GalaxyFlyer wrote:

DL’s Pilot cost per block hour flown was $1239 in 2019, 2.6 times their 2007 cost. Just sayin’.

And many pilots made more than half a million last year...while other employees in other groups took unpaid time off. The pilots said they couldn't/wouldn't do that. Other have posted on various forums about how the compensation in the profession has fallen since the 70s and 80s but that doesn't seem to be true. Perhaos it just depends on the airline and your position on tbe seniority list?

All I've seen over the last 20 years is the lowering of standards. Didn't Delta used to require 20/20 uncorrected vision? Just because they could? Maybe I am mistaken?

Finally, Delta pilot costs and utilization have always been affected (costs high utilization low) by the number of fleet types. That's already improved and should only get better as most 321s show up.

H’mmm. If they need pilots so badly, how about a 72 year old with 189 hours of single engine land, lastcat thr controls in 1978?

/Just thinking out loud…

Prost wrote:

It can be impossible to complete a 4 yr. degree in 4 years if certain classes fill.

and it can ever be Harder to complete your degree and Pilot training if you're the one paying for it by having to work!

Nomadd wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Right. But that doesn't mean the inverse is true. No college degree doesn't necessarily mean undisciplined or unintelligent.

No, it doesn’t, but it is documented proof that you have completed a long-term, complex project while compiling large amounts of information. In today’s world of hiring by computer screener, it matters.

That's nonsense. Millions of people are coming out of college dumber than rocks because it's been reduced to something anybody can do.

Hardly. Both of my former partners are well educated, with one majoring in physics at Imperial in London and the other is an MD who recently finished his residency. The extreme workloads and advanced nature of their work demanded a high level of discipline over many years. What they achieved is nothing short of impressive and we should acknowledge that. Not anybody can walk into one of the top schools in the world and master physics and acceptance into med school is an accomplishment unto itself. I’d argue that the majority of us couldn’t do this. I observed two dedicated people who put in years of good old fashioned hard work to achieve a lofty goal that most of us can’t. We shouldn’t cheapen academic achievement by passing it off as common or easy because it’s not.

CitizenJustin wrote:

Nomadd wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

No, it doesn’t, but it is documented proof that you have completed a long-term, complex project while compiling large amounts of information. In today’s world of hiring by computer screener, it matters.

That's nonsense. Millions of people are coming out of college dumber than rocks because it's been reduced to something anybody can do.

Hardly. Both of my former partners are well educated, with one majoring in physics at Imperial in London and the other is an MD who recently finished his residency. The extreme workloads and advanced nature of their work demanded a high level of discipline over many years. What they achieved is nothing short of impressive and we should acknowledge that. Not anybody can walk into one of the top schools in the world and master physics and acceptance into med school is an accomplishment unto itself. I’d argue that the majority of us couldn’t do this. I observed two dedicated people who put in years of good old fashioned hard work to achieve a lofty goal that most of us can’t. We shouldn’t cheapen academic achievement by passing it off as common or easy because it’s not.

A bit of conflation here. Obviously specialist degrees and applied sciences are a different animal - what I and others are talking about is generic stuff like humanities and business admin. There are a lot of schools where just showing up and getting Ds on quizzes and exams will get you a BA in those. Sounds no different than high school to me.

This sounds like a diversity thing. IIRC, Delta (or another similar airline) said they want the pilot workforce to reflect US demographics by gender and race. That means drastic steps need to be taken, because that will be a huge change. What this announcement says is, the degree will be made optional if necessary to meet DL's goals.

LCDFlight wrote:

This sounds like a diversity thing. IIRC, Delta (or another similar airline) said they want the pilot workforce to reflect US demographics by gender and race. That means drastic steps need to be taken, because that will be a huge change. What this announcement says is, the degree will be made optional if necessary to meet DL's goals.

Just a note from having implemented DE/I policies - these do not only mean gender/race. DE/I programs also aim to diversify candidate educational background and life experience. People let the media get them too focused on the gender/race part. Diversity is wider than that in HR, sometimes categories will overlap, sometimes they'll stand alone.

