You're referring to the interview that has little if anything to do with aviation vs. the interview where you're asked relevant questions without the ego trip attached to it?

Having come from another industry with those sort of salaries and also having been involved in quite a bit of recruitment in said industry I think I can speak to that;

1. I have never seen a position requiring a psychometric test for anything other than a graduate position where they had no industry experience to back up their application
2. If any employer in any other industry took the "good cop, bad cop" or adversarial approach during an interview that you hear about in aviation, they would literally go broke as they would have no applicants, or the applicants that they got are probably not the sorts of applicants which would lead to a successful enterprise.

If a company recruiting for a technical role bases their decision on mostly HR and arbitrary measures that have nothing tor little to do with the job, rather than a proper mix of tech and HR. Then you need to ask yourself; Are they wanting to find the best applicants for the job, or are they looking for individuals most malleable to how the company treats (or wants to treat) their employees?

Possibly the most accurate comment on the interview topic in general, especially the bold.

Reality is as pilots you should be questioned on technical aspects of the job and have a sim ride to ensure you're trainable. The multiple role playing games, numerical and verbal testing before and after the interview are just HR tools with no bearing on how you do your job as a pilot.

I am confused though at how this has any bearing on a thread about Qantas buying Alliance.

The technical aspect of the job is assessed by having a licence, experience and passing the sim check. It’ll become pretty obvious if you don’t have the knowledge or skills required in your initial training at the airline and you won’t get through that initial training.

However what the interviewing by HR is assessing is the things they are looking for that aren’t apparent from just holding a licence. Leadership skills, communication skills, decision making processes, how they treat others in the workplace etc

You could hold 1,000 hours on the type you’re applying for however if you’re lacking in the above qualities there’s potential trouble ahead. For instance the poster above who said they were knocked back from Cathay for not knowing the name of an obscure aircraft may show a lack of self awareness as to why their interview really didn’t go so well, they may have been faulted in other questions showing a lack of teamwork ability or the like it won’t admit to themselves they have a problem there, so invent a reason that lets them off the hook for an personal issue they refuse to acknowledge.

Back to Alliance - article from Australian Aviation saying Alliance will boost “non-monetary” incentives to attract and keep pilots. Any idea what that could possibly be?

So a charter flight? How much per seat in terms of cost?

Landing anywhere or just a spin around ADL city and surrounds?

Good question.

More days off? Which in turn will put pressure on rostering if they are short of pilots.

More annual leave? See above.

Difficult to imagine what the incentives may be.

Exactly. Not knowing the answer to a question is hardly likely to make or break an interview. It's far more likely there were other reasons for the result, such as "attitude" towards the questioner, or other issues. In this case, my guess is the question was about "Betsy", the DC-3 used to launch Cathay's operations in 1946, and now displayed in the Hong Kong Science Museum. It is hardly "obscure" in terms of the airline's history.

Of course I don't know the exact reason and its not likely it was not knowing that one answer. It wasn't Betsy, I knew that one, so they played the 'give the guy a hard time and see how he reacts' asking about the second one in the same museum.
Perhaps I was rattled by the good cop bad cop interrogation style and answered a tech question wrong.
It could be any reason, of course.

Point was their interview style resulted in them passing me over, while I went on to have a career without issue to date, never failing a check, never needing retraining, not having any major incidents, nor causing my employer any grief at any of the airlines I've worked for since.
Its just an example of:

CX clearly didn’t deserve you…:rolleyes:

Not what I said at all. No need to make it a personal attack.

FFS, I have done interviews for a LCC and also Qantas (believe it or not), and neither of them were exactly hard or anything like what a few negative comments have been above. Some basic and relevant tech questions that anyone with good general knowledge should know, and a relaxed interview with a pilot and HR person. Even I can get through it!

If anyone can’t pass that and thinks it’s ridiculous and of Oztranaut standard, perhaps it’s best they disappear overseas.

Back to Qantas buying Alliance, it was nice to have a different airline that was independent of the two majors. It’s a shame that will be lost.

Has it been approved by ACCC as yet? I certainly hope it gets scuttled

Of course

Looks like it may not go ahead
https://australianaviation.com.au/20...ises-concerns/

Look past the spin around the industry being pushed out by certain people. ‘Expecting to be approved’ ‘Green Light’ ‘Forthcoming approval’. I’d be very surprised if it’s approved.

Virgin seems to be pulling away from many of its Alliance commitments. Competition reducing before its even approved. Alarm bells for the regulators.

It’s hard to believe Qantas didn’t expect this response.

Surely they are not that arrogant as to assume the deal would go ahead just because Alan said so?

Me thinks there must be another play going on here…..

Was Alliance used as a threat for the A220 flying to secure a cheaper agreement from NJS?

No. Apparently it was between SH Qantas and NJS but NJS were always going to get the 220 as the 717 replacement because despite the fear mongering, why not?
The Alliance takeover (full) is only a more recent development.

NJS we’re always getting the initial 220’s, enough to replace the 717. Further 220’s will likely be played off between groups again. 220’s have been discussed for mainline in the future