baseball

He was still in learning mode. I think he is where he is and that isn't a bad thing necessarily. He will need to grow up both personally and professionally. Didn't see his flying ability, he was Bunkie.

My over-riding point is this: Lets focus harder on getting folks that have paid their dues, either in the private company ranks, or the military ranks. A dues paying member in good standing is what we want from an ALPA point of view, and to take that to the hiring realm, lets go after folks that have paid their dues and know what's what. They've earned a shot. Passing on a 23 year old instructor in favor of a 30 to 35 year old pilot with great and varied flight time is both an indicator of their commitment to the profession, and a good barometer of the experience they have had. We should be bringing in more experience, not less. We should be bringing in more knowledge, not less. We should be bringing in more maturity, not less. We should be bringing in more varied experience, not less.

If you were hiring a mechanic to work on your BMW, would you hire a mechanic that just finished hand-tool training, or would you find a guy that knows his way around a German engine? I know it's a rough edge example, but experience is such a great teacher. Hiring folks with less of it, does not make us better. It can't.

Our focus should not be lets teach a kid to fly a kite, it should be lets get this guy who has flown lots of kites in varied weather and operational conditions, who has some experience and wisdom to offer and lets mix that in the bowl of other ingredients we have here to make us better.

A kid fresh out of flight school is going to have a stellar safety record....Less opportunities to goof it up, so that's a plus. But, of course, less opportunities to learn and build aeronautical decision making skills.

Seems so logical....

baseball

I did fly with two former and retired military guys as half wingers in the last year. Great dudes. Glad we hired them before DAL and AA did. May depend on what fleet you are on and what base because I think the more junior folks tend to go to east or west coast.

baseball

I like the way the minors do it. Single A, Double A and Triple A. It has to do with learning the game at a speed you can handle. I know a few guys who were drafted right out of HS. One made it to the show quickly, the other did not. Both said they wish they had the time in the lower grades of ball to get the maturity they needed to play the game the right way. Coaches call it paying their dues. That gives them time to see which ones to bring up, who is ready.

I think ALPA calls it career path and career progression.

What's the difference? My baseball analogy may be the best answer. the best predictor of future performance is past performance. If someone has a good track record of making it through training, good experience with no accidents, then they have a track record. You get maturity along the way. Now you have a candidate that has worked hard, kept his nose clean, and has earned a shot. I would rather hire a candidate that his put in the work into the profession, than someone who just got all his ratings and instructed for a bit.

Seems so logical...

baseball

Not trying to attempt to hi-jack your response to the other fella, but I have a question.....Why do we not do a sim check? Seems if we did this in the interview process that would help build a better picture of the applicant. Not having to rely solely on HR mumbo-jumbo.

MasterOfPuppets

Your baseball analogy is a good one. I loved flying 135 learned a ton. When you are single pilot in the **** you grow up real quick. I actually miss that flying sometimes over the North Pacific.....then I remember all of my Adrenalin rushes and appreciate my 787.

Here’s the problem with the baseball analogy. The path is no longer curved and rocky, it’s a straight line from a Cessna to a jet. The last pilots that actually took the steps were hired by UA in the 90s. These were the pilots that instructed for ever just to get 1500 hours to get a job flying Navajos. Then finally moved up to Metros, Shorts and Bandits flying TRUE regional routes where you barely left the state.

Those operators don’t exist anymore and regionals fly 1000 mi routes. So what’s the difference being hired into a 76 seat jet flying LGA - ORD or getting hired into an A320 flying LGA - ORD? Is the entire argument that they need to go bother someone else with their lack of experience so I can get a cleaner pilot? What are those “Forced to upgrade” regional pilots that have 2000 hrs going to teach that new FO that’s going to make him better for us?

****I get the history of the pilot argument and it’s a good one, I also agree our training foot print is NOT conducive to a successful Pass rate from someone with no 121 Jet time.*****

Broncofan

That line of thinking makes no sense. Whether it's United express on the side of the plane or United, the big letters say UNITED. If I had a newbie to 121 I would rather have a very seasoned mainline united captain showing him/her the ropes rather than a 6 month upgrade captain at a regional . If something bad happens on an express flight it effect everyone at mainline. I'd rather be in more control over the situation.

Also if we were to take 76 seater on mainline today would you have a problem hiring CFI's? If you say yes then that's comical.

757Driver

Sorry, a 50 seater vs one that holds 250+ is not in the same league. There's a reason we all had to serve our time at either the minors and/or the military, its called experience. Putting CFI's directly into the right seat only means that our Captains are going to be awfully busy giving unpaid flying lessons as well as being overly vigilant when it comes time to take the aircraft away from said newby when they f' up.

We supposedly get paid the big bucks because we've brought experience to the equation and can be counted on when the sh!t hits the fan. IMHO, Brand new CFI's, not so much.

MasterOfPuppets

A 50 seater flies 4-5 legs a day. if the hub is socked in they are getting de-iced all day, landing on snowy iced up runways, in the summer they spend all day dodging thunderstorm and dealing with wind shear, tarmac delays, maintenance issues......etc.

A 250 seat jet takes off and lands 12hrs later. I haven’t been de-iced in 3 years, I haven’t shot an ILS in months, I barely talk on the radio thanks to CPDLC.

An average RJ pilot flies 4 legs a day (16) legs a trip. The most dangerous part of flying according to the NTSB is approach and landing. RJ pilots are in that approach and landing phase 56 times a month! It would take a 250 seat jet pilot, flying 3 trips a month, 9 months to equal that.

So yeah.....your damn right they are in different leagues, just not the leagues you think. To me it would be the safest if all the experience flew the 50 seaters and the CFIs flew the 250 seaters

John Carr

It's been proven, a sim check really isn't a good indicator of........anything.

Pre 9/11 in the basement of TK FRASCA or whatever, the thing was such a disaster it didn't really check much. Besides, all you had to do was pay for the prep and get a few practice passes in and BOOM, you knew how to fly the FRASCA but it didn't prove anything else.

At L-CAL, they used a MD80 sim. SAME THING, I saw some of the weakest pilots get through it. When we used the 73, SAME THING. Pay for the prep the night before.

FedEx used to use a sim eval, they don't anymore. At the time, FedEx had a much, much tighter filter with A LOT of very experienced guys getting the interview. RJ LCA's with 10,000+ hours, former ACMI/Heavy MD11/74 qualified, mil heavy and fighter pilots with well above the minimum AD commitment flight times and many of them DIDN'T get through it.

757Driver

Then I guess that's exactly what they should be doing after they get their CFI. Way less lives on the line and as soon as they build up the prerequisite time necessary, they get hired over here. Up until several years ago I always felt that our hiring practices were fairly solid.