Advice/Help with Delta

TrustMeI'maPilot

TrustMeI'maPilot

Well-Known Member
I really, really want to work for Delta and I'm seeking some insight on their hiring. I'm lucky enough to have a few friends helping me by reviewing my app and giving me an internal rec, unfortunately haven't heard a peep yet. I'm in the 91 world so I don't have a lot of contacts at the airlines but I'm going to OBAP in August and I'm excited to talk to a recruiter. Until then I feel like I'm having to sitting on my hands here. Is there anything else I can be doing to get some facetime?

My main question, and @Derg would probably be the most helpful here, is about recent flight time. The plane I was flying went away earlier this year at my company, but they kept me on full-time salary as a desk employee (very grateful to them for it). So I've barely been flying, couple of contract trips here and there and I'm getting a flight review soon. How important is this to them?
 
I may be way off base here, but do you have any 121 time? If you don't, I'd imagine that may be hurting your chances.
 
JustinS said:
I may be way off base here, but do you have any 121 time? If you don't, I'd imagine that may be hurting your chances.
Click to expand...

While not having a ton of 121 time may not be looked on favorably, I think the recency of experience is a bigger factor. It's hard coming from the corporate/135/91K world. I have a few good buddies who fly corporate and have gobs of TPIC, 4 year, etc and can't get hired. One of them even has a dad at UA and he hasn't even been able to get an interview.
 
I think they wanted to see something like 200 hours in the past 12 months....dont quote me on that though
 
From listening to the various airlines presentations at job fairs I do recall them saying recency is big for non military and that they like people from "known quantities" aka military, regionals or large very well known flight departments. Since the airplane is gone I'd heavily consider trying to get on at a ULCC/LCC carrier to get 121 current.
 
Last edited:
ClarkGriswold said:
From listening to the various airlines presentations at job fairs I do recall them saying recency is big for non military and that they like people from "known quantities" aka military, regionals or large very well known flight departments. Since the airplane is gone I'd heavily consider trying to get on at a ULCC/LCC carrier to get 121 current.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'd definitely go to one of the LCC's right now. I have an app in with all of them but probably won't hear anything until I can get some face time in August. The only thing I'm trying to avoid is the regionals.
 
ClarkGriswold said:
From listening to the various airlines presentations at job fairs I do recall them saying recency is big for non military and that they like people from "known quantities" aka military, regionals or large very well known flight departments.
Click to expand...

Ironic.

Probably the most important attribute of a good pilot is his/her ability to exercise sound judgement in a fluid environment and make good decisions. Sooooooo, therefore, the airlines, allegedly filled with good pilots, abrogate their decision-making responsibility and abandon their judgement for the hassle-free (read fear-free) convenience of HR departments checking boxes as an arbitrary proxy for reality!?

I like that you put "known quantities" in quotes. Speaking only from my own experiences with many pilots from many backgrounds, I would definitely NOT make any assumptions about the consistency of product coming out of any particular aviation training or experience background. I've seen pilots with "perfect" resumés who hand flew like new students, others who made decisions like drunken despots. And I've seen pilots with "perfect" resumés who demonstrated capabilities close to perfection. It's the person, not the paper. It's the walk, not the talk. The FOI, and other reliable sources inform us that learning is a demonstrated change in behavior based on experience; It's not the experience itself, and it's not the paper stating that the experience allegedly took place.

So, all you HR Potentates: ... Don't Abrogate! Have 'em Demonstrate!*

Screening for hire is a lot like testing, or should be anyway, and could take a clue from testing science. The hiring process is a test seeking to measure something. So a good place to start would be to define -explicitly- what that something is. Then design a tool to test for that something... a tool that is Comprehensive, Reliable, Valid, Discriminating (no, not that kind), and Usable.

Nowhere in any exegeses of testing have I ever seen listed "eliminating fear" or "avoiding lawsuits" as desired testing characteristic goals.

And nowhere in any scientific research of any kind have I ever seen "reliance on vague assumptions" used as a proof of fact.

(Preemptive rebuttal to the $-based "usability" replies: Part of Usability is efficiency of grading... but NOT to the elimination or significant degradation of any of the other characteristics. I mean, if you look at Usability as ONLY efficiency, i.e dollars, you can then think of all the other characteristics as the products you are buying with your dollars. If you focus so greatly on usability (cost) that you end up with limited reliability, validity, and discrimination... then what the heck are you paying for?? It becomes kinda like my ol' Uncle Burt used to say, "Quality, Speed, or Price: Pick any Two!")

