AIRLINE SELECTION PROGRAMME
            eLearning platform

Oct 1 / AIRLINE SELECTION PROGRAMME

Why It Takes 800 Interviews to Hire 100 Pilots

Airlines do struggle to recruit. Not in the way the headlines mean when they announce a pilot shortage, but tactically, in short bursts, when the timing goes against them.

Sometimes it is a planning gap. Sometimes an aircraft option gets exercised earlier than the fleet department expected. Sometimes more pilots leave in a year than the attrition model said they would, because a competitor opened a base nearby or a Gulf carrier started hiring again. Whatever the cause, the airline finds itself needing crews faster than its recruitment department can produce them, and time becomes the constraint that decides everything.

I want to walk through what that looks like from inside the recruitment department, with real numbers, because once you see the arithmetic you understand why a single statistic, the failure rate at selection, matters more than anything else in the process.

→ More on how airline recruitment works on the ASP YouTube channel 

Start with the aircraft

Say you have ten A320s arriving over the next twelve months. Depending on your utilisation and your network, you will need around a hundred pilots to crew them. That is the number the recruitment department is handed.

Now bring in the one fact that governs the rest of the exercise. On average, only about a quarter of the candidates an airline assesses will pass. The other three quarters fail at some stage, most often at the interview, when the panel perceives a risk on one of the competencies it is scoring. Maybe the candidate's communication fell short. Maybe they did not look confident enough for a panel to imagine them in the right-hand seat on a bad day. Maybe they seemed unprepared, which raises an immediate question about how they will prepare for their flights. The reasons vary. The rate does not vary much.

So to end up with a hundred pilots who pass, the airline has to interview four hundred.

Then account for the ones who do not join

Passing is not the same as joining. Unless you are a legacy carrier with a national flag on the tail and a seniority list people wait years for, a good share of the candidates you pass will have other offers. They may be in three processes at once. They may be waiting on a preferred airline. They may take your offer and withdraw when a better base comes up.

Recruitment departments know this, and the experienced ones plan for roughly half of successful candidates not turning up on day one of the type rating. Which means the four hundred interviews become eight hundred.

Eight hundred interviews. Eight hundred simulator sessions. To fill a hundred seats.

What eight hundred assessments actually costs

This is the part that people outside recruitment rarely see.

Every interview needs a panel, and the panel is made of line pilots. A captain who is interviewing on Tuesday is not flying on Tuesday. Every sim assessment needs an instructor and a slot in a device that could otherwise be running recurrent training or a type rating course. Every candidate needs to be scheduled, briefed, hosted, scored, debriefed and written up, and that work lands on an administrative team that was sized for normal operations.

Most major airline recruitment departments do not process many more than twenty candidates in a normal week. They can push to forty for a campaign. Beyond that, things start to break. Admin staff go past overtime. Sim coordination turns into a daily negotiation with the training department. Scoring gets rushed and mistakes creep into the paperwork. And the rostering department, which now has a dozen captains blocked for interview duty on any given day, starts pushing back.

At the normal pace of twenty a week, eight hundred candidates is forty weeks of non-stop recruitment. Ten months, near enough, to end up with a hundred pilots, for aircraft that are arriving over twelve. There is almost no slack in that. If the first deliveries come early, or the failure rate on a particular intake runs a little higher than average, the airline is parking aircraft or leasing crews in, and both of those cost far more than the recruitment campaign did.

All of it traces back to one number. Seventy-five percent of candidates fail.

Why the failure rate is so high

If you have been following our work at Airline Selection Programme (ASP) for a while, you will know what I think about this. Pilots do not fail because they are not good enough. Almost all of the people in that room are competent aviators with valid licences and clean training records. They fail because they are not ready, and because on the day they are not convincing relative to the size of the investment the airline is about to make in them. A type rating, line training, and a career that might run thirty years is a large bet on one person. The panel wants to feel certain, and most candidates do not give it that certainty.

The gaps are consistent. Communication that does not land. Answers that wander because the candidate never built an experience sheet and is searching their memory under pressure. A sim ride flown like a student rather than an operator, because nobody told them the two are different. Airline knowledge that stops at the About Us page. None of these are flying problems, and none of them are fixed by another fifty hours in a light aircraft. They are gaps in the part of a pilot's preparation that flight school does not cover, and that most candidates do not know exists.

What happens at fifty percent

Now imagine the pass rate were fifty percent instead of twenty-five.

That is a doubling, and I know how it sounds. Stay with the arithmetic. At fifty percent, a hundred pilots needs two hundred passes, and with the same joining ratio, four hundred interviews rather than eight hundred. Half the panels. Half the sim slots. Half the admin. Half the captains pulled off the line. At the same twenty a week, the campaign closes in twenty weeks instead of forty. Or, if the airline keeps the forty-week window, it can run the campaign with half the team.

For the candidate, the difference between the twenty-five percent group and the fifty percent group is preparation. Gap training on the flying side and structured interview preparation on the rest. That is what turns a licensed pilot into a convincing one.

For the airline, the same shift is time to market on a fleet that is already being paid for, and a direct line to the bottom line. Fewer parked aircraft, fewer wet leases, fewer captains sitting in an interview room instead of a flight deck.

Is fifty percent realistic?

It is, and I say that with some care, because it is a claim that ought to be backed. The pass rates we see among candidates who have been through our preparation are well above fifty percent. That is not because we select for talent. It is because the candidates arrive at the assessment centre with the part of their training that was missing now in place, and the panel sees someone ready rather than someone hopeful.

The seventy-five percent failure rate is not a law of nature. It is what happens when an industry trains pilots to fly and then assesses them on something else. Close that gap, on either side of the table, and the arithmetic in this article changes for everyone: for the candidate who gets hired at the first attempt, and for the recruitment manager who gets forty weeks of their year back.