Guppy does have some interesting points, granted, but he admits to having zero experience in airline training departments, airline safety departments and airline operations in general.
Your reading comprehension continues to drag at the lowest levels.
I said no such thing. I said that I do not work in the training department for my employer.
No where did I ever state that technical questions are REPLACED by "What do your parents think about you becoming a pilot?" I merely stated that they have now been included. He argues I did, and labels me a liar.
Again, you lie.
Was it not you, opening the thread, who stated "
Interview questions used to be along the lines of "How did you accrue your hours? What lessons did you learn? Tell me about Vmca / Vmcg (piston vs twin jet).... How does the IRS work (then strap down gyros, etc...) Nowadays it's: "What do your parents think of you becoming a pilot?" (refer CX Wannabes forum)?"
It was.
Today you edited the post to change the wording slightly. Your original post, before you just went back and changed it, did not say that the questions have been included. You stated at the outset that formerly interviews were technical questions, but "nowadays, it's...", and then went on to cite HR questions which are not part of the technical interview.
You've lied, and now tried to cover your lie. Interesting that you felt this necessary. Unfortunately for you, I copied your original post and included it in my later responses to you. Perhaps you became tired of defending your original lie, and thus tried to cover it up by changing it. In doing so, you've lied again. I am not surprised.
I chose to use CX as an example as I have close colleagues there in senior training roles. CX have deliberately ignored the successfully interviewed applicants with many thousands of hours experience, most with jet experience. In their stead CX have deliberately recruited based on a cadetship ideology where ZERO flying experience is required. This permits them to offer T's & C's far, far below those offered to the successful candidates prior to the GFC (some 50% less). Recently these 60 successful candidates were offered a job as SO based on the same T's & C's as the cadet pilots: all this after waiting for some 2.5 years!!! All but one refused, I am told.
To deny airlines therefore actively SEEK lower time / experienced pilots is to deny the blatant obvious.
So you say, so you say. Incorrectly, but so you say.
Cathay already had the cadet program. Your argument is that simply because those formerly in the hiring pool weren't brought on board when the track for which they were interviewed was cancelled, the airline doesn't believe in high standards, safety, or training. It's non-sequitur, junk logic, but it's consistent with your reasoning throughout the thread.
The blatantly obvious part is that Cathay didn't leave the applicants hanging; when the track for which they interviewed was cancelled, Cathay did something they haven't done in the past; they offered experienced pilots the one opening that was available; the cadet program. The cadet program has been reserved for ab initio students; individuals with no experience couldn't apply, and Cathay had no obligation to offer that position to the poolies. The poolies had no obligation to take the job.
Being interviewed for a job and then not getting the job isn't uncommon. I've seen vacancy announcements throughout the years which were put out, then retracted, even after selections had been made. People interview for positions and sometimes sit in hiring pools for a year or more, then still never get the job. Cathay interviewed applicants, extended them a training offer, and then never brought them on board. At that point, at most places, it would be the end. Cathay offered to put these individuals into the training pipeline anyway, albeit not the track that they wanted. They opted to go elsewhere. Not a big deal, as the cadet program wasn't really established for them anyway. It was established to bring people up through the ranks, just like Lufsthansa and many other operators do...operators who choose to use pilots who have been brought up in their own company image from the ground up.
You have no evidence to show that Cathay has sought to hire inexperienced or incapable pilots. In fact, Cathay offered experineced pilots the cadet position, something they haven't done in the past. Surely you won't seriously suggest that Cathay should bump up the wages for cadets in order to accomodate experienced aviators who want to drop everything and start over?