CMA interview...weird

neverfail · Post by **neverfail** » Tue Jun 15, 2004 6:25 am

Anyone heard that there was a guy from regency that fail a CMA interview 'cause he was being to sarcastic? Weird

Snowgoose · Post by **Snowgoose** » Tue Jun 15, 2004 8:14 am

Overly sarcastic people tend to be negative people. Doesn't matter the industry, negative people affect the moral of the staff. So naturally if a company senses this in the interview you'll get a "Don't call us, we'll call you"

hz2p · Post by **hz2p** » Tue Jun 15, 2004 8:17 am

I have trouble believing this, because if airlines got rid of all of their pilots that were *ssholes there would be an awful lot of Boeings and Airbuses parked at the gates for a long, long time

Snowgoose · Post by **Snowgoose** » Tue Jun 15, 2004 8:29 am

Once they're in, there's usually not a whole lot you can do about it. Especially if they're unionized. Most, if not all, collective agreements don't have a jacka$$ clause.

All I am saying is that if they get a negative vibe in the interview, like someone being overly sarcastic, they're probably not going to get "the call"

I have intereviewed people before, in another industry, and that was one of the things I was looking for.

radranj · Post by **radranj** » Tue Jun 15, 2004 10:27 am

If it's the guy that I'm thinking of, he really doesn't need a CMA job, he just bought himself a shiny new Caravan PPC.

.80@410 · Post by **.80@410** » Tue Jun 15, 2004 11:00 am

From your @ss company I'm sure. ( Regency )

to you and all other pilot's who prostitute themselves and contribute to making this industry worse.

hz2p · Post by **hz2p** » Tue Jun 15, 2004 11:41 am

I just wanted to clarify something about the use of the term "prostitute" ....

A prostitute is paid for providing services, much like any pilot.

I think you are taking issue with pilots who "give it away for free", which if we follow the sex trade analogy would perhaps make them "sluts" or "tramps".

I can just see the prostitute union marching on city hall, and demanding that the town council "do something" about all the loose women who are giving it away for free

Wasn't Me · Post by **Wasn't Me** » Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:09 pm

Sounds like the posters seem to have a little attitude themselves. Love to meet you at the other end of an interview and see how brave you'd be then. Pilots who try to get ahead are not pro' etc. If you cann't compete find something else to do. The industry is changing keep up or get passed by.

just another pilot · Post by **just another pilot** » Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:28 pm

You "get ahead" by working hard, not by paying money. Reward through work, now there's a concept.

Sarcasm, oh oh, I'll never work for CMA..

If some one isn't a little negative, or down on the industry right now, you're probably interviewing a sociopath.

bigcanuck · Post by **bigcanuck** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 2:27 pm

Flying is like sex. Dont pay to get some. bang head

just another pilot · Post by **just another pilot** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 4:01 pm

Or.. flying is like dating. You'll pay way too much, and you may not get any

.

Pratt · Post by **Pratt** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 9:34 pm

Being sarcastic is one thing, being sarcastic during an interview is totally different. If the sarcastic person was really trying to get the job, they would/should know how to conduct themself during the interview.

If the sarcasm was towards a previous employer that generally doesn't go across well, nor does any negative talk about past employers.

Next time the person might know better.

gelbisch · Post by **gelbisch** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:14 am

Pratt wrote:Being sarcastic is one thing, being sarcastic during an interview is totally different. If the sarcastic person was really trying to get the job, they would/should know how to conduct themself during the interview.

precisely. at most interviews, you've got the experience required or you wouldn't have walked through the door; the interviewers just want to see what kind of a person you are and how you're going to get along with the guy/gal sitting next to you in the cockpit. and if you don't have the sense to put your best foot forward at this point, maybe you didn't deserve the chance in the first place...

just another pilot wrote:Or.. flying is like dating. You'll pay way too much, and you may not get any.

Mister · Post by **Mister** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 10:28 am

All I can say is no matter how right you may be in making comments about others, in this case it may be a past employer, keep it to your self. It only portrays a bad attitude...regardless of what kind of person you really are. Someone may see this as not being yourself...if this is the case, maybe you have to revaluate your attitude. If all you have are lemons, make lemon aid. There is some meaning behind this old saying that I think we can all learn from. Rather than saying that guy is a crook and I hated working there, why not say nothing at all. Don’t volunteer information that may sink you. There are ways of getting your point across without making yourself and others look bad.

172pilot · Post by **172pilot** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 10:59 am

JustAnotherPilot,

When you said:
"You "get ahead" by working hard, not by paying money."

