Real world hiring standards
 

Jetblue opened their application window for one week a couple of months ago, here was the result:

Hiring Update...
 Application window was open for 10 days and there were close to 4000 applicants,
 3700 met our minimums and over 2000 are exceptionally competitive
 Average experience is higher than in past application windows
 Competitive is over 5000 hours civilian or over 2000 hrs military fighter or 3500 military transport/trainer
 More than half of applicants have JetBlue referrals, and 85% have bachelor’s degree. To be competitive, referrals and a bachelor’s degree are almost a must.

Just goes to show how w*nk the job market has been over there in recent years

A quarter of a century in airlines and counting, all I've ever needed is fifth-form physics and the three times table.

But I suppose they have to filter the wannabees itching to fly for a low cost carrier somehow.

It astonishes me how many people I fly with that can't even do that!

Nobody that CX has hired for years would even meet the minimums that JetBlue is looking for let alone be in the "competitive" category.

You get what you pay for.

"You get what you pay for."

Not sure what point you're trying to make, given that the pay at JetBlue is a great deal less than a CX LEP SO. Now, compare what a QL'd LEP makes - let's pretend they're competitive for JB at that time.

You get the picture.

As mentioned, it's nothing more than a symptom of an industry that's been stagnant for 15 years. JB is, sadly, a stepping stone airline; one-up from flying for a regional.

The pay at the US legacy carriers may be pretty good (until the next downturn), but the competitive experience levels have always been through the roof. Generally, far higher than CX DEFO. Were you moaning about real-world hiring standards back then?

McNugget-

I don't think we'll see the downturns with the associated cyclic hiring and furloughing that we've seen in the past in the US. The legacy carriers are down to three through mergers, and that had to happen. It happened to the railroads in the 1920s and it had to happen to the airlines. There were too many seats for too long after deregulation. As an east to west coast commuter these are the highest sustained fares I have ever seen. The American/USAir merger basically relagated me to Southwest for commutes. Riding on a ZED fare hasn't been an option since June. And for a lot of the time since summer 2008 it hasn't been. The US airlines learned their lesson and drastically reduced excess capacity. If you find a wide open flight for a month its soon downgraded to smaller equipment.

In regard to what the US industry requires for experience, a lot of that is also the result of deregulation and the cycles of hiring and firing, or the stagnant markets you referred to. But it wasn't always that way. Before 1990 a commercial license was usually all that was needed. In the 1960s some guys were hired and trained for their MEL. The advent of flight schools that ran two or three day ATP courses in the late 80s soon made an ATP a requirement although guys were starting in the FE seat. Anybody with 1500 hours ran off to get an ATP. Southwest became popular so they required a type. The advent of regional airlines and stagnation meant guys were available with turbine PIC so that became a requirement to start as an FE on a 727. Depending on supply and demand, it might be 500 or 1000 hours. But what did that actually mean in terms of experience? As we know the US is very much "train to proficiency", and that is a good thing most of the time. Sometimes it isn't. Fear of lawsuits, demands to get people through, who you know, especially at the regional level can factor in. I spent 1989-1996 in the US regionals and flew with a few Captains who had logbook hours in the left seat but shouldn't have been in command of a dingy much less an airplane. So they had 1000 hours turbine PIC, without any airmanship skills.

So these "experience" levels are basically screening tools, nothing more. Look at the first post. Why is 3500 in military transports OK but you need 5000 in civilian transports? Aren't the civilians flying into the same airports in regionals and thus familiar? Is JetBlue going to start flying into unimproved strips with night vision goggles? Sure the military training system is better and a known quantity but then 3500 civilian with much more practical experience ought to be just as good. I've been here ten years now but when I was hired the interview had a lot to do with flying airplanes. In the US its become a PC interview. "what will you do if the lead flight attendant smells alcohol on the Captain's breath?" "Captain wants to bust minimums, what do you do?" Yeah, I've had lots of captains want to bust minimums. As in zero in almost 30 years. "Tell us about a time this or that or the other thing happened." Its crap to avoid a technical interview that might disqualify some people.

Anyway, the US industry isn't always all its cracked up to be. It was long ago for sure, but not so much now. The salaries are getting better, and the contracts are far better, but as far as experience, why does the guy in the right seat need 1500 hours turbine PIC? Their flight and duty time regs stink. They always have. You haven't had fun until you've had a "legal" rest that basically gave you five hours to sleep.

So "experience" is a relative thing. What counts as experience at JetBlue in many cases wouldn't mean much in practical experience here. The flying is very different. Many of those "competitive" at JetBlue wouldn't even be able to make a position report here if they were hired as DEFOs.

