Qantas Recruitment

[neville_nobody]

The moral to the story is if you want a job in mainline then get a job in non-group airline. Lapon's post is the reality of the situation.

[Flyboy1987]

Originally Posted by Chad Gates

It may not be an indication of numbers, but when the picture of new recruits is sent through in the propaganda emails, there is usually one female to a group of 8 or sometimes 2 to the larger groups. The blokes seem to be getting a fair go.

So around 1-2 females per 8 males.
I imagine there would be around 1 female applicant to 20-25 male applicants?
It’s very obvious that having a vagina will put you at some sort of overall advantage, we’ve all witness the push for more female pilots and their target of 50:50.

[AerocatS2A]

Originally Posted by Seagull201

Keg,

Your post is absolutely garbage!

Anyone flying a Dash 8, is more than capable of taking the next step and operating an A320/737/A330/787, AS an F/O,
whether with QF or any other airline around the world..

Bollocks. Some Dash 8 FOs aren't fit to go any further than being a Dash 8 FO, some of them shouldn't even be on the Dash 8 (this is not specific to the Dash 8, in any population of workers there will be some who are only barely fit to do the job they are doing). Even then, no company wants to hire someone who could operate an "A320/737/A330/787, AS an FO", they want to hire people who can go on to be captains.

[Lapon]

Nothing against the sheilas, but what is it that QF/JQ seem to think the blokes are SO bad at that has nessisitated this push towards gender goals.

Sure it's a male dominated job.... probably because it doesn't appeal to that many females in the same way very few males are interested in beauty therapy.

Maybe QF should provide some more transparent feedback as to why an applicant was unsuccessful (ie what they want to see next time), but then again I guess you have to ask yourself why would the really care when there are plenty more applications to burn through.
Whether you stay in the group or leave, are happy or disgruntled, is of little consequence to those making the decision to cut you or not.
Sad but true. As mentioned above, loyalty is your failing IMO.

[ACMS]

I’m not in QF but I believe that any Pilot that is employed in a QF group Airline with a successful track record of check and training should get priority over outsiders AND a steamlined selection process......

Some here are holding on the edge too tight.

[mrdeux]

Originally Posted by Lapon

Nothing against the sheilas, but what is it that QF/JQ seem to think the blokes are SO bad at that has nessisitated this push towards gender goals.

I doubt that they do. They just think that they'll be more compliant...

[C441]

Wow, I must have been reading the alternative universe copy of Keg's post!
What I read is that he believes Qantas should be employing the best candidate; one who has a reasonable ability to operate an aircraft and is able to comfortably fit into the crew environment in the back seat at first, but have the appropriate skills (physically, psychologically and socially) to become a F/O then Captain. If that person comes from outside the group or inside is irrelevant and those currently inside may not necessarily be ahead of the queue.

Unfortunately it's largely irrelevant as the impression I get is the only thing you'll need to do is impress the HR representative on the panel and/or meet some other non-operational selection criteria. From what I'm hearing, flying and operational ability and aptitude has little to do with a successful application. That's not to say we've employed a bunch of duds in this round. Quite the contrary, we've employed some excellent pilots, but 'skills' other than flying seem to have a higher priority.

[Capt Fathom]

but 'skills' other than flying seem to have a higher priority.

Who'd have thought that would be a job description for a pilot. I think I'll drive from now on!

[The Green Goblin]

Its hard to sit hear and read some of this garbage without adding my bit.

Working for the link, jq qf or any group company doesn’t entitle you (or me) to a thing.

All the divisions have their own requirements and their own cultures.

Flying a jet ’aint hard. Its a retirement job.

The hard part is the interpersonal. The non technical. The art of remaining humble. Of fitting in to the culture.

Then doing all that stuff on a bad day when things are going wrong. Or right, but not your way.

QF pilots arent better or worse than anybody else. They have their own culture and the HR process is about ensuring you’ll fit in. HR doesn’t always get it right. What I can tell you though is most of the QF guys Ive had the pleasure to fly with over the years have been that same guy.

If you’re not that guy, or girl. Its not a big deal. Theres other places that will suit you and give you the career path you desire.

HR are probably doing you a service.

Sometimes it takes a little more maturity and perspective to realise that.

+1 for keg.

Cheers

[wombat watcher]

Originally Posted by The Green Goblin

Its hard to sit hear and read some of this garbage without adding my bit.

Working for the link, jq qf or any group company doesn’t entitle you (or me) to a thing.

All the divisions have their own requirements and their own cultures.

