No matter what the reasons are for this, whenever such a situation exists the fault is with the organisation itself not with the people. The organisation makes all the decisions about it's people from day one, starting with the selection process all the way to command course selection. If CX pilots are acceptable for command qualification at only a 50% rate and others flying the same type equipment and operation have considerabley better then either the CX selection process failed to select the right people in the first place, the right people were selected but company failed to develope and train it's people so they're ready and acceptable for command when the time comes, or the initial selection was correct and developement was adequate but the command qualification process is at fault. But no matter what, the people were selected by the company in the first place and have passed all the hoops and hurdles the company asked of them up to that point, so if they've functioned in that environment up to that point then there shouldn't be such a large disconnect in the system and if there is then the system is broken.
Any good teacher knows that if a student is failing the very first place to look is the mirror (the teacher), and if there's any effort put forward in the order of 'career development' in this case without which any expectation or claim of an effecient system is a joke, then in this case that effort or system is failing. At my currnet airline we did have a similar situation with one of fleets' command upgrade rates which was close to 50% failure. To make a long story short all hell broke loose after a short while with the FAA coming down hard on the training department and instructor heads rolling, half of them were sent back to the line. And the problem was fixed in short order, with success rates now in the upper 90% range... with the same pilots and the same preformance standards.
Any airline where so many people openly suggest 'playing the game' as a method of qualifying has got some serious standardisation problems and cannot claim to have anything called 'Standard Operating Prodecures'. If SOPs exist at any airline it means that ANY check airman that EVER teaches or demands anything NON-STANDARD is sh!tcanned in short order, in an environment where company knowingly allows such check airmen to exist SOPs do not exist.
I personally know of five pilots who for this reason alone either turned down the second interview or said no when offered a class date with CX having passed all the selection process, but NONE of them told CX the real reason for this decision to avoid burning any bridges so I doubt CX knows how badly this particular reputation is affecting them in attracting people since no one in the right mind would tell them truthfully. Nearly every time I suggest to a friend to apply at CX this reputaion comes out immediately as a reason they're not willing to even apply. Wrongly or rightly this is CX's reputation out there along side all the positive reputations it has which are many to be fair, and as they say where there's smoke there's fire.
I for one would've never thought such an airline would have such a problem with something so basic, fundamental, proven and essential as standardisation. I would've thought CX would be a model of absolute standardisation, the absolute opposite of the 'playing the game' system.
Last edited by HeavyWrenchFlyer; 26th Nov 2006 at 06:59.