Asiana B-767
 

I recently applied to Asiana through Rishworth for a B-767 position. I only have B-767-200 flight time and Asiana only flies b-767-300s. Asiana has turned me down as I am just a lowly B-767-200 pilot. Could some of you B-767-300 Sky Gods explain to me why Asiana would have such a ridiculous requirement? The Boeing 757-200, B-757-300, B-767-200 and B-767-300 all share a common type rating. Some of the B-767-200s we fly are ETOPS with HDGs so I don't understand why Asiana has such a bogus requirement. Could some of you B-767-300 Jedi Masters please educate a lowly, pathetic B-767-200 pilot? Good luck to those apply, the contract is subpar and not very good for commuting.

I don't have any experience with Asiana but I did apply once for a job in Egypt that wanted 500 hours of B-737-800 PIC time. I had over 3000 PIC hours in the B-737-700 and only 35 hours in the -800. I was turned down as their goverment authority would only recognize -800 time as being valid for this position. How stupid is that, as the aircraft are for all practical purposes identical.

I think you need to keep in mind that you are dealing with people of a small mentality that don't have a clue about what they are doing.

wyoming-- how do you know that your Shorty -200 time is what excluded you?

Perhaps it was your poor attitude that lead to your demise...

I pose this respectfully ... then why did you apply in the first place? :confused:

Well, I wouldn't group ALL of them in that statement, but the fact is that often the requirements are set by the local CAA. Other countries tend to be very "type-specific" with their licenses. If the -200 and -300 are considered different types by that country, you're screwed - whether it makes sense or not. Many of the people setting up these "requirements" are in fact clueless, and there ain't a thing you or I can do about it. Shrug your shoulders and move on.

We don't know ALL the details, and thats making kind of a crappy assessment based on what he said, which seems to have a hint of sarcasm in it.

I applied for a job with Korean, one of the requirements was something like 2000 hrs in a commercial jet, no weight restriction. I have that, put in on the app. It also asked what type of aircraft, I put that in there. Their response, it's NOT a commercial jet. I replied with various internet links showing which airlines operated the type, specs, ect. They THEN replied that they can't accept the time because it's not a jet and a turbo prop. This time I sent them links to photos of the aircraft on the ramp, pointing out that there are not any propellers on the airplane.

After this, they FINALLY figured out that it was indeed a commercial jet AND that my time in said jet met their mins.

After this, I pretty much lost interest in a job with KAL. I STILL get emails from them informing me that they are screening for the job and want to me update my info. No thanks, if it's too much trouble to explain to them what a commercial jet even is, I can't imagine how screwed up the rest of their operation is.

Dojet said: "No thanks, if it's too much trouble to explain to them what a commercial jet even is, I can't imagine how screwed up the rest of their operation is."

Before that, Dojet said: "We don't know ALL the details, and thats making kind of a crappy assessment based on what he said..."

Really? You sound kinda like the OP. Just complaining about a different airline. I'd say to each his own. One guys unworthy job is the next guys jewel...

As moderator, do you not know how to use the quote function? Believe what you want, but there was nothing I told them that was condescending. I simply supplied them with links to pictures and specs of the aircraft flown to inform them that of what it was. But go ahead, flame me. I'm complaining here on this message board to relate the experience I had with them.

And like I said, for being a moderator, thats kind of a sh1tty thing to say. I would think you're above that. I wonder if you applied with UPS in this current environment if you'd get hired considering the attitude you display on this board.

I NEVER said it wasn't a good job, just the way they recruit leaves something to be desired when supplied with a bunch of objective facts gleaned from a job application, then agreeing with what some other posters have said in this thread.

Just making an observation Dojet, don't take it personal. As much as it bothers you, mods can actually post their opinions at APC...

I just think that this statement:

"No thanks, if it's too much trouble to explain to them what a commercial jet even is, I can't imagine how screwed up the rest of their operation is"

Is hardly a good way to get ahead in the world. If you've ever been to ICN, you'd see waves and waves of blue KAL 747-400's parked on the cargo ramp next to my little brown 757. It's quite the scene....

If you don't want to work there, that's your business. But I'd hardly throw the baby out with the bath water over a misunderstanding on what a Dojet is. But that's just me...

Interesting, but you get to delete the ENTIRE posts of people that do the same, and express LESS of an opinion than you. Nice "do as I say but not as I do policy" you have.


Not really sure what to make of this statement. Plenty of people in the world "get ahead" as you put it even though they view the hiring practices of a specific company to be slightly abnormal. Yours included.

Like I said, you think you'd get hired at UPS NOW (if they were hiring) with your attitude? I'm thinking not. Or rather, you wouldn't "get ahead in this world" with the attitude you display to many on this board. Don't take it personal 727, it's just an opinion. Which people are allowed to post. But go ahead, keep flaming me. It's comical to watch you do it.

Again, for a moderator, lame.

If you had to explain to a recruiter what a 75/76 was AFTER you supplied the aircraft's designation on an application, what would your "opinion" of them be? It's ok, you don't have to answer.