Flying a jet ’aint hard. Its a retirement job.

The hard part is the interpersonal. The non technical. The art of remaining humble. Of fitting in to the culture.

Then doing all that stuff on a bad day when things are going wrong. Or right, but not your way.

QF pilots arent better or worse than anybody else. They have their own culture and the HR process is about ensuring you’ll fit in. HR doesn’t always get it right. What I can tell you though is most of the QF guys Ive had the pleasure to fly with over the years have been that same guy.

If you’re not that guy, or girl. Its not a big deal. Theres other places that will suit you and give you the career path you desire.

HR are probably doing you a service.

Sometimes it takes a little more maturity and perspective to realise that.

+1 for keg.

Cheers

Well said.

[Capt Fathom]

Flying a jet ’aint hard. Its a retirement job.

Damn. I wish someone had told me that 20 years ago! I should have mentioned that to HR at the interview!

[Keg]

Crikey there’s a lot of verballing going on here. Thanks to so many for illustrating my point so well though- particularly the bit about people wilfully misreading. Thankfully people like C441, Goblin and wombat watcher (the latter two JQ and mainline I think) get it.

Timmytee.

Keg, so you want the right fit people that you will have to sit next to, yet see no benefit in someone being in the group for 3-5 years being continually monitored and assessed to group standards?

I’m sorry, where did I say this? Your comprehension is appalling. Of course there is some benefit though I suspect we’d quibble as to the extent of that benefit. So let me say it clearly again. If you’ve been in a regional gig in a subsidiary for 3-5 years (or let’s face it, any job in Aviation for the amount of time to have the appropriate level of experience) and as a result of that experience you think deserve a walk up start into Qantas mainline then you’re demonstrating perfectly why you’re NOT the right person.

While you’re at it, I’m not sure where I said this comment either.

In Kegs own words “they must have just wanted it more”

I’m not sure I’ve ever made such a point. It runs so contra to my life outlook it’s not funny. I wanted to be an astronaut. I wasn’t good enough. It’s not about wanting but if burning your straw man helps you feel good about yourself then burn away.

jetlikespeeds, I’ve never stated the process gets it right. Sadly there are those who Qantas have knocked back who would’ve been awesome and some we’ve taken that quite obviously we shouldn’t have. A knock back from Qantas doesn’t define a person- just as getting a job with Qantas doesn’t define a person. If you think that was what my post was about then you too need to work on your comprehension skills.

Seagull, you’re probably right. Most regional pilots easily make the transition to flying a jet. That still doesn’t make them the ‘right’ person to be doing so. We can all probably think of a number of examples of people who could ‘do the job’ but we all wondered how they got there and how they stayed there. Mostly these people were widely detested by the rest of their pilot colleagues- a former regional Dash captain who has made a name for himself throughout the ME and Asia and loves to instagram with his dog springs to mind. These people probably thought that because they’d been [insert aircraft type] subsidiary pilots that they ‘deserved’ a job with mainline.

So so let me be blunt (again) for those unwilling or unable to comprehend my previous post.

1. If you’re a great pilot with a great attitude I hope I get to fly with you.
2. I don’t care where you learned those skills and attitudes. I don’t care if you’re ex RAAF, ex GA, ex subsidiary regional or jet operator, ex cadet, ex flying instructor.
3. If you think that because you’ve done ‘A, B, C’ for 3-5 years that you’re entitled to a job in mainline (or VOZ, or NASA or anywhere else you think you deserve a shot at because you’ve ‘done your time’) you’re an idiot. The world doesn’t (and shouldn’t) work this way. It’d destroy organisations through complacency.

But hey, you guys know everything anyway so obviously there’s nothing to learn from me. Enjoy your careers.

How’d that go for a word count? Do I need more to cater for fool sufferer?

[greenfields]

Blunt is an interesting word, - it has a particular meaning to a certain demographic. In line with that usage I find your words very interesting Keg, because the rumour is you fairly recently put forth a piece stating that all the RAAF pilots applying should be placed at the top of the recruiting process, to be handled before all others? That's not quite in line with what you are trying to portray above.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Originally Posted by TimmyTee

Keg, so you want the right fit people that you will have to sit next to, yet see no benefit in someone being in the group for 3-5 years being continually monitored and assessed to group standards?

I know there’s a group paint scheme and a group pilot costume, but is there such a thing as ‘group standards’ that pilots are assessed to? (Serious question)

[Keg]

Originally Posted by greenfields

Blunt is an interesting word, - it has a particular meaning to a certain demographic. In line with that usage I find your words very interesting Keg, because the rumour is you fairly recently put forth a piece stating that all the RAAF pilots applying should be placed at the top of the recruiting process, to be handled before all others? That's not quite in line with what you are trying to portray above.

