Nepotism in pilot selection
 

There are a lot of rumours in different topics that some people are getting hired cause of good connections or even bribery. My experience was with an airline operating from my hometown. I was quite happy with my present job but also a bit homesick. After they didn’t respond to my email I went to their offices. They asked me to have a Type Rating and I said I can do that. Then they asked me for hours in type. The thing was that I knew some guys that they were flying for them and it was their first job. I had more than 1000 hours on jets that time. But I can’t directly blame them as they never published a job opening with specific requirements.
I was reading the AirBaltic topic https://www.pprune.org/interviews-jobs-sponsorship/650102-airbaltic-4.html?ispreloading=1
and seems that they found a smoking gun, people that got hired even though they were not meeting the entry requirements.
I invite everyone to share similar experiences without spamming other topics.
Even make a list with airlines with shady practices so we will avoid wasting time.

How is hiring someone with less than advertised requirements nepotism? Unless you can prove that the reason someone, without company required hours, got a job because of their relation to someone inside the company you don't have a smoking gun. A company can hire whoever they want, and if they cannot find enough candidates with advertised mins, it is entirely their prerogative to hire the next best thing. In fact you should be happy to see it is possible to find companies that are flexible in their hiring processes. You having hours doesnt entitle you to anything other than applying for said jobs - life is not fair.
I would rather focus my attention on the people buying their way into the industry with paid line training and creating an unfair advantage for themselves. Those guys are a much bigger threat to you.

So you are saying that after the pandemic airlines in EU have hard time finding qualified pilots? Most of airlines ceased hiring since late 19, lots of experienced pilots lost their jobs especially in China and the war in Ukraine made it worse.
I say that there is no way that airlines are forced to hire below the requirements cause of pilot shortage, that’s a joke

Have you thought about the fact that maybe the personality and so called ”soft skills” may also play a role in the selection? Thousand hours is nothing if interpersonal skills are non existent. It can also play a role if the application is unsufficient or unprofessional.
I would’nt advice only blaming others, but neither I’m saying there isn’t some sketchy employment types and paid line training practices in place, which in my opinion are just unacceptable. But those kinds of practices will go on as long as someone desperate and in my opinion stupid enough to stoop to that level.

Im afraid you are actually incorrect, there is indeed a shortage and it’s only getting worse!

Let’s take an example
Easyjet is looking for F/O, 1000 hours total, 500 hours in aircrafts above 10 tons.
If a guy has hours only in a 5 tones Piper Cheyenne, do you think that has any chance to be called for an assessment by Easyjet?

In which corner of the world? Cause in EU salaries for pilots are still sh*t

In the US. There is not, and never has been, a pilot shortage in the EU, for example.

Not sure why it’s a surprise it happens in every industry. There’s a saying “It’s not what you know it’s who you know”

I remember a ex flight school pal who went through the pilot apprentice at a well know holiday airline, he did a stint with the pilot recruiters, one afternoon a senior management pilot came in and asked to see a list of people who’d applied for jobs.

He highlighted 5/6 names and said “These WILL be called for an assessment” They were all highly experienced captains he knew from a stint working in the desert.

Were they all qualified ? Yes,
Would they have been invited anyway? Probably

Its the way the world works

my bold

Hmmm.......,

a) Perhaps your potential employers noticed your less-than-respectful attitude? (Most of us started on low salaries and worked our way up over many many years, and job changes).

and

b) If the remuneration in the EU is not what you want, and you are purely in it for the money; why not look elsewhere?

Like the old joke why is airline X like the holy trinity…..because the son sits at the right hand of the father. I worked for one company that explicitly forbade hiring relatives. But I don’t personally agree with absolute bans any more than I believe in nepotism.

I am referring to male candidates and I would like to ask them: you are afraid of nepotism but the #femaleinaviation trend does not concern you, right? Have you ever thought that some airlines give priority to women, not because they are more competent, but because they have to follow the modern trends and occupy a certain number of positions with women? This automatically can leave you out of the process for a while and you can lose time.

I think the OP displays a surprising level of naiivety in expressing surprise at acquaintances being hired, let alone that this somehow amounts to nepotism of all thngs.

