PFW Aerospace
44 Employer Review(s)
Colleagues:
Supervisor:
Tasks:
Salary:
Career:
OVERALL:
Location
#
Country
Date
Rating
Review
Germany 1
24.03.2017
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Excellent employer.
Germany 2
07.07.2017
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Excellent employer.
Germany 3
18.01.2016
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Excellent employer.
Germany 4
04.04.2016
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Not recommendable employer.
Germany 5
04.01.2016
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Excellent employer.
Germany 6
06.11.2017
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Excellent employer.
Germany 7
13.04.2019
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Excellent employer.
Germany 8
05.05.2020
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Satisfactory employment site.
Germany 9
10.03.2021
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Excellent employer.
Germany 10
12.04.2016
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Excellent employer.
Lübeck 11
14.12.2015
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Excellent employer.
Speyer 12
25.10.2015
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Employers with criticisms.
Speyer 13
16.02.2016
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Reasonable job provider.
Speyer 14
11.02.2016
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Recommendable workplace.
Speyer 15
23.01.2017
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Excellent employer.
Speyer 16
21.01.2020
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Employers with criticisms.
Speyer 17
16.08.2017
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Lack of unity. Problematic management style. Filling employment. Fair payments. Rare upgrades. Employers with criticisms.
Speyer 18
15.08.2017
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Employers with criticisms.
Speyer 19
16.08.2017
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Employers with criticisms.
Speyer 20
21.01.2020
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Sufficient cohesion. Need to improve personnel management. Filling employment. Below-average salary. Average recognition. Employers with criticisms.
Speyer 21
27.01.2020
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Sufficient cohesion. Need to improve personnel management. Filling employment. Below-average salary. Rickety ladder of success. Reasonable job provider.
Speyer 22
07.10.2015
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Lack of unity. Useful management. No filling operation. Fair payments. Rickety ladder of success. Employers with criticisms.
Speyer 23
23.06.2015
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Excellent employer.
Speyer 24
11.03.2011
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Excellent work atmosphere. Impeccable Leadership. Interesting tasks. Best career opportunities. Excellent employer.
Speyer 25
09.03.2011
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Lack of unity. Need to improve personnel management. Filling employment. Rare upgrades. Not recommendable employer.
Speyer 26
09.03.2011
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Lack of unity. Need to improve personnel management. Filling employment. Rare upgrades. Not recommendable employer.
Speyer 27
22.07.2010
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Sufficient cohesion. Problematic management style. Acceptable service. First class salary. Rare upgrades. Not recommendable employer.
Speyer 28
12.03.2010
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Excellent work atmosphere. Impeccable Leadership. Excellent activity. First class salary. Beneficial career. Excellent employer.
Speyer 29
23.10.2009
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Sufficient cohesion. Need to improve personnel management. Filling employment. Below-average salary. Rare upgrades. Reasonable job provider.
Speyer 30
24.07.2009
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Pleasant cooperation. Problematic management style. Interesting tasks. High payments. Rickety ladder of success. Satisfactory employment site.
Speyer 31
08.04.2009
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Pleasant cooperation. Good Management. Interesting tasks. High payments. Good future prospects. Recommendable workplace.
Speyer 32
08.02.2009
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Pleasant cooperation. Good Management. Interesting tasks. High payments. Beneficial career. Recommendable workplace.
Speyer 33
20.10.2011
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Functioning collegiality. Satisfactory staff work. Interesting tasks. High payments. Beneficial career. Satisfactory employment site.
Speyer 34
26.11.2008
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Sufficient cohesion. Problematic management style. Filling employment. Below-average salary. Average recognition. Employers with criticisms.
Speyer 35
22.10.2014
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Lack of unity. Need to improve personnel management. Interesting tasks. Fair payments. Rickety ladder of success. Reasonable job provider.
Speyer 36
11.02.2014
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Sufficient cohesion. Need to improve personnel management. Filling employment. Fair payments. Rickety ladder of success. Not recommendable employer.
Speyer 37
29.01.2013
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Pleasant cooperation. Recommendable workplace.
Speyer 38
15.09.2012
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Sufficient cohesion. Useful management. Filling employment. Average recognition. Reasonable job provider.
Speyer 39
18.06.2012
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Pleasant cooperation. Useful management. Acceptable service. High payments. Average recognition. Not recommendable employer.
Speyer 40
25.10.2015
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Employers with criticisms.
Speyer 41
13.04.2012
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Lack of unity. Need to improve personnel management. Filling employment. High payments. Average recognition. Reasonable job provider.
Speyer 42
13.04.2012
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Lack of unity. Need to improve personnel management. Acceptable service. High payments. Average recognition. Employers with criticisms.
Speyer 43
06.03.2012
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Lack of community spirit. Need to improve personnel management. Mere Work carried out. Demotivating income. Rickety ladder of success. Employers with criticisms.
Spyer 44
16.06.2017
The Reviewer rates his job as follows: Employers with criticisms.