All a college degree proves is you passed a bunch of tests in a major that is possibly in a degree that is not worth the paper it is printed on. Many people get degrees in low level fields just to say or show that they have a college degree and if they need to take some of the tests again they took to get that degree they would FAIL big time. Some examples of good degrees are Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers and others of similar importance. For some people knowing what courses to take and where is only a way to get their foot in the door and maybe succeed and get a "better" source of employment. Some will succeed and obtain the promotion they desire while others will remain at entry level positions or find other sources of employment at entry-level positions and at low level pay and benefits with a limited future.

Aaron747 wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Right. But that doesn't mean the inverse is true. No college degree doesn't necessarily mean undisciplined or unintelligent.

No, it doesn’t, but it is documented proof that you have completed a long-term, complex project while compiling large amounts of information. In today’s world of hiring by computer screener, it matters.

Actually some of us in the recruiting world have moved totally past this obsolete thinking. Discipline can be largely irrelevant to completing a degree depending on the degree program and school. There is no way for software or an individual investigator to vet that for everyone. Other CV items - such as successful personal reinvention, success in management positions, clear progression of responsibility and experience, or attainment of new skills and growth, are *far* more demonstrative of discipline than simply playing follow the leader from 18-22. For example, in my experience, people who did not go to university right out of HS and had to claw their way up through work and eventually finish a degree via community college transfers often prove to be better hires over time.

That was my wife’s path. 2 years of CC then transfer to a major university, the MS from another major university, which led to a long career as a software developer for major companies.

If she had been disqualified because she went to CC before university, how fair would that have been?

Aaron747 wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

Nomadd wrote:

That's nonsense. Millions of people are coming out of college dumber than rocks because it's been reduced to something anybody can do.

Hardly. Both of my former partners are well educated, with one majoring in physics at Imperial in London and the other is an MD who recently finished his residency. The extreme workloads and advanced nature of their work demanded a high level of discipline over many years. What they achieved is nothing short of impressive and we should acknowledge that. Not anybody can walk into one of the top schools in the world and master physics and acceptance into med school is an accomplishment unto itself. I’d argue that the majority of us couldn’t do this. I observed two dedicated people who put in years of good old fashioned hard work to achieve a lofty goal that most of us can’t. We shouldn’t cheapen academic achievement by passing it off as common or easy because it’s not.

A bit of conflation here. Obviously specialist degrees and applied sciences are a different animal - what I and others are talking about is generic stuff like humanities and business admin. There are a lot of schools where just showing up and getting Ds on quizzes and exams will get you a BA in those. Sounds no different than high school to me.

My rough background is that life plan changed while building hours. I have around 850 or so flight hours and I did get a BS degree in Criminal Justice which is a little easier but still built a great skillset, learned numerous skills such as awesome team building and great life experiences.

After a career change due to an awesome opportunity I have BS/MS/Advanced after the MS in the Computer Science field. All these degrees were extremely hard, this round of degrees was 100% stay and work full time. They were extremely rewarding and helpful for my career.

I can see in some cases it not being needed with certain experience being more useful. This opens it up to those enlisted that are pilots in the military.

As a side note. Delta is hurting so bad for new hires that they recently sent out an email stating that if you did not make it in the hiring process to please re-apply with a different email address. Not sure what having a different email address will make?

Aaron747 wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

Nomadd wrote:

That's nonsense. Millions of people are coming out of college dumber than rocks because it's been reduced to something anybody can do.

Hardly. Both of my former partners are well educated, with one majoring in physics at Imperial in London and the other is an MD who recently finished his residency. The extreme workloads and advanced nature of their work demanded a high level of discipline over many years. What they achieved is nothing short of impressive and we should acknowledge that. Not anybody can walk into one of the top schools in the world and master physics and acceptance into med school is an accomplishment unto itself. I’d argue that the majority of us couldn’t do this. I observed two dedicated people who put in years of good old fashioned hard work to achieve a lofty goal that most of us can’t. We shouldn’t cheapen academic achievement by passing it off as common or easy because it’s not.