Recruiting is a hugely time-consuming and tedious business, especially if you are looking to hire numerous people. The recruiter's job is to identify not necesarily the best, but those acceptable to the requirements and also to the company. Given the vast number of applications they will be deluged with the recruiter has to filter the wheat from the chaff, along with a goodly amount of dross before he even has a pool from which to pick the chosen ones. Chewing through say 45 to select 15 would take ages; all have been found suitable, but which to pick? If there are familiar faces in the pile of CVs who are a known quantity and suitably qualified it would be remiss of the recruiter not to fish these out and maybe reduce the pool-trawling exercise down to selecting just 10 candidates as 5 have effectively been self-selected. Everyone benefits, much time (thus money) is saved, the company gets people it knows will fit in and who are a known quantity thus reducing traiing risks. As long as it asn't overdone and an elite cadre develops it's fine,

I submit it's a far superior system to the way Easyjet - and others - used to do it, using pallid clipboard-weilding academics right out of the University of Essex with sociology and "human resources" degrees and zero life-knowlege lording it over career-served ex BA Captains and Military pilots - making them grovel on the floor doing lego bridge-building teamwork exercises, and crossing people off the list immediately if they were foolish enough to have turned up to the ritual humiliation day wearing a tie...(thus demonstrating an unsuitability of character for Easyjet, apparently!). Numerous absolutely top guys fell foul of that awful, horribly prejudiced system.

As I wrote in my first post, the trigger to start this topic were the posts in another thread regarding hirings of candidates who were not meeting specific entry requirements.
I have read in a lot of topics similar complains but not something that solid.
As you say, those who are acceptable to the requirements. What about the ones who are not and still are hired?
I think in this case is not enough to see a familiar faces in the CV
Regarding the interview exercises. After I filed my resignation to the Air Force, I was assigned for a few days to interview military pilot candidates. Plain and simple we were sweeping out the weirdos

Why is it less than respectful to say that salaries for pilots in EU are low? In other words sh#t?

You never saw a job opening. You never saw specific requirements. And all this because on the simple basis you have more flight hours, you "earn" the job more than the others?

Even more, it's not because you put out an add you are looking for recruits, all of a sudden a "law" is created you are not allowed to hire "less than that". It's their company, they decide, not you.

It is funny though to see how you write about "others" & "issues" (blame, weirdo's, ****, awful, prejudiced,...).

You kept from my post a part to make a case.
I clearly said that they didn't have a formal job opening but they asked a Type Rating and hours on type while other people were hired only with piston hours
Logical assumption is that positions were reserved for ''friends''
If you have a different opinion you can share it
Sorry to shock you, at least for military and common sense companies interviews are mainly to block weirdos

Sorry I didn't quote every typed line to make my case (guess everyone who writes here tries to make a case but anyway...). I'll make my point clearer.

HR and training departments are full of working people with schedules and "lives to live". They have much more stuff to do than inviting people for interviews. I would even say that for many of them, interviews are extra's that need to be scheduled into a schedule that is already pretty tight. Every candidate they ’invite’ will follow the same selection process, and the result is not a question of "the best", because that would mean they would have to pile up a list, then only take the first 4. A waste of time and money. Every selection is an evaluation that costs money, so once started, if the person fits the bill, he will be hired. If during the process it is deemed the person doesn't fit the bill, the selection is stopped. Sometimes things need to go very fast, sometimes things slow down suddenly...

If positions are vacant, it is normal for "insiders" to pass information quickly to people they know, especially in smaller companies. That these "known people" have an advantage is always the case when it comes to "timing", they are the first to know, the first to knock on the doors. They fit? They get in. They don't fit? They don't get in.

Now this all sounds very theoretical and nice, I'm aware of reality and the "odd-one-out" cases. But that happens, and I don't see anything against that practice. If in the end the person does a good job in his new function, the selection was good.

However, you like to make a point about "others" all the time. Why? Because they wouldn't make time for you? Why blame? Why ****? Why awfull? If all that is the case, tell me why would you even want to work for such a company, together with these people?

The same was saying a guy in airBaltic topic
There was a conversation about the pilots who were not filling the entry requirements and still got in
As a result just for the ab A220 fleet, there are 3 runway excursions, one AOG due a hard landing (93kt over the runway in AMS hitting the ground above 1200 fpm ) and an incident where an A220 started final descent before FAF and was flying at 600ft AGL in 6,5 NM before the runway threshold, over Brussels city in VMC

Can you prove that the above mentioned events involve the pilots in question?

Please note that I am no AB fan, quite the contrary as I've had my bad experience with them years ago.