of fact, you are really counting the nuggets twice as an exception to my earlier premise.

I just think it looks closer to a political appointment process than a hiring process. I daresay that the quality of your sponsorship can overcome a lot of shortcomings in the interview. But, as you said, that is just one man's opinion.

PIPE

KnightFlyer

Pay per hour, all aircraft:

Captains: $275

F/Os: $195

S/Os: $165

Busboy

Let me see if I've got this straight...Are you saying that I'M only looking out for myself by stating that a raise for only the narrowbodies(15% +/- of our crewforce), in the next contract, might not go over very well? I'd argue that you're the one that can't seem to see past his own nose.

I'd also say about 600 guys on the 757 is probably pretty accurate. Maybe up to 800...I don't know. Traditionally, a domestic narrowbody is crewed to about 3-4 crews per airframe. If we get 100 or so, that would be 600-800 guys, out of 4600. What, do you think we're going to get 400 757s or something?

I too, think the 757 should pay more than the 727 does. Just based on productivity alone it should pay more. But, no raise for widebodies(which with inflation, is effectively a paycut), so we can bring the 757 up to widebody pay? I don't think so.

Overnitefr8

Actually, right now we have approximately 95 in each seat with 20 aircraft and we we're undermanned. Most days there is only 1 F/O on reserve for each reserve period. I'd say 5 -6 crews or slightly more per aircraft would be more accurate for your discussion.

Busboy

Take out the "pay only's" and you have 76 Capts and 74 F/Os. Which fits the 3-4 crews per aircraft profile. Initially, a new aircraft will have a whacky ratio of instructors to pilots that will skew the numbers, as well.

OffRoad5150

It's embarrassing to work for a company that hired, fired and re-hired someone known as "the puppet lady". An accident waiting to happen, and she's got a 777 captain training date!

trashhauler

I seriously doubt that the company had a choice in bringing her back.

KnightFlyer

Talk to the hand!