They wouldn't be able to make a position report, but they would be able to hand fly a jet raw data.

8driver,
What a joy to read a sensible and balanced post, completely free of aggression and spelling errors. I would guess that you might even have a Bachelor's degree!

"Why is 3500 in military transports OK but you need 5000 in civilian transports? Aren't the civilians flying into the same airports in regionals and thus familiar?"




Everyone has about the same length of professional experience. So the TT's are different but the years as a professional pilot are similar.

I figured CX guys use the 4 x tables for their descent profile?

It's really rubbed off on approach controllers in HKG too; I know I'm on profile when I'm asked in a panicked voice if I have enough track miles to land- if I'm at 6000 ft slowed up behind a CX jet, 3 x 6 equals 18 and that's plenty!

Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. I left the regionals just as the first RJs began to arrive, I have no idea what level of automation they use. I can refer to the Colgan accident at Buffalo though. No auto throttle in a turboprop and they were flying on autopilot. He just needed to control the thrust. That is one of the examples of lack of experience I'm talking about. That guy had the coveted PIC hours and he'd slipped through the cracks and killed a lot of people. None of the airplanes we fly here were designed to be flown raw data. Certainly you need to be able to should it come to that, but your raw data flying skills WILL degrade flying our airplanes as they were designed to be flown. And there is one hell of a difference between raw data flying an RJ and a -8 for instance, that difference is mass.

I asked: Why is 3500 in military transports OK but you need 5000 in civilian transports? Aren't the civilians flying into the same airports in regionals and thus familiar?"

Misd-again said:
Well sure, I understand military guys build time more slowly. But I'm not talking about total number of years doing a job, the thread was talking about experience. That should mean practical experience. Who has more practical experience applying at JetBlue? A C-130 guy just out of the military or a regional guy who has been flying into their regional hubs for a number of years? That's my point.

From Curtain Rod:

Well this is the age old argument to why military guys are or should be preferred. The selection and training standards. See above. They may come with a lot of practical experience or virtually none in regard to an airline. I've been 25 years in the industry now and I've seen the good, the bad, and the ugly from both civilian and military backgrounds. Just because you were a Blue Angel (or Thunderbird, Snowbird, Red Arrow) does not mean you will make a good airline pilot. Looking at the JetBlue criteria in the first post why would you take a guy with 2000 hours of single pilot fighter time and no multi crew experience over civilian who might have 4000 hours (shy of the 5000) but its all primarily RJ, multi crew and some PIC time? Just a something to think about. Then you have airlines that train ab initio straight into the right seat of medium jet type equipment without the S/O stage. Should Cathay just beef up the training and do that? Guys coming out of the military aren't really the point of my argument anyway, because they'd have the same numbers for Cathay as they would in the US market. I am primarily discussing the civilian market.

My overall point is that experience is relative. What JetBlue recruits is not necessarily what Cathay needs. The people they are hiring are not necessarily "more experienced" they just have more time in categories that suit that airline's needs, type of flying, and type of equipment. And those hours numbers are market driven, they are simply screening tools. And not very good ones.

Hmmm....sounds like single pilot night freight in a light twin: icing, thunderstorms, radar might work or it might not, no autopilot, might fly on one engine, if it does it'll take all you've got to keep it in the air. Lots of sectors, lots of raw data approaches to minimums, nobody there but you. Except the fighter guys have much nicer airplanes, with a lot more performance, its a lot more fun, and you get paid more!;) And ****, ya get the all the girls too!

With iCadets conducting interviews now, what hope is there?

Curtains

You forgot the bit about the parachute.:ok:and I'm not so sure about the SIDS and STARS...been there not done them...although times may have changed since my days of sitting in something that relies totally on thrust for it's airworthiness:sad:

In the days when the Flight Director (aka the WC) was someone you had tea and bikkies with when you were naughty:(

Gosh how I love the 'there I was a 5000' at 180knots in my POS dodging thunderstorms and therefore I'm better than you' stories.

Seeing as everyone is complaining about the experience of the SO's being hired these days (a lot of kids with only 250 hours), what do you think the mins should be? The package isn't great so you cant expect jet FO's to be applying. Should it be 1500 total time with a bit of multi/turbine? Maybe 1000 hours with commercial experience?

I know some dash and ATR FO's have been hired in the past and even a 1900 captain or two.

Are all the SO's these days really that bad?

"I didn't respond to the RA because I was uncomfortable with disconnecting the autopilot at altitude".

"I was interested to see what would happen if I pushed the rudder pedal to the stops during cruise".

and more....

I thought there are 50 QF 767 drivers starting in Jan as DESOs ? I guess a half dozen years on the 767 regional jet is not a real world hiring standard.