A bit of conflation here. Obviously specialist degrees and applied sciences are a different animal - what I and others are talking about is generic stuff like humanities and business admin. There are a lot of schools where just showing up and getting Ds on quizzes and exams will get you a BA in those. Sounds no different than high school to me.

Ahh, thanks for the clarification. I’d have to agree in that case.

CitizenJustin wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

Hardly. Both of my former partners are well educated, with one majoring in physics at Imperial in London and the other is an MD who recently finished his residency. The extreme workloads and advanced nature of their work demanded a high level of discipline over many years. What they achieved is nothing short of impressive and we should acknowledge that. Not anybody can walk into one of the top schools in the world and master physics and acceptance into med school is an accomplishment unto itself. I’d argue that the majority of us couldn’t do this. I observed two dedicated people who put in years of good old fashioned hard work to achieve a lofty goal that most of us can’t. We shouldn’t cheapen academic achievement by passing it off as common or easy because it’s not.

A bit of conflation here. Obviously specialist degrees and applied sciences are a different animal - what I and others are talking about is generic stuff like humanities and business admin. There are a lot of schools where just showing up and getting Ds on quizzes and exams will get you a BA in those. Sounds no different than high school to me.

Ahh, thanks for the clarification. I’d have to agree in that case.

Also worth noting people with those specialist degrees are typically staying in-field for duration of career.

I heard that most US airlines require a University degree in order to become a pilot. Delta is changing its policy maybe due to the shortage of pilots? Maybe they do not want things to be so dry.

In many other places outside the US, for example, Malaysia/UK/Hong Kong/Australia, there are plenty of pilots without University degrees. Some went to flying schools.

Cathay Pacific does not require a University degree in order to apply for the cadet pilot training programme:

https://careers.cathaypacific.com/jobs/ ... ay-pacific

Apply now if you are:

A Hong Kong Permanent resident

Graduated from secondary school with good passes in English language, Mathematics or Science; a degree in any discipline will also be considered provided you meet the secondary school criteria.

Physically fit and qualified for a Civil Aviation Department (HKCAD) Class 1 Medical Certificate

Able to meet our flight deck reach requirements

Achieve ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) English Language Proficiency level 4 or above

Aged 18 years or above

Clutch101 wrote:

As a side note. Delta is hurting so bad for new hires that they recently sent out an email stating that if you did not make it in the hiring process to please re-apply with a different email address. Not sure what having a different email address will make?

Well, here’s a pilot who is waiting for a interview invite lol.

FlyingElvii wrote:

planecane wrote:

Unless they required a degree in aviation or some kind of science/engineering field, I'm not sure it was really that relevant. Is someone with a history or sociology degree going to be a better pilot because of it?

I mean there have been kids that become pilots before puberty hits.

A college degree completed on time shows a certain discipline, and an ability to absorb complex data sets.

The real problem for DL I believe is Endeavor. The recent attrition due to The Great Retirement at DL has cost them around 1800 pilots. No pilots, no growth. PERIOD….
A good percentage of the replacements have been drawn from the regionals, that now have their own staffing issues, some severe. So why go to work at Endeavor without a degree, knowing you will never have a chance to move up to Daddy Delta? That Cheaper contractor feed is an important part of the biz plans of all three majors.

Except that a large part college students can't do it in 4 years because they have to work while going to school. Arizona colleges relaxed the 4 year limit for in state tuition years ago. Initially going to 5 years for a degree. Noting this as the reason.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

Maybe if airlines pay their pilot more fairly, we won't be in this sticky situation. The Scope clause is one of the results of airlines trying to low ball pilots and FAs.

Scope clause keeps pilot wages high...

I think some people here misunderstood my comment. What I meant was, the scope clause was created because of the unfair practices airlines done to underpay their pilot.

My point is, the amount of time and money someone need to spend to became a Pilot for major airlines like Delta (which mean years and years of experience and expenditure to achieve this). Alongside with the high interest rate for student loans, it's no wonder why most people think twice before becoming a pilot these days.

These executives didn't spend enough time to actually think about the process, they all see workers as disposable machine that could be thrown off once it's wear off.