*In many cases, don't even bother with that; just give the job to the people capable of doing the job, and then fire yourselves for incompetence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Crop Duster said:
Ironic. Probably the most important attribute of a good pilot is his/her ability to exercise sound judgement in a fluid environment and make good decisions. Sooooooo, therefore, the airlines, allegedly filled with good pilots, abrogate their decision-making responsibility and abandon their judgement for the hassle-free (read fear-free) convenience of HR departments checking boxes as an arbitrary proxy for reality!?

I like that you put "known quantities" in quotes. Speaking only from my own experiences with many pilots from many backgrounds, I would definitely NOT make any assumptions about the consistency of product coming out of any particular aviation training or experience background. I've seen pilots with "perfect" resumés who hand flew like new students, others who made decisions like drunken despots. And I've seen pilots with "perfect" resumés who demonstrated capabilities close to perfection. It's the person, not the paper. It's the walk, not the talk. The FOI, and other reliable sources inform us that learning is a demonstrated change in behavior based on experience; It's not the experience itself, and it's not the paper stating that the experience allegedly took place.

So, all you HR Potentates: ... Don't Abrogate! Have 'em Demonstrate!*

Screening for hire is a lot like testing, or should be anyway, and could take a clue from testing science. The hiring process is a test seeking to measure something. So a good place to start would be to define -explicitly- what that something is. Then design a tool to test for that something... a tool that is Comprehensive, Reliable, Valid, Discriminating (no, not that kind), and Usable.

Nowhere in any exegeses of testing have I ever seen listed "eliminating fear" or "avoiding lawsuits" as desired testing characteristic goals.

And nowhere in any scientific research of any kind have I ever seen "reliance on vague assumptions" used as a proof of fact.

(Preemptive rebuttal to the $-based "usability" replies: Part of Usability is efficiency of grading... but NOT to the elimination or significant degradation of any of the other characteristics. I mean, if you look at Usability as ONLY efficiency, i.e dollars, you can then think of all the other characteristics as the products you are buying with your dollars. If you focus so greatly on usability (cost) that you end up with limited reliability, validity, and discrimination... then what the heck are you paying for?? It becomes kinda like my ol' Uncle Burt used to say, "Quality, Speed, or Price: Pick any Two!")

*In many cases, don't even bother with that; just give the job to the people capable of doing the job, and then fire yourselves for incompetence.
Click to expand...
borat-thumbs-up.jpg
 
Last edited:
Crop Duster said:
Ironic.

Probably the most important attribute of a good pilot is his/her ability to exercise sound judgement in a fluid environment and make good decisions. Sooooooo, therefore, the airlines, allegedly filled with good pilots, abrogate their decision-making responsibility and abandon their judgement for the hassle-free (read fear-free) convenience of HR departments checking boxes as an arbitrary proxy for reality!?

I like that you put "known quantities" in quotes. Speaking only from my own experiences with many pilots from many backgrounds, I would definitely NOT make any assumptions about the consistency of product coming out of any particular aviation training or experience background. I've seen pilots with "perfect" resumés who hand flew like new students, others who made decisions like drunken despots. And I've seen pilots with "perfect" resumés who demonstrated capabilities close to perfection. It's the person, not the paper. It's the walk, not the talk. The FOI, and other reliable sources inform us that learning is a demonstrated change in behavior based on experience; It's not the experience itself, and it's not the paper stating that the experience allegedly took place.

So, all you HR Potentates: ... Don't Abrogate! Have 'em Demonstrate!*

Screening for hire is a lot like testing, or should be anyway, and could take a clue from testing science. The hiring process is a test seeking to measure something. So a good place to start would be to define -explicitly- what that something is. Then design a tool to test for that something... a tool that is Comprehensive, Reliable, Valid, Discriminating (no, not that kind), and Usable.

Nowhere in any exegeses of testing have I ever seen listed "eliminating fear" or "avoiding lawsuits" as desired testing characteristic goals.

And nowhere in any scientific research of any kind have I ever seen "reliance on vague assumptions" used as a proof of fact.

