United Airlines hiring goals

[photofly]

If we agree that the career is equally suitable for both men and women, and fewer women than men aspire to it, then by definition there is a systemic reason preventing women from aspiring to it. There is no reason for the imbalance other than something systemic.

Could it not just be a preference?

On a societal level, there's no such thing as "just" a preference.

The average man and woman are different. Biologically and psychologically. I don't find it that weird that this results in different career preferences.

Be careful. You're one tiny step away from "men and women are different, and the differences mean that men make better pilots".

I find it weird that you don't find it weird that more men want to be pilots than women want to be pilots. I don't see why any physiological differences (height, mean lifespan etc) affect career choice. What I see in the statistics is a very very clear indication that women are discouraged from aspiring to be pilots, and that discouragement is caused by a variety of factors. I think that's really bad. I think one of those factors is that very few women are already career pilots: not everyone wants to, or should have to break new ground in gender equality to pursue a career.

It's a pretty fundamental trait of our society, that more risk is usually required to be more successful.

Again, I want risk averse pilots. If succeeding as a pilot requires high risk tolerance, we're selecting exactly the wrong group of people.

That's pretty patronizing of you.

I have no problem patronizing you. Especially when you deserve it. More seriously though, can't you see the horrible, enormous problem with a man forming any sentence that begins "women are too smart to..." ?

Try replacing the word "women" with a descriptor of another group, such as "Muslims", "disabled people", "Jews" or "trans-gendered people" - and see how it feels on your lips.

[photofly]

double post

[digits_]

If we agree that the career is equally suitable for both men and women, and fewer women than men aspire to it, then by definition there is a systemic reason preventing women from aspiring to it. There is no reason for the imbalance other than something systemic.

Could it not just be a preference?

On a societal level, there's no such thing as "just" a preference.

The average man and woman are different. Biologically and psychologically. I don't find it that weird that this results in different career preferences.

Be careful. You're one tiny step away from "men and women are different, and the differences mean that men make better pilots".

That's a giant step, and you are making it, not me. I'm not even hinting at that.

I find it weird that you don't find it weird that more men want to be pilots than women want to be pilots. I don't see why any physiological differences (height, mean lifespan etc) affect career choice. What I see in the statistics is a very very clear indication that women are discouraged from aspiring to be pilots, and that discouragement is caused by a variety of factors. I think that's really bad. I think one of those factors is that very few women are already career pilots: not everyone wants to, or should have to break new ground in gender equality to pursue a career.

But they don't have to break ground. All they have to do is go to a flying school and sign up for lessons.

It's a pretty fundamental trait of our society, that more risk is usually required to be more successful.

Again, I want risk averse pilots. If succeeding as a pilot requires high risk tolerance, we're selecting exactly the wrong group of people.

That could absolutely be the case, but that's a whole different discussion.

That's pretty patronizing of you.

Can't you see the horrible, enormous problem with a man forming any sentence that begins "women are too smart to..." ?

Try replacing the word "women" with a descriptor of another group, such as "Muslims", