PicklePausePull

Typical red herring argument. Avoid the real topic and point out a grammatical error, as if a spelling error destroys the argument. Where did you get your degree from? Maybe the algorithm should exclude that school? "Hey, the QRH says do X. Awe man, don't you see the spelling error in the QRH, forget it. It's out to lunch."

PicklePausePull

Maybe it's for a reason. Could it be that younger, less experienced pilots make for a more docile crew vis-a-vis standing up against contractual violations; care less about the A-plan the company wishes to discard; expect less pay since they are already getting paid more than twice their previous rate at commuter X, and have not been furloughed, have not flown for multiple carriers, or been on multiple deployments? It's like making first string without first building the requisite experience needed to play in a more difficult league. Are you then going to argue about salary and work rules. Probably less likely. "Just happy to be here boss."

If we agree in general that the standards have been lowered, and that we pilots have been largely removed from the selection process, even prejudiced for offering a recommendation, then there must be a reason for the company to have done so. What final product is the company trying to achieve? Is safety really a priority? Safety comes with experience (among other things). Hiring candidates with minimum PIC Turbine time and placing them into FDA's and the hard to land MD-11 hardly seems like a safe course of action, particularly after all the admonitions from the company over the past eight years since our last accident. So one would think there must be another reason to pass on so many qualified, experienced candidates, and chose the young, relatively inexperienced candidate.

TonyC

Perhaps you don't understand the difference between objective and subjective.

The fact that you entered your "data" into a computer does not mean the selection was objective. When scores and weights are attached to those numbers based on judgments made by psychologists and preferences of lawyers, the selection is decidely subjective. Which college is better? That's subjective. How many hours, too many, too few, are best? That's subjective. Every criteria considered is weighted by a subjective judgment, and none of those judgments are being made by pilots.



So, not only are you an expert on hiring at FedEx, you're an expert on hiring industry-wide. Your talents are being underutilized, I'm certain. You should call Pilot Recruiting and make an appointment to visit and offer your services.



What a condescending remark.

I DID read your comment in context, and reading it again doesn't change a thing.


Do you believe it has never been the case in the past that we've been privileged to pick candidates out of thousands of applicants? You act like this is a new phenomenon, and the only process with which you are familiar must be the only way it can be done.

It's not new, and it's not the only way.


You're correct, for once. Your point is not mute. It is MOOT. Look it up.


Your main point was, "... that here at FDX, it’s FDX pilots interviewing and scoring pilot candidates."

FedEx pilots do NOT have the chance to look at the entire population of applicants. They only get to look at the pilots who pass through the initial screening, which gets ZERO pilot input. They only get to look at the pilots approved by the psychologist and the lawyers -- you know, the same lawyers who sit on the OTHER side of the negotiating table and negotiate AGAINST us during CBA negotiations, the same lawyers who sit on the OTHER side of the table during discipline and termination hearings. You don't think they have a bias?


I'm sure you know who's just as qualified or more qualified based on your vast experience and successful application process. Since the process picked you, it must be the best process, right? After all, you were entitled to be successful, and this process gave you what was owed.

I think you're starting to prove my earlier point. We should fly together, soon. I'll buy dinner, and you can educate me.







.

JollyF15

I won't even try to add anything to Tony C's SNAP Intervention (SNAP = Sensitive New Age Pilots). I would not label all the new hires as SNAPs. The young CRJ new hires I've had the pleasure of working with have been very impressive. But it's obvious by some of the responses on this thread that the lawyers have been actively recruiting SNAPs. You are the gift that keeps on giving. You continue proving our point that PILOTS should be doing pilot s--t, and lawyers should be doing lawyer s--t.

WARNING - that was intended to be Microaggressive

ShyGuy

Clearly that similie face/joke went over your head. But I get it. You’re telling ‘millenial’ newhires to tone it down because they only had 1,000 hrs PIC, and not 3,000 pic, combat experience, medals, and bush flying. Basically, you think these people made it at FedEx who shouldn’t have because to you they don’t seem as qualified as apparently your buddies there. And that they should just count their lucky blessings they are here, and probably because pilots are having less and less say in hiring, and moreso say with HR. I’m sure most of them didn’t work hard at all to get to where they are, those bragging milenials

Shaman

PicklePausePull

That's precisely what I'm saying, and for many, it shows in both their flying skills and their entitlement mentality. Not all, mind you, but plenty. And yes, it is a good bet that a population of pilots with the skills and experience you mention will be eminently more qualified than the average joe with the minimums quals on paper. Have you flown with some of our 25 year olds yet?

HIFLYR

I have and also trained them and your military brothers. I have seen bad airmanship and attitude from both groups in the jet and even in initial training. I never judge anyone by their background but by their actions and current attitude. I have seen civilians who have only flown turboprops who could fly the living daylights out of the aircraft, were standard and had great attitudes. I have seen the same thing from military guys and gals. Usually the problem children of BOTH groups either have issues at home or threat this job as it gets in the way of hobbies or another side business. If you experience bad airmanship or attitude avail yourself of the PEP during probation and ALPA Professional Standards afterward. Hey I tell everybody be the Captain you wanted to fly with and if a F/O be the F/O you wanted to fly with. This simple thing can make a good day great and bad day bearable.

I get you might think civilians might be sub standard have attitudes but both groups have their 10%. I went to fly with a former Colonel who I did not know and I like to give away the first leg so I offered it to him. The destination had relatively windy and stormy conditions forecast so I stated were had plenty of extra gas if a go/around was necessary. He looked over at me and said "just because you sit over there does not mean you are better than me" I sat there stunned and thought about my reply and I said "you know what I agree but it does not mean I am not better either and I am the Captain so do we have a problem?"

Sluggo_63

Oh, that’s rich... wait... you were serious? That’s even funnier. Pot..kettle

UnusualAttitude

This entire thread is embarrassing and not reflective of 99.9% of the experience of working for Purple.

We have an excellent crew force with diverse backgrounds. Most embrace this as well we should.

-UA