Some pointers from a friend that worked WAI

What's strange to me is that in the last 2-3 years I used two different prep companies, and at one of them I worked with four different sets of trainers/counselors over as many different seminars I attended.

None of them -- none -- advised not to be totally upfront with busts or training failures. Now, they did advise us to be careful when answering questions in an interview panel so as to not intentionally "damage our brand", but that is a very different statement and objective.

Makes me wonder if these folks who have done it (as evidenced by the specific names of prep companies that Delta listed in their FB post) were actually advised to do that, or if that's what the interviewees wanted to hear when they did interview prep.
 
GypsyPilot said:
One thing I've been wondering lately... What constitutes an institution being "an accredited university"?

I went to a very small but prestigious engineering school that most airline recruiters have likely never heard of. It's not "State U", and it's not an aviation school. Quite frankly I'm somewhat concerned that they may think it's some version of ITT Tech. I even had to email the people at Pilot Credentials awhile back to get it added to their list.

Am I just being paranoid?
Click to expand...

You're being paranoid, no worries.

You can take a peek at what it means here, but do it quick before your buddies budget shuts down the DOE: https://ope.ed.gov/accreditation/
 
Hacker15e said:
What's strange to me is that in the last 2-3 years I used two different prep companies, and at one of them I worked with four different sets of trainers/counselors over as many different seminars I attended.

None of them -- none -- advised not to be totally upfront with busts or training failures. Now, they did advise us to be careful when answering questions in an interview panel so as to not intentionally "damage our brand", but that is a very different statement and objective.

Makes me wonder if these folks who have done it (as evidenced by the specific names of prep companies that Delta listed in their FB post) were actually advised to do that, or if that's what the interviewees wanted to hear when they did interview prep.
Click to expand...

Largely if they want it disclosed, disclose it.

It's not necessarily an "Ah ha! You've had a failure!" it's more of a validator for honesty and attention to detail.

Additionally, your background check, full PRIA review and pulling the NDR doesn't always happen immediately, sometimes after you're in the middle of training or IOE — and there have been instances where people chose to not disclose things that pop up at a later date and the situation can go pear shaped with catlike quickness.

Best to read the question carefully, assuming the most interpretation, and provide a detailed answer.

I can't remember, do I or do I NOT use "The Oxford Comma" when I write? Sorry man, weird Nerdy Derg sidethought.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
I agree, but again it can be used as a quantifying measure to restrict the number of applicants. The current system of ATP mins gets everyone and their mother to apply. That's a good start to start chipping away at the 10,000-15,000 applications on file. And anyone who applies without meeting the mins should get an instant rejection auto reply.

Do you think I ever applied to Southwest? Nope. Not that I have a problem with SWA or the 737. It's because I know I don't have 1,000 TPIC and they require it.
Click to expand...

I imagine a certain airline's Facebook recruiting page helps a lot of applicants chip themselves right out of the hiring pile based on what I read in the comments :rolleyes:.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
And anyone who applies without meeting the mins should get an instant rejection auto reply.
Click to expand...

Sources say that if you don't meet the minimum qualifications, you're basically invisible to the employer interface. Can't reject who you don't know exists.
 
Derg said:
I keep telling people that those are NOT interns that run the page.

But dey don't hear me tho.
Click to expand...

IMG_3208.JPG
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
I'm not on a computer, so I can't write a long post. But in a nutshell, I'm talking about new hire (QT) training.

Age plays a factor. Background plays a factor. Total time plays a factor. The guys who breeze through training (no repeated lessons or training review boards) are young, from a regional, on the lower side of the total time. Military guys and corporate guys repeat lessons frequently, and that's no surprise given our program.

I don't have access to the charts, but it's pretty interesting when presented. This doesn't mean that an older guy is a worse pilot, or that a high time guy isn't awesome once he gets out on line. It just means that they are at a higher risk of washing out of our program.

I'm not sure what the stats are for CQT. But I do know the incidence of a failure in recurrent is very low. Like sub 1%.
Click to expand...

I was one of the guys that 'breezed' through training... but I can see how the Mil guys and Corporate guys have trouble. (I also studied nightly... flows, procedures, profiles, systems... I didn't partake of the nightly free offerings of the Stankbridge like some of my classmates - my sim partner and I were very serious during initial.)

The 'footprint' for lack of a better term really isn't designed for someone who doesn't have the prior 121 experience. Even though I had a 121 and 1/2 gig - night freight to mexico and charter - gig inbetween the regionals and B6, I knew exactly what to expect during training each time I went to the schoolhouse. I knew what was 'important' and what wasn't - and it was my previous fire hose experiences that trained me up for it. The owl in my class ran a nightly seminar for the corp and mil people in my class because of the lack of preparatory material. When I upgraded... my sim partner (mil guy) could fly rings around the plane... but the cadence of everything else threw him for a loop.

In both worlds it's a different methodology and I don't know a good solution - that doesn't cost money and time. It's also hard to give feedback because you don't know what you don't know when you get out as you are new... and you are trying to drink from the firehose in all aspects of your new employment.

I guess it was the whole 2000 hours thing... that set off all my bells and CRC's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top