(Preemptive rebuttal to the $-based "usability" replies: Part of Usability is efficiency of grading... but NOT to the elimination or significant degradation of any of the other characteristics. I mean, if you look at Usability as ONLY efficiency, i.e dollars, you can then think of all the other characteristics as the products you are buying with your dollars. If you focus so greatly on usability (cost) that you end up with limited reliability, validity, and discrimination... then what the heck are you paying for?? It becomes kinda like my ol' Uncle Burt used to say, "Quality, Speed, or Price: Pick any Two!")

*In many cases, don't even bother with that; just give the job to the people capable of doing the job, and then fire yourselves for incompetence.
Click to expand...
¿Que?
 
Crop Duster said:
Ironic.

Probably the most important attribute of a good pilot is his/her ability to exercise sound judgement in a fluid environment and make good decisions. Sooooooo, therefore, the airlines, allegedly filled with good pilots, abrogate their decision-making responsibility and abandon their judgement for the hassle-free (read fear-free) convenience of HR departments checking boxes as an arbitrary proxy for reality!?

I like that you put "known quantities" in quotes. Speaking only from my own experiences with many pilots from many backgrounds, I would definitely NOT make any assumptions about the consistency of product coming out of any particular aviation training or experience background. I've seen pilots with "perfect" resumés who hand flew like new students, others who made decisions like drunken despots. And I've seen pilots with "perfect" resumés who demonstrated capabilities close to perfection. It's the person, not the paper. It's the walk, not the talk. The FOI, and other reliable sources inform us that learning is a demonstrated change in behavior based on experience; It's not the experience itself, and it's not the paper stating that the experience allegedly took place.

So, all you HR Potentates: ... Don't Abrogate! Have 'em Demonstrate!*

Screening for hire is a lot like testing, or should be anyway, and could take a clue from testing science. The hiring process is a test seeking to measure something. So a good place to start would be to define -explicitly- what that something is. Then design a tool to test for that something... a tool that is Comprehensive, Reliable, Valid, Discriminating (no, not that kind), and Usable.

Nowhere in any exegeses of testing have I ever seen listed "eliminating fear" or "avoiding lawsuits" as desired testing characteristic goals.

And nowhere in any scientific research of any kind have I ever seen "reliance on vague assumptions" used as a proof of fact.

(Preemptive rebuttal to the $-based "usability" replies: Part of Usability is efficiency of grading... but NOT to the elimination or significant degradation of any of the other characteristics. I mean, if you look at Usability as ONLY efficiency, i.e dollars, you can then think of all the other characteristics as the products you are buying with your dollars. If you focus so greatly on usability (cost) that you end up with limited reliability, validity, and discrimination... then what the heck are you paying for?? It becomes kinda like my ol' Uncle Burt used to say, "Quality, Speed, or Price: Pick any Two!")

*In many cases, don't even bother with that; just give the job to the people capable of doing the job, and then fire yourselves for incompetence.
Click to expand...


Why don't you do those looking for a job at Delta a favor and post this to their pilot recruiting Facebook page with your name attached to it.
 
Seggy said:
Why don't you do those looking for a job at Delta a favor and post this to their pilot recruiting Facebook page with your name attached to it.
Click to expand...
Because Facebook is a whole other kind of unquestioned "new-norm" nightmare. Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent. Sheesh, who'd-a-thunk the world would get so inured to vacuous, noxious babble that that guy would eventually sound wise.
Happy to send it to Delta though, if you are seriously asking.
 
Crop Duster said:
Ironic.

Probably the most important attribute of a good pilot is his/her ability to exercise sound judgement in a fluid environment and make good decisions. Sooooooo, therefore, the airlines, allegedly filled with good pilots, abrogate their decision-making responsibility and abandon their judgement for the hassle-free (read fear-free) convenience of HR departments checking boxes as an arbitrary proxy for reality!?

I like that you put "known quantities" in quotes. Speaking only from my own experiences with many pilots from many backgrounds, I would definitely NOT make any assumptions about the consistency of product coming out of any particular aviation training or experience background. I've seen pilots with "perfect" resumés who hand flew like new students, others who made decisions like drunken despots. And I've seen pilots with "perfect" resumés who demonstrated capabilities close to perfection. It's the person, not the paper. It's the walk, not the talk. The FOI, and other reliable sources inform us that learning is a demonstrated change in behavior based on experience; It's not the experience itself, and it's not the paper stating that the experience allegedly took place.

