Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Regarding UAL Troubles
- Thread starter Kid Charlemagne
- Start date
- Watchers 22
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Umm....."Kid Char" who is it you work for?
Sounds like the UAL Flight Officer employment office made the right decision to not hire you. I wouldn't want to spend 5 seconds in a cockpit with you.
LUVtheDC10.....Great post!
Signed,
WHITE MALE-Non Intern UAL pilot...
P.S. Didn't VALUJET charge $12,000 to come work for them? Things that make you go Hmmmmmmmmm.
Sounds like the UAL Flight Officer employment office made the right decision to not hire you. I wouldn't want to spend 5 seconds in a cockpit with you.
LUVtheDC10.....Great post!
Signed,
WHITE MALE-Non Intern UAL pilot...
P.S. Didn't VALUJET charge $12,000 to come work for them? Things that make you go Hmmmmmmmmm.
Kid Charlemagne
It's OK, I speak Jive
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2003
- Posts
- 225
Extra: another brilliant UAL pilot (not)
Extra300S said:
Umm....."Kid Char" who is it you work for?
Sounds like the UAL Flight Officer employment office made the right decision to not hire you. I wouldn't want to spend 5 seconds in a cockpit with you.
Extra,
I see you are a United pilot. Apparantly you guys aren't too bright, you don't read very well!!!! As I made very clear in several of my posts the UAL employment office did not make a decision to not hire me. I think they would have had a hard time making any kind of a decision about me - since I never sent in an application! Like I said before, even though I was very competitive I made a conscious choice that I would never go to work for a company that had the kind of hiring policy UAL did. I have too much integrity for that. As a result of my decision to stick to principle, I am still gainfully employed in the industry. Funny how things work out huh? And as far as you spending "5 seconds" in the cockpit with me, don't worry - I don't believe you'll ever have that pleasure (suits me fine).
I didn't start this thread for the purpose of bashing UAL guys, the point was to have a rational discussion of UAL's hiring policy. But since another United pilot like Extra saw fit to attack me personally, I can't help but wonder - are all UAL pilots a few french fries short of a full Happy Meal?? How else can you explain the boneheaded decision they made back in 1994 to lock in their pay rates for 6 years (making them ineligible for raises during UAL's most profitable years) in return for company stock that couldn't even be cashed out till retirement??!!!??? You can wipe your butt with that stock now. Talk about being cognitively challeged... I bet management couldn't stop laughing - "the pilots agreed to THAT?? YGBSM!!!"
To the guy talking about UAL choosing applicants from "stacks":
You even admitted they had a special stack just for women/minority applicants. If you can't see how that very fact alone makes the hiring process a travesty.....then all I can say is we think very differently indeed. More politically correct bullpoppy. Just another symptom of what has gone wrong with this country...people think they're entitled cause they are female or black or Asian or Hispanic or Buddhist or they're missing a toe or one ear is bigger than the other, etc. What a disgrace! And the senior UAL pilots who let it go on are just as guilty - they knew what was happening, they knew it was immoral and unethical and unsafe, and they did nothing!
Again just my 2 cents. Those who wish to may flame away - but I'm still entitled to my opinion. It's a free country (for now anyway).
Extra300S said:
Umm....."Kid Char" who is it you work for?
Sounds like the UAL Flight Officer employment office made the right decision to not hire you. I wouldn't want to spend 5 seconds in a cockpit with you.
Extra,
I see you are a United pilot. Apparantly you guys aren't too bright, you don't read very well!!!! As I made very clear in several of my posts the UAL employment office did not make a decision to not hire me. I think they would have had a hard time making any kind of a decision about me - since I never sent in an application! Like I said before, even though I was very competitive I made a conscious choice that I would never go to work for a company that had the kind of hiring policy UAL did. I have too much integrity for that. As a result of my decision to stick to principle, I am still gainfully employed in the industry. Funny how things work out huh? And as far as you spending "5 seconds" in the cockpit with me, don't worry - I don't believe you'll ever have that pleasure (suits me fine).
I didn't start this thread for the purpose of bashing UAL guys, the point was to have a rational discussion of UAL's hiring policy. But since another United pilot like Extra saw fit to attack me personally, I can't help but wonder - are all UAL pilots a few french fries short of a full Happy Meal?? How else can you explain the boneheaded decision they made back in 1994 to lock in their pay rates for 6 years (making them ineligible for raises during UAL's most profitable years) in return for company stock that couldn't even be cashed out till retirement??!!!??? You can wipe your butt with that stock now. Talk about being cognitively challeged... I bet management couldn't stop laughing - "the pilots agreed to THAT?? YGBSM!!!"
To the guy talking about UAL choosing applicants from "stacks":
You even admitted they had a special stack just for women/minority applicants. If you can't see how that very fact alone makes the hiring process a travesty.....then all I can say is we think very differently indeed. More politically correct bullpoppy. Just another symptom of what has gone wrong with this country...people think they're entitled cause they are female or black or Asian or Hispanic or Buddhist or they're missing a toe or one ear is bigger than the other, etc. What a disgrace! And the senior UAL pilots who let it go on are just as guilty - they knew what was happening, they knew it was immoral and unethical and unsafe, and they did nothing!
Again just my 2 cents. Those who wish to may flame away - but I'm still entitled to my opinion. It's a free country (for now anyway).
spinup said:
Ratio?
928 v.s. 2,245, but that's beside the pnt
Why, are you still trying to justify your statement?
Was your scab remark to draw attention away from UAL's low time minority hiring practices? If not, I couldn't connect one w/the other???
