PanEuropean wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 4:06 pm
My guess is that the CP at the original poster's current employer probably first asked the pilot if he would hang on for a little while to let the CP find and train a replacement for him or her, and the pilot said 'no'. So you can't blame the CP for doing his/her best to keep the operation running.
Lots of assumptions. But if it's true...
Great attitude to have as a company. You ask for a favor from someone, they say no, so you force them to do it anyway.
---------- ADS -----------
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Why spread rumours about this maybe being a thing? Let me help you: it is most definitely a thing. Sometimes some airline will realize they have six or eight pilots from the same company in an initial course and call their CP to apologize and ask if they’re going to survive. Sometimes a pile of reference calls will come from the same place and a CP will ask if they can pump the brakes a little to keep from going under.
The responsible way forward is probably an agreement between the two companies to recognize the talent they foster and interview at the bigger shop before the candidate is really ready for the move. That way the candidate can progress at their current employer, who also has some idea of a timeline to train their replacement.
lownslow wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 6:16 pm
Why spread rumours about this maybe being a thing? Let me help you: it is most definitely a thing. Sometimes some airline will realize they have six or eight pilots from the same company in an initial course and call their CP to apologize and ask if they’re going to survive. Sometimes a pile of reference calls will come from the same place and a CP will ask if they can pump the brakes a little to keep from going under.
The more appropriate conversation would be 'what the hell did you do to make 8 guys quit at the same time??"
I've witnessed 3 mass exoduses (exodi?) like that. There was always a good reason.
---------- ADS -----------
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Perhaps. But does it reflect well on the airline and the future ex-employer if they make backroom deals like that? You're not some piece of cattle or a multi million dollar hockey player to be sold at their whim.
An employer has the right to give or refuse to give a reference. But if he's actively trying to block your progress, that's a seriously shitty move. And if the hiring airline goes along with it, well, ... I'd look at other options to be honest. The airline should be talking to you, you should be talking to your employer if you want to make a deal. The airline and the employer should *NOT* be negotiating behind your back. Assuming that's what actually happened, the initial post is a bit vague on that.
It’s not that they’re negotiating behind your back, or “back room deals”.
These deals have been made long before any specific Pilot is involved. It’s not personal and not behind someone’s back. It’s no more than the Chief Pilot saying I’ll work with you and take time out my day to give you references of my employees as long as you agree to not completely screw me in my ability to staff my airplanes.
These airlines could clear out an entire 703/704 carrier or their Pilot group in the span weeks. But they don’t, they want a good working relationship with the people they rely on for information about their potential new hires. Making a big deal out of the situation would only turn out poorly.
So to the original poster, don’t take it personally. It’s been happening for years and I know of several 704’s who had similar agreements in place over the years. Most of the people hired in the past 4-5 years by a regional have been subject to the same fate, they just didn’t know it.
Still disgusting. And what you describe would be a prime example of a back room deal.
Employers are free to offer whatever they want to employees, if you don't like it, don't take it. Might not be a great situation, but so be it. But if an employer then takes away the only 'weapon' an employee has to improve his situation? That's just completely messed up.
This is a way bigger issue than bonds, and deservers more publicity if it is as widespread as you claim. I hope companies like that never find another pilot again.
Alrigh, whatever you say…..
I see from your posts you have or had an interview with AC. I know first had they have had this deal in place for years. (Along with Jazz, Westjet and many more). If you’re so disgusted by it make sure to tell them in your interview those kind of deals bother you and you wish not to be a part of it.
digits_ wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 6:36 pm
The more appropriate conversation would be 'what the hell did you do to make 8 guys quit at the same time??"
2018 saw the hiring gates at the regionals wide open. I can’t speak for management at other companies but my own policy was to keep our pilots moving forward regardless of their own career agendas. 703s are transitory positions for most, I get it, just throw me a bone and help keep me in the loop when you plan to leave so I can have a stream of replacements coming in. No hard feelings over honesty.
I was actually part of a mass exodus at my first instructing job. A good 80% of the staff all put in our notice the same morning without anyone having pre-planned it that way. It was just all of us moving on with tragic timing for the school.
digits_ wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 6:36 pm
The more appropriate conversation would be 'what the hell did you do to make 8 guys quit at the same time??"
2018 saw the hiring gates at the regionals wide open. I can’t speak for management at other companies but my own policy was to keep our pilots moving forward regardless of their own career agendas. 703s are transitory positions for most, I get it, just throw me a bone and help keep me in the loop when you plan to leave so I can have a stream of replacements coming in. No hard feelings over honesty.