Fact 1 university education has become more expensive over time.
Fact 2 airlines cannot find enough suitable candidates to hire

So a market based solution to this problem is a) pay more or b) reduce requirements. One of these options is cheaper. You can see which was selected.

I don't need my pilot to be able to quote Rabelais. I need him to have 1500 flight hours under his belt so he has the experience to fly me safely and promptly to my destination. He needs to have a knowledge of meteorology, but I assume he can get that from flight school. I firmly believe in a college education, but pilots don't need it nor do a number of other jobs that require college degrees.

Clutch101 wrote:

As a side note. Delta is hurting so bad for new hires that they recently sent out an email stating that if you did not make it in the hiring process to please re-apply with a different email address. Not sure what having a different email address will make?

I bet their HR system automatically rejects applicants that have recently applied. So applying with a new email address gets around this.

Wow.

So even a person who graduated from MIT, Harvard, or any of the other top US schools AND had a strong resume with boatloads of professional experience both flying and other market, wouldn't get interviewed if it took them 5 years to graduate? That's a bit dumb... I understood the Bachelor's degree requirement, but other than that, kinda virtue-signaling-y.

Personally always thought the 1500 hours and the cost to get that initial 250 was enough investment to start at the regionals.

You mean I need to spend $100K on flight training and on top of that have another $60K+ in college debt for a Bachelor's degree in /anything/ to get hired at the majors? Then they say you shouldn't get an aviation degree because it's otherwise worthless if the economy tanks and airplanes go down. You're either in massive debt or at risk of going bankrupt. Scholarships are too sparse, too elusive, and too strict with GPA minimums.

However however however, that is a fairly new requirement I will say (ATP for FO). With enough pilots at the regionals though (back then), Delta was able to do whatever they wanted and have a college degree requirement.

CarlosSi wrote:

Wow.

So even a person who graduated from MIT, Harvard, or any of the other top US schools AND had a strong resume with boatloads of professional experience both flying and other market, wouldn't get interviewed if it took them 5 years to graduate? That's a bit dumb... I understood the Bachelor's degree requirement, but other than that, kinda virtue-signaling-y.

Personally always thought the 1500 hours and the cost to get that initial 250 was enough investment to start at the regionals.

You mean I need to spend $100K on flight training and on top of that have another $60K+ in college debt for a Bachelor's degree in /anything/ to get hired at the majors? Then they say you shouldn't get an aviation degree because it's otherwise worthless if the economy tanks and airplanes go down. You're either in massive debt or at risk of going bankrupt. Scholarships are too sparse, too elusive, and too strict with GPA minimums.

However however however, that is a fairly new requirement I will say (ATP for FO). With enough pilots at the regionals though (back then), Delta was able to do whatever they wanted and have a college degree requirement.

I'll say it again for those in the back. There never was a requirement to graduate from college in a set number of years at DL. Fake news, misinformation. Bad rumors like this cause otherwise qualified candidates to falsely dismiss themselves from what might've been a dream job.

Cactusjuba wrote:

CarlosSi wrote:

Wow.

So even a person who graduated from MIT, Harvard, or any of the other top US schools AND had a strong resume with boatloads of professional experience both flying and other market, wouldn't get interviewed if it took them 5 years to graduate? That's a bit dumb... I understood the Bachelor's degree requirement, but other than that, kinda virtue-signaling-y.

Personally always thought the 1500 hours and the cost to get that initial 250 was enough investment to start at the regionals.

You mean I need to spend $100K on flight training and on top of that have another $60K+ in college debt for a Bachelor's degree in /anything/ to get hired at the majors? Then they say you shouldn't get an aviation degree because it's otherwise worthless if the economy tanks and airplanes go down. You're either in massive debt or at risk of going bankrupt. Scholarships are too sparse, too elusive, and too strict with GPA minimums.

However however however, that is a fairly new requirement I will say (ATP for FO). With enough pilots at the regionals though (back then), Delta was able to do whatever they wanted and have a college degree requirement.

I'll say it again for those in the back. There never was a requirement to graduate from college in a set number of years at DL. Fake news, misinformation. Bad rumors like this cause otherwise qualified candidates to falsely dismiss themselves from what might've been a dream job.