Don't be throwing stones when you live in a glass house.
spinup
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Posts
- 115
Ty Webb
Hostage to Fortune
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2001
- Posts
- 6,524
No one said not to hire minorities!
What was said was that it was wrong to hire minorities over other, more competitively qualified pilots.
The problem with people such as you and Redtailer is that you can't seem to get your mind around the fact that it is just as wrong to discriminate against white males as it is to discriminate against anyone else.
It is not possible to have preferential hiring without discriminating against someone else.
Sheeesh!
What was said was that it was wrong to hire minorities over other, more competitively qualified pilots.
The problem with people such as you and Redtailer is that you can't seem to get your mind around the fact that it is just as wrong to discriminate against white males as it is to discriminate against anyone else.
It is not possible to have preferential hiring without discriminating against someone else.
Sheeesh!
spinup
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Posts
- 115
Ty Webb,
The intention of preferential interviewing is to right past indiscretions in employment practices; aviation is riddled with these. I agree with you that at some point when a fair balance is found this should stop.
Sadly, many airmen take the viewpoint that minorities didn't earn their jobs because their career path wasn't "difficult enough", perpetuating discriminatory views without regard. Minority airmen and women go through their careers viewed as second class aviators by the ill informed.
It's not acceptable to discriminate in the past, then neglect to make amends. Looking at this another way; How do you now feel being (as you say) discriminated against as a white male? What you and I are dealing with is a fraction of what minorities have delt with in aviation's history.
A logical conclusion to be drawn is that generations prior to us had very little if any competition with minority groups, and these very people still are in positions to help majority groups gain employment. Minority groups don't enjoy this benefit, so that lends even more validity to preferential interviewing.
You hold UAL as a bad example, I hold UAL as a good example. We can disagree on that point.
You're right, it's not possible to have preferential hiring without discrimination. Now it's our turn.
The intention of preferential interviewing is to right past indiscretions in employment practices; aviation is riddled with these. I agree with you that at some point when a fair balance is found this should stop.
Sadly, many airmen take the viewpoint that minorities didn't earn their jobs because their career path wasn't "difficult enough", perpetuating discriminatory views without regard. Minority airmen and women go through their careers viewed as second class aviators by the ill informed.
It's not acceptable to discriminate in the past, then neglect to make amends. Looking at this another way; How do you now feel being (as you say) discriminated against as a white male? What you and I are dealing with is a fraction of what minorities have delt with in aviation's history.
A logical conclusion to be drawn is that generations prior to us had very little if any competition with minority groups, and these very people still are in positions to help majority groups gain employment. Minority groups don't enjoy this benefit, so that lends even more validity to preferential interviewing.
You hold UAL as a bad example, I hold UAL as a good example. We can disagree on that point.
You're right, it's not possible to have preferential hiring without discrimination. Now it's our turn.
Ty Webb
Hostage to Fortune
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2001
- Posts
- 6,524
Sorry, Spinup, but you're way off base.
Fair is Fair. You can't have it both ways. Do you want fairness? Or do you want discrimination?
To advocate preferential hiring in some attempt to "cure" past wrongs really means discriminating against white males, and that's just as wrong as discrimination against minorities.
Unfortunately, in the last ten years or so, our publicly-funded Universitities have allowed themselves to swing so far to the left on this subject that both faculty and students have lost all perspective, and this is becoming painfully clear in some of the posts I see on this board from some of the junior members.
My opinion on this subject is really one of just an objective observer- it doesn't really affect me- I have my job, thank you, but I was always taught to speak up for what is right.
Fair is Fair. You can't have it both ways. Do you want fairness? Or do you want discrimination?
To advocate preferential hiring in some attempt to "cure" past wrongs really means discriminating against white males, and that's just as wrong as discrimination against minorities.
Unfortunately, in the last ten years or so, our publicly-funded Universitities have allowed themselves to swing so far to the left on this subject that both faculty and students have lost all perspective, and this is becoming painfully clear in some of the posts I see on this board from some of the junior members.
My opinion on this subject is really one of just an objective observer- it doesn't really affect me- I have my job, thank you, but I was always taught to speak up for what is right.
fragglerock
Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2003
- Posts
- 6
Originally posted by flyndesk
Kid Char, it looks like you might be at JetBlue, what a great job!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A quick check of his posts reveal he is not at jetBlue. Besides, their screening process does a good job of weeding out the d!ckheads. My guess is he's either at Ryan or USA 3000.
trainerjet, flyndesk
I sure hope you are right and this idiot racist and sexist kid charlene isn't with jetblue. I would hope that Ryan and USA 3000 would've also seen through this jerk's attitude. If he decided not to apply to U that was probably a wise choice, because I'm sure they would've seen through him. It's not just flight hours that make you competitive for jobs. It seems as though he is trying to create a division between the pilots on this forum. I sure hope he doesn't succeed!! What about it kid charlene, where do you work?!
Kid Char, it looks like you might be at JetBlue, what a great job!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A quick check of his posts reveal he is not at jetBlue. Besides, their screening process does a good job of weeding out the d!ckheads. My guess is he's either at Ryan or USA 3000.
trainerjet, flyndesk
I sure hope you are right and this idiot racist and sexist kid charlene isn't with jetblue. I would hope that Ryan and USA 3000 would've also seen through this jerk's attitude. If he decided not to apply to U that was probably a wise choice, because I'm sure they would've seen through him. It's not just flight hours that make you competitive for jobs. It seems as though he is trying to create a division between the pilots on this forum. I sure hope he doesn't succeed!! What about it kid charlene, where do you work?!
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