So, all you HR Potentates: ... Don't Abrogate! Have 'em Demonstrate!*

Screening for hire is a lot like testing, or should be anyway, and could take a clue from testing science. The hiring process is a test seeking to measure something. So a good place to start would be to define -explicitly- what that something is. Then design a tool to test for that something... a tool that is Comprehensive, Reliable, Valid, Discriminating (no, not that kind), and Usable.

Nowhere in any exegeses of testing have I ever seen listed "eliminating fear" or "avoiding lawsuits" as desired testing characteristic goals.

And nowhere in any scientific research of any kind have I ever seen "reliance on vague assumptions" used as a proof of fact.

(Preemptive rebuttal to the $-based "usability" replies: Part of Usability is efficiency of grading... but NOT to the elimination or significant degradation of any of the other characteristics. I mean, if you look at Usability as ONLY efficiency, i.e dollars, you can then think of all the other characteristics as the products you are buying with your dollars. If you focus so greatly on usability (cost) that you end up with limited reliability, validity, and discrimination... then what the heck are you paying for?? It becomes kinda like my ol' Uncle Burt used to say, "Quality, Speed, or Price: Pick any Two!")

*In many cases, don't even bother with that; just give the job to the people capable of doing the job, and then fire yourselves for incompetence.
Click to expand...

Probably one of the most eloquent, thoughtful and most truthful posts I have ever read on the subject. Too many good guys being left on the outside and too many tools getting hired because of a checked box.
 
Crop Duster said:
Ironic.

Probably the most important attribute of a good pilot is his/her ability to exercise sound judgement in a fluid environment and make good decisions. Sooooooo, therefore, the airlines, allegedly filled with good pilots, abrogate their decision-making responsibility and abandon their judgement for the hassle-free (read fear-free) convenience of HR departments checking boxes as an arbitrary proxy for reality!?

I like that you put "known quantities" in quotes. Speaking only from my own experiences with many pilots from many backgrounds, I would definitely NOT make any assumptions about the consistency of product coming out of any particular aviation training or experience background. I've seen pilots with "perfect" resumés who hand flew like new students, others who made decisions like drunken despots. And I've seen pilots with "perfect" resumés who demonstrated capabilities close to perfection. It's the person, not the paper. It's the walk, not the talk. The FOI, and other reliable sources inform us that learning is a demonstrated change in behavior based on experience; It's not the experience itself, and it's not the paper stating that the experience allegedly took place.

So, all you HR Potentates: ... Don't Abrogate! Have 'em Demonstrate!*

Screening for hire is a lot like testing, or should be anyway, and could take a clue from testing science. The hiring process is a test seeking to measure something. So a good place to start would be to define -explicitly- what that something is. Then design a tool to test for that something... a tool that is Comprehensive, Reliable, Valid, Discriminating (no, not that kind), and Usable.

Nowhere in any exegeses of testing have I ever seen listed "eliminating fear" or "avoiding lawsuits" as desired testing characteristic goals.

And nowhere in any scientific research of any kind have I ever seen "reliance on vague assumptions" used as a proof of fact.

(Preemptive rebuttal to the $-based "usability" replies: Part of Usability is efficiency of grading... but NOT to the elimination or significant degradation of any of the other characteristics. I mean, if you look at Usability as ONLY efficiency, i.e dollars, you can then think of all the other characteristics as the products you are buying with your dollars. If you focus so greatly on usability (cost) that you end up with limited reliability, validity, and discrimination... then what the heck are you paying for?? It becomes kinda like my ol' Uncle Burt used to say, "Quality, Speed, or Price: Pick any Two!")

*In many cases, don't even bother with that; just give the job to the people capable of doing the job, and then fire yourselves for incompetence.
Click to expand...

Delta's safety record suggests to me that their HR department is doing a pretty good job of hiring pilots.
 
"Known quantity" to me means they've been vetted. They've past multiple check rides and "gates". Every 6-12 months they go for a check ride to do it again. Military even more so (I assume). Corporate, 91, private owner...not so much.

Didn't we have this thread already though?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top