Thanks for clarifying. Not sure where that rumor came from.

I have however heard that they did require a 3.0GPA? Or maybe that too is fake news.

CarlosSi wrote:

Cactusjuba wrote:

CarlosSi wrote:

Wow.

So even a person who graduated from MIT, Harvard, or any of the other top US schools AND had a strong resume with boatloads of professional experience both flying and other market, wouldn't get interviewed if it took them 5 years to graduate? That's a bit dumb... I understood the Bachelor's degree requirement, but other than that, kinda virtue-signaling-y.

Personally always thought the 1500 hours and the cost to get that initial 250 was enough investment to start at the regionals.

You mean I need to spend $100K on flight training and on top of that have another $60K+ in college debt for a Bachelor's degree in /anything/ to get hired at the majors? Then they say you shouldn't get an aviation degree because it's otherwise worthless if the economy tanks and airplanes go down. You're either in massive debt or at risk of going bankrupt. Scholarships are too sparse, too elusive, and too strict with GPA minimums.

However however however, that is a fairly new requirement I will say (ATP for FO). With enough pilots at the regionals though (back then), Delta was able to do whatever they wanted and have a college degree requirement.

I'll say it again for those in the back. There never was a requirement to graduate from college in a set number of years at DL. Fake news, misinformation. Bad rumors like this cause otherwise qualified candidates to falsely dismiss themselves from what might've been a dream job.

Thanks for clarifying. Not sure where that rumor came from.

I have however heard that they did require a 3.0GPA? Or maybe that too is fake news.

Probably fake news, too. DL has always looked a “whole person”; education, experience, type of training, community involvement including volunteer work, family. At one time, being married was thought important and wives went to a very Southern style dinner where they told how they were now part of a family. Hint, hint, stay with your husband. All that was gone with the Ron Allen days, I think.

LCDFlight wrote:

This sounds like a diversity thing. IIRC, Delta (or another similar airline) said they want the pilot workforce to reflect US demographics by gender and race. That means drastic steps need to be taken, because that will be a huge change. What this announcement says is, the degree will be made optional if necessary to meet DL's goals.

This.

Of course, if such DIE initiatives are really need to truly diversify the pilot pool, and the definition of "diversity," best ways to accomplish that, etc. are questions that remain at least publicly unasked.

klakzky123 wrote:

Clutch101 wrote:

As a side note. Delta is hurting so bad for new hires that they recently sent out an email stating that if you did not make it in the hiring process to please re-apply with a different email address. Not sure what having a different email address will make?

I bet their HR system automatically rejects applicants that have recently applied. So applying with a new email address gets around this.

Nothing like HR/Recruiting having to tell candidates how to trick their own system. Talk about an admission of defeat.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Probably fake news, too. DL has always looked a “whole person”; education, experience, type of training, community involvement including volunteer work, family. At one time, being married was thought important and wives went to a very Southern style dinner where they told how they were now part of a family. Hint, hint, stay with your husband. All that was gone with the Ron Allen days, I think.

Yeah, but Delta has recently (say last decade) had a model that was sold to them by various outside consultants (and subsequently adopted by other airlines) that said that certain candidates were a better bet than others. That in turn was driven by some extraordinarily self serving "research" from the likes of Purdue and ERAU that said "we know what makes the best airline pilot." The idea that any of the data or research was legitimate, free from data crafting, or facing what would be a significant conflict of interest was generally ignored.

It was an attempt, in my opinion, to make the quantitative into a qualitative decision, for people in places like HR (the vast majority have NO operational experience and are frankly hiring with an eye to other factors than pilot skill) to get the best pilot for Delta, and not necessarily the best, most qualified applicant.

SO, they got those applicants, and the colleges joined the military pilot monoculture, and the death of many options for pilot experience (like check hauling, low tier regionals, etc.) along with the variety of perverse incentives inside the industry itself have created a situation where there is an entirely self-induced shortage. Much like the Ukrainian Famine was a "famine" and not the entirely predictable outcome of a series of manmade decisions.

