[quote=WatchThis!;205405]
OK, talk to us about San Bruno Mountain, the recent incursion in FLL, and the chick that struggled to talk on the radio a few days ago in the South Pacific. I could go on and on, but what's the point?
Truth is, UAL's poop stinks just like the rest of ours.
Sure ALL airlines have issues. However, UAL has been very fortunate to not have suffered a crew caused hull loss in many many years. I hope we can maintain that streak but tomorrow is always a new day. However, the rap that UAL has an inferior quality of airman versus the other carriers is absurd, especially coming from a FEDEX guy. All carriers have errors, it is the errors that progress to crashes that are the ones stick out like sore thumb. If you like to bash "chick" pilots, then how about the "chick" pilot from FedEx that put that trashed that MD11 in MEM? Bet she was a whiz on the radio.
I've heard rumor that the current rejection emails are being sent from UAL's HR dept. with a "
[email protected]" address. That's pretty impressive to have a company that can't even provide a real email address when they down you.
If it is such a crappy job then why be disappointed in a rejection email? Would you rather they drag you out to DEN to fly a sim and sit in a hotel on your dime, or just say "no thanks" and move on to the next candidate? Perhaps we can get a singing telegram to pop by the house of those we reject and give them the bad news.
Considering that UAL used to interview 20-30 applicants to hire one, I'd say that 1000 applications represent a pretty shallow pool to draw from
Consider there are only 100 posted vacancies and the computer rejects anyone that does not meet the mins then all of those that applied are qualified per the hiring mins which are significantly higher than they were at one time. So that would mean hiring 1 in 10 of those that apply.