Nope. Not true. I’ve never suggested they be top of the pile. I simply suggested they (and some others) should be in the pile for consideration.

Specifically I asked why we had knocked back a number of very qualified applicants before they had even attempted the psychometric testing, based on just their resumes. The examples I used included current RAAF pilots (who have more than 12 years), regional jet pilots 3,000+ hours of experience (specifically a few Aussies I know of in the US), etc.

Now, I suspect that most RAAFies would do quite well at the psychometric and be ranked for review accordingly but it’s their psychometric results that are part of what determines where in the pile they should be. Unfortunately many RAAFies didn’t even get to do the psychometric- and neither did a bunch of other very qualified pilots. In essence we’ve prioritised certain types of experience (or previous employers) without having a full view of the capabilities of the individual pilots.

So your ‘rumour’ is either a great example of Chinese whispers or perhaps something more malicious. You should examine very carefully which of those it is and the motives of the person who told it to you if it’s the latter.

Clear enough?

PS: I certainly didn’t use the term ‘blunt’ with any insinuations to the context of the the word when used by RAAF pilots.

[DutchRoll]

Originally Posted by Keg

Still, it’s 2018 and very little surprises me this days when it comes to people wilfully mis reading posts.

You realise you're on PPrune, right? That ability of some to misrepresent your arguments has taken years of toil to finely hone!

Totally agree we should recruit from a wide range of backgrounds while concentrating on the "right" person to the extent that it's possible to do so. Having flown with several of the wrong types of people slipping through an imperfect QF recruitment process (we all know who they are), I can say with certainty that it's neither a personally pleasant nor an operationally easy experience! Also it became obvious to me early in my QF career (through my own biases which I had to quickly discard) that it's not possible to confidently predict the "right" and "wrong" type of person solely on their aviation background, so no one pilot demographic should get a monopoly advantage in the recruitment process.

[Tankengine]

Originally Posted by DutchRoll

You realise you're on PPrune, right? That ability of some to misrepresent your arguments has taken years of toil to finely hone!

Totally agree we should recruit from a wide range of backgrounds while concentrating on the "right" person to the extent that it's possible to do so. Having flown with several of the wrong types of people slipping through an imperfect QF recruitment process (we all know who they are), I can say with certainty that it's neither a personally pleasant nor an operationally easy experience! Also it became obvious to me early in my QF career (through my own biases which I had to quickly discard) that it's not possible to confidently predict the "right" and "wrong" type of person solely on their aviation background, so no one pilot demographic should get a monopoly advantage in the recruitment process.

Very true, good ones and tossers from every prior area.
Not sure if the current HR run recruitment will be worse or better? Some good guys and gals recruited recently, from a small sample I have flown with.

[dr dre]

Originally Posted by Tankengine

Very true, good ones and tossers from every prior area.
Not sure if the current HR run recruitment will be worse or better? Some good guys and gals recruited recently, from a small sample I have flown with.

There will always be good ones and tossers recruited into airlines, and don’t forget it’s all up to individual perceptions and interactions as well. Your “good guy” could be someone else’s “tosser”.

I’ve found that a lot of criticisms of an airline’s recruitment strategy tend to be a mask for “I’m upset that me or my mates didn’t get a job here”.

[Lookleft]

Performance on the day can play a big part in whether you land the job. That includes the psychometric and interview. I knew a bloke a long time ago who was interviewed by Ansett and by his own admission did not put in a good performance in the interview. He is now a Captain in QF with a decent seniority number.

People should have another read of this quote from Keg:

A knock back from Qantas doesn’t define a person- just as getting a job with Qantas doesn’t define a person.

[greenfields]

Keg, as was relayed to me, you stated that you can't understand why every RAAF pilot who applies to Qantas isn't automatically sent for psychometric testing. So you are therefore holding a pilot group above all others, believing they are better candidates, and shouldn't have to follow the standard process. As most know, there are also RAAF guys who have joined QF that haven't progressed as one would expect (as there have been GA, regional and Cadets pilots who haven't.) It doesn't matter whether they are ex military, regional or GA, they should all be placed through the same process, resumes reviewed, and not given a pass just because they were ex RAAF. To believe otherwise displays a bias, or a certain naivety.

I trust implicitly the person who told me of your opinion, and they hold no ulterior motive.