FlapOperator wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

This sounds like a diversity thing. IIRC, Delta (or another similar airline) said they want the pilot workforce to reflect US demographics by gender and race. That means drastic steps need to be taken, because that will be a huge change. What this announcement says is, the degree will be made optional if necessary to meet DL's goals.

This.

Of course, if such DIE initiatives are really need to truly diversify the pilot pool, and the definition of "diversity," best ways to accomplish that, etc. are questions that remain at least publicly unasked.

LOL, I think it is supposed to be spelled "DEI..." Usually

Cactusjuba wrote:

I'll say it again for those in the back. There never was a requirement to graduate from college in a set number of years at DL. Fake news, misinformation. Bad rumors like this cause otherwise qualified candidates to falsely dismiss themselves from what might've been a dream job.

What was the percentage of non-college grads selected at Delta between 1993 and 2020? Or, in the recent model, people who didn't graduate from a "top tier university" or academy with a certain GPA? If it wasn't a selection criteria, why was it on the application?

I'd guess less than 5%. Way less. Of that group of people who didn't have college degrees, what percentage didn't have a significant internal recommendation or other significant HRcentric hook to their application?

So yeah, there wasn't a "requirement." But people can do basic math to suggest that the 99% who did have the right college degrees (that weren't SLI'd onto property) represented a de facto requirement.

usdcaguy wrote:

I don't need my pilot to be able to quote Rabelais. I need him to have 1500 flight hours under his belt so he has the experience to fly me safely and promptly to my destination. He needs to have a knowledge of meteorology, but I assume he can get that from flight school. I firmly believe in a college education, but pilots don't need it nor do a number of other jobs that require college degrees.

As a person who had trained a variety of aviators, I can tell that in the aggregate, the college degree is a positive thing, along with LARGE variety of other factors, to predicting success in training programs and on the line.

I always find fascinating the people who seem to know what makes a trainable, safe, reliable aviator, despite never turning left on a jetbridge or air stair in their life.

Its one thing when its someone on the internet. Its entirely another when its an HR or management person without so much as 10 hours in a Cessna.

FlapOperator wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Probably fake news, too. DL has always looked a “whole person”; education, experience, type of training, community involvement including volunteer work, family. At one time, being married was thought important and wives went to a very Southern style dinner where they told how they were now part of a family. Hint, hint, stay with your husband. All that was gone with the Ron Allen days, I think.

Yeah, but Delta has recently (say last decade) had a model that was sold to them by various outside consultants (and subsequently adopted by other airlines) that said that certain candidates were a better bet than others. That in turn was driven by some extraordinarily self serving "research" from the likes of Purdue and ERAU that said "we know what makes the best airline pilot." The idea that any of the data or research was legitimate, free from data crafting, or facing what would be a significant conflict of interest was generally ignored.

It was an attempt, in my opinion, to make the quantitative into a qualitative decision, for people in places like HR (the vast majority have NO operational experience and are frankly hiring with an eye to other factors than pilot skill) to get the best pilot for Delta, and not necessarily the best, most qualified applicant.

SO, they got those applicants, and the colleges joined the military pilot monoculture, and the death of many options for pilot experience (like check hauling, low tier regionals, etc.) along with the variety of perverse incentives inside the industry itself have created a situation where there is an entirely self-induced shortage. Much like the Ukrainian Famine was a "famine" and not the entirely predictable outcome of a series of manmade decisions.

That and the long-standing psych evaluation. The doctor having committing suicide.

FlapOperator wrote:

Or, in the recent model, people who didn't graduate from a "top tier university" or academy with a certain GPA? If it wasn't a selection criteria, why was it on the application?

I'd guess less than 5%. Way less. Of that group of people who didn't have college degrees, what percentage didn't have a significant internal recommendation or other significant HRcentric hook to their application?

Most of the Delta pilots I know (and I know a lot) don't fit into the category you're mentioning.

Why is it on the app? Lots of different things are on the app. Doesn't mean they're all deal-breakers. Whole-person concept.