I was actually part of a mass exodus at my first instructing job. A good 80% of the staff all put in our notice the same morning without anyone having pre-planned it that way. It was just all of us moving on with tragic timing for the school.
Maybe if your company just operated some Boeing products out of YYZ, you wouldn’t have seen such turnover!
Col. Panic wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 8:45 am
Maybe if your company just operated some Boeing products out of YYZ, you wouldn’t have seen such turnover!
The nerve, eh? Many people make a satisfying career out of flying twin turboprops or floats or whatever but the responsible non-AC/WestJet company knows that the majority of their flying staff will be transient no matter what they do. I even had pushback on offering significant raises, I assume because pilots were scared they’d have a harder time convincing themselves to leave. Wish I could have kept the difference for myself.
oakmoss1889 wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 12:29 pm
I've heard of this happenening to various people at various airlines in the past. Chief pilot talks to HR at prospective new company and asks them to delay or even not hire a pilot because they are short and can't afford to lose them, and the other airlne agrees to CPs request. I'm concerned this is happening to me now. Has this happened to anyone here? How do you deal with it?
Thanks.
The CP at my last 703 did that to a guy while I was there. Dirtiest move I have ever seen. Literally F d the kid over after a good number of years of being a solid guy. I never heard how badly it effected him but it was at least a 6 month setback.
I cannot prove it happened to me, but I’ll always be suspicious that an interview that went really well and that I was told was “a sure thing with an internal reference” came back as a PFO. Luck of the draw or did they call my CP (they never asked for references) and did he sink me to slow the hemmorage? We’ll never know for sure.
I once did some recruiting work for an airline. We met with flight colleges and smaller operators to discuss their training and procedures and provided suggestions how to make their procedures more "705" so the graduates would have an easier time integrating into an airline once they got there. There was at least one agreement with a flight school where pilots wouldn't be considered for a ground school unless they had served 2 years as a flight instructor. I guess the idea was to not drain the talent pool while providing the airline with candidates trained to a known standard. I'm not sure if they still have this agreement but it sounded extremely fishy at the time. I left the recruitment team after finding that out.
cncpc wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 1:22 pm
There is a tort called "interference with economic relations", or something similar. It comes to mind, but not sure as I don't know the whole story.
I thought about that too but one of the elements is that there needs to be some illegal activity.
5yrs ago , was sittin in a cp office having a coffee on a maintenance operational matter, his office phone rings so i patiently await my turn . its the cp of a regional asking about another pilot. this pilot had worked 4 years 5 freeze your nuts off winters from the ramp to king air capt good pilot n decent human being inso much as one can be at -42 in jan . the regioinal cp asks any issues. cp 703 says he was late last week // but failed to mention to the regional cp there was a snowstorm that was shutting down the hiways . got pfo letter following week. needless to say 0 respect for that cp. that thru the kid under the bus .
Really makes you wonder how bad a pilot could possibly be if he has been employed by the same employer for 4 years... After a certain timeframe an airline really shouldn't care about references anymore.
---------- ADS -----------
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
digits_ wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 10:37 am
After a certain timeframe an airline really shouldn't care about references anymore.
+1
If a guy's been in the same job for 4 years and the only thing a boss can think to say about him is "he was late once last week" then that says more about the boss than the employee.
---------- ADS -----------
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Hearing more often now a days with the big pull happening in the 705s guys are getting sewered left and right. Even guys who worked hard getting sewered because they chose not to take a captain seat to guys who broke their back for a company but the company has chosen not to give references.
cncpc wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 1:22 pm
There is a tort called "interference with economic relations", or something similar. It comes to mind, but not sure as I don't know the whole story.
I thought about that too but one of the elements is that there needs to be some illegal activity.
I'm not sure where you came up with that. The conduct needs to be "tortious", but not illegal. Fraud is the only crime/tort that bears the same name, although any victim of a crime also has civil law recourse. Criminal assault can also be the basis of a civil claim, for example.
I expect it makes some difference as to whether this arrangement was only in respect of the OP, or was simply a broad agreement between the two carriers
---------- ADS -----------
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
I kind of think a lot of people are sewering themselves in interviews too, but if you can blame someone else it saves the trouble of having to improve AND you get a fun victim story to tell.
lownslow wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 5:44 pm
I kind of think a lot of people are sewering themselves in interviews too, but if you can blame someone else it saves the trouble of having to improve AND you get a fun victim story to tell.
Heard first hand account of a pilot at "company A" get hired at "company B". Pilot tells CP of company A he is resigning. Next thing he knows he gets a call back from company B saying they are postponing his groundschool date at the request of CP, because CP called company B and said they "couldnt afford to lose him now".
Also if they tanked the interview why would they make it to the refference stage?