I'm thinking in order to buy that PPC you need money and money comes from working hard and saving. I'm not advocating to buy a PPC but if a person works hard and can save up the cash then I don't think we have the right to look down on them for buying a PPC. If we all had excess spare money I'm sure we'd do whatever it takes to advance our careers and in many industries you are required to go out and buy more education to get a one up on everyone else. Tech world to be specific. I'm not a commercial pilot. Just giving my insight.

just another pilot · Post by **just another pilot** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 11:51 am

172pilot. Why would it or should it ever be necessary to buy a PPC? Why? Because someone is willing to "do what it takes" to be succeed? That is a complete abdication of prinicples, honour and integrity. I, and every other commercial pilot, have every right to ridicule a fellow commercial pilot when they lower the standards for the rest.
Please do not mistake a PPC for a legal requirement before you can get hired. All that is required is the appropriate Transport Canada license and ratings.
It is the reponibility of a Operation Manager and Chief Pilot to ensure that their pilots are up to training standards for their aircraft. It is the responsibility of the owners to treat their empoyees with respect and dignity, and to allow them to make a living. It is the responibility of the pilot, when he/she is treated fairly, to honour agreements and to work to the best of his/her ability, and to respect verbal contracts where they apply.
I cannot speak for the IT industry, however, should not the same principles apply?

172pilot · Post by **172pilot** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 1:06 pm

I'm not very familiar with commercial aviation employment, but I'll try to relate if I can. In my industry there really is no requirement, but it has become that without a degree you can't get a job - period. Lately, it seems a MBA is required, and it's rare to find an employer to pay for that even though the knowledge is required for the job.

Maybe I should ask, where do we draw a line between what the employee and employer should be paying for. No one ridicules someone for obtaining a MBA which costs tens of thousands. Most can't afford this. Is it fair? Dunno. Some people waste their money then complain they can't go back to school. Some save like crazy and forgo weekends at the bar and drive junky cars etc. Therefore, all i'm wondering is if a PPC can help you move on with an aviation career, is this different than the business world where a MBA, CA, CFA can help you jump over hoards of people all applying for the same type of work. Having one of these designations can make the difference from starting at the bottom to having a well paying job. It's cut throat lately much like aviation I suppose.

I notice that in aviation that there is a bit of expectation to keep the playing field level for everyone and it's not really like that in many other industries.

Hope you can see what I'm saying. And yes, I understand what you are saying about principles and I wish it was the same across all industries. I don't want to start a PPC debate but I'm curious on your opinion.

Dockjock · Post by **Dockjock** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 1:14 pm

Difference being that with an MBA you typically command a STARTING salary of $80K.

With flying you need that PPC to get you in the door of some crap companies to make $18K. Big difference.

just another pilot · Post by **just another pilot** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 2:52 pm

172pilot. If you are refering to a proffession like law, engineering or medicine, then yes, a degree is a requirement. If you wish to fly for hire, a commercial licence is a requirement. Lets stop right here - this is no small investment of time or money.
If you choose to maintain a valid commercial license, you must have a current catagory one medical. If you seek employment beyond single engine flying, you must be multi engine endorsed. Since most companies that operate multi-engine aircraft utilize the IFR enviroment - you need to be instrument rated. Let stop here again - this is no small investment of time or money. Any training beyond this level, a company will have specific training requirements for their operating aircraft. (The infamous & dreaded PPC) Now, in addition to all of this, many commercial pilots also have post-secondary! This is a tremendous amount of time and money.
So, as the average Joe/Jane pilot meanders through their career, should he/she continue to save and pay for each and every upgrade? Is that the way to "do what it takes"? Bear in mind, as you are working, you are also generating revenue for the company.
So, I guess the question is...Is a PPC a requirement? No. It is on the job training, just like Doctors, lawyers and engineers recieve. And yes, they get paid to do it, and they get tested in the end.
I draw the line of pilot responsibility at Transport Canada requirements of hire or reward. Proficiency of pilots falls under the responsibility of the company owner, who has chosen aviation as a way to profit.
Or to put it another way; after my training was completed to TC standards, I can fly almost anywhere, and any aircraft stated in my grouped catagories. If I choose to operate for profit/revenue an aircraft commercially, then I am required to have proficiently trained pilot/s according to TC.
It is a pilot's responsibility to have the valid medical, license, and ratings. The owner has the responsibility of PPCs and maintenance, for the aircraft and crew they profit from. IMHO.

gelbisch · Post by **gelbisch** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 9:00 pm

i agree with you, just another pilot, but it's unfortunately a brave new world and the industry evolves with the supply and demand of and for pilots. we are unfortunately a unique breed in that most of us will tolerate a lot just for the opportunity to do this job, and there will always be those that will tolerate what the majority of us find distasteful.

and if someone will do it, it'll never go away.

but apparently there's a HUGE pilot shortage on the horizon...