And as someone who has also trained a lot of pilots (hundreds), I saw absolutely no correlation between someone's degree (technical vs non technical) and GPA vs how good of a pilot they were/became

Great move on Delta's part. I hope more companies (not just airlines, companies in all industries) take a hard look on what makes a good candidate. Hard work, experience, etc, vs just a piece of paper. Maybe that piece of paper has a story behind it and means a lot, but often it's just a waste of 4 years and a lot of $$$$$

FlapOperator wrote:

klakzky123 wrote:

Clutch101 wrote:

As a side note. Delta is hurting so bad for new hires that they recently sent out an email stating that if you did not make it in the hiring process to please re-apply with a different email address. Not sure what having a different email address will make?

I bet their HR system automatically rejects applicants that have recently applied. So applying with a new email address gets around this.

Nothing like HR/Recruiting having to tell candidates how to trick their own system. Talk about an admission of defeat.

Recruiting is definitely broken, nearly top to bottom, in nearly all industries. But nobody’s admitting defeat.

FlapOperator wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Probably fake news, too. DL has always looked a “whole person”; education, experience, type of training, community involvement including volunteer work, family. At one time, being married was thought important and wives went to a very Southern style dinner where they told how they were now part of a family. Hint, hint, stay with your husband. All that was gone with the Ron Allen days, I think.

Yeah, but Delta has recently (say last decade) had a model that was sold to them by various outside consultants (and subsequently adopted by other airlines) that said that certain candidates were a better bet than others. That in turn was driven by some extraordinarily self serving "research" from the likes of Purdue and ERAU that said "we know what makes the best airline pilot." The idea that any of the data or research was legitimate, free from data crafting, or facing what would be a significant conflict of interest was generally ignored.

It was an attempt, in my opinion, to make the quantitative into a qualitative decision, for people in places like HR (the vast majority have NO operational experience and are frankly hiring with an eye to other factors than pilot skill) to get the best pilot for Delta, and not necessarily the best, most qualified applicant.

SO, they got those applicants, and the colleges joined the military pilot monoculture, and the death of many options for pilot experience (like check hauling, low tier regionals, etc.) along with the variety of perverse incentives inside the industry itself have created a situation where there is an entirely self-induced shortage. Much like the Ukrainian Famine was a "famine" and not the entirely predictable outcome of a series of manmade decisions.

The transition to ATS and quantitative candidate analyzers like Workday made the disconnect between HR and JDs even larger than it was previously. At scale, mission-specific recruiting is a lot more complicated than it need be. But make no mistake, the sales specialists from HR software companies are very good at wowing C-suites with promises of efficiency. Why keep on an HR/recruiting staff of 250 when our software will let you get by with only 100?

DeltaMD90 wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

Or, in the recent model, people who didn't graduate from a "top tier university" or academy with a certain GPA? If it wasn't a selection criteria, why was it on the application?

I'd guess less than 5%. Way less. Of that group of people who didn't have college degrees, what percentage didn't have a significant internal recommendation or other significant HRcentric hook to their application?

Most of the Delta pilots I know (and I know a lot) don't fit into the category you're mentioning.

Why is it on the app? Lots of different things are on the app. Doesn't mean they're all deal-breakers. Whole-person concept.

And as someone who has also trained a lot of pilots (hundreds), I saw absolutely no correlation between someone's degree (technical vs non technical) and GPA vs how good of a pilot they were/became

Great move on Delta's part. I hope more companies (not just airlines, companies in all industries) take a hard look on what makes a good candidate. Hard work, experience, etc, vs just a piece of paper. Maybe that piece of paper has a story behind it and means a lot, but often it's just a waste of 4 years and a lot of $$$$$

For the legacies, it is wise to remember that we are talking about requirements that have been in place since the end of the Second World War. Military preference or college degree has LONG been the standard at many carriers.

For the younger folks among us, there was a time not long ago, as recent as the mid 80’s for ground and support staff, the mid-late 2000’s for flying staff, that you had to PAY the airlines to even look at your application, and not a little, either…

My application in 1986 for a PART-Time TWA ramp job required that I include a check for $75, ( over $200 in today money) to even have the app looked at, unless you were a legacy. It was MORE for some airlines, less for others, the first regional airline job I landed had a $20 dollar app fee. To quote Uncle Bill, it was to weed out the “McDonald’s employees and schmucks”. And they could get it. Working for an airline, any airline, was considered a glamorous job in those days.

