Wedding Ring too big (Fedex)
Would have loved to hear the telephone conversation to the lead in EWR(?) giving them the heads-up on that one.
11-05-2010, 05:23 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: Excessed B-727 Capt
Posts: 115
11-05-2010, 05:32 AM
#25
Eats shoots and leaves...
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Didactic Synthetic Aviation Experience Provider
Posts: 849
It's kind of impossible for anyone with limited connections to get in the door. Yet, somehow we end up with close to a 50/50 mix in the last few waves (when 3 recs became the norm). So, obviously some of them have made enough connections and you're barking up the wrong tree.
11-05-2010, 12:21 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: MD-11 FO
Posts: 608
I don't think 'your read" is very accurate or verifiable. My very large new hire class (think large sample) was less than 20% civilian back in 2005. I can't believe other classes would swing in the opposite direction enough to skew the numbers to anything close to 50/50. I tend to hear this argument a lot from military guys attempting to downplay their advantage and gloss over the bias in the previous meet-n-greet system.
11-05-2010, 12:22 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: MD-11 FO
Posts: 608
11-05-2010, 12:43 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
I don't think 'your read" is very accurate or verifiable. My very large new hire class (think large sample) was less than 20% civilian back in 2005. I can't believe other classes would swing in the opposite direction enough to skew the numbers to anything close to 50/50. I tend to hear this argument a lot from military guys attempting to downplay their advantage and gloss over the bias in the previous meet-n-greet system.
Give us some facts on hiring data, I do not have the desire to research it. Sounds important to you so perhaps you have the desire. Regardless "nigh on impossible" is not an accurate statement. I would say 20% is a repudiation of the nigh on impossible for a civilian to get hired statement.
11-05-2010, 01:00 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: Excessed WB Capt.
Posts: 1,084
The mix seems to me to be 80/20. I can fly a whole month with nothing but AFA graduates.
I was hired in 96 with three recs with one a flying rec.
Why people write up this stupid stuff is beyond me. I only write up which is required or that which I feel is unsafe and needs to be addressed. I think some of the guys do it just to be funny.
I was hired in 96 with three recs with one a flying rec.
Why people write up this stupid stuff is beyond me. I only write up which is required or that which I feel is unsafe and needs to be addressed. I think some of the guys do it just to be funny.
11-05-2010, 01:18 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: MD-11 FO
Posts: 608
Give us some facts on hiring data, I do not have the desire to research it. Sounds important to you so perhaps you have the desire. Regardless "nigh on impossible" is not an accurate statement. I would say 20% is a repudiation of the nigh on impossible for a civilian to get hired statement.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