Ask the older pilots here how many app fees they have paid over the years.

I can assure, Delta or any other major would not be doing this if they did not see a hiring issue on the horizon.

Aaron747 wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

klakzky123 wrote:

I bet their HR system automatically rejects applicants that have recently applied. So applying with a new email address gets around this.

Nothing like HR/Recruiting having to tell candidates how to trick their own system. Talk about an admission of defeat.

Recruiting is definitely broken, nearly top to bottom, in nearly all industries. But nobody’s admitting defeat.

Even daring to do so would likely end your career, in the current environment.

FlyingElvii wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

Nothing like HR/Recruiting having to tell candidates how to trick their own system. Talk about an admission of defeat.

Recruiting is definitely broken, nearly top to bottom, in nearly all industries. But nobody’s admitting defeat.

Even daring to do so would likely end your career, in the current environment.

In a lot of organizations, the decisions harming the process are coming at the HRD/COO level. When was the last time they had a candidate sourcing quota to fill?

FlyingElvii wrote:

DeltaMD90 wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

Or, in the recent model, people who didn't graduate from a "top tier university" or academy with a certain GPA? If it wasn't a selection criteria, why was it on the application?

I'd guess less than 5%. Way less. Of that group of people who didn't have college degrees, what percentage didn't have a significant internal recommendation or other significant HRcentric hook to their application?

Most of the Delta pilots I know (and I know a lot) don't fit into the category you're mentioning.

Why is it on the app? Lots of different things are on the app. Doesn't mean they're all deal-breakers. Whole-person concept.

And as someone who has also trained a lot of pilots (hundreds), I saw absolutely no correlation between someone's degree (technical vs non technical) and GPA vs how good of a pilot they were/became

Great move on Delta's part. I hope more companies (not just airlines, companies in all industries) take a hard look on what makes a good candidate. Hard work, experience, etc, vs just a piece of paper. Maybe that piece of paper has a story behind it and means a lot, but often it's just a waste of 4 years and a lot of $$$$$

For the legacies, it is wise to remember that we are talking about requirements that have been in place since the end of the Second World War. Military preference or college degree has LONG been the standard at many carriers.

For the younger folks among us, there was a time not long ago, as recent as the mid 80’s for ground and support staff, the mid-late 2000’s for flying staff, that you had to PAY the airlines to even look at your application, and not a little, either…

My application in 1986 for a PART-Time TWA ramp job required that I include a check for $75, ( over $200 in today money) to even have the app looked at, unless you were a legacy. It was MORE for some airlines, less for others, the first regional airline job I landed had a $20 dollar app fee. To quote Uncle Bill, it was to weed out the “McDonald’s employees and schmucks”. And they could get it. Working for an airline, any airline, was considered a glamorous job in those days.

Ask the older pilots here how many app fees they have paid over the years.

I can assure, Delta or any other major would not be doing this if they did not see a hiring issue on the horizon.

Indeed, lots of application money and no guarantee about getting called. People go on about the supposed 1590 hour rule or the ATP rule, but it wasn’t long ago hiring standards were 2,000 to 5,000 hours, depending on the type of flying, an ATP with Turbine PIC time. In the 80s, probably 65% of new hires were ex-military. The idea of 250 wet commercial pilots was a very short window in the post-9/11 world of rapidly expanding RJs. Before that, the 1964-66 time frame was a big hiring boom with few eligible pilots, so guys with 200 hours were getting hired.

Maybe airlines should recruit people with the aptitude and have a flight academy. Jet Blue has one.

I think this is a good move.

Unless it's a relevant degree, there's no point. There are plenty of other ways to show that you're goal oriented and have self discipline.

However, there's a flip side: Previously almost all new pilots would struggle with quite large student debt - both from college and flight school. Now, new hires might not have that much student debt, which also means they require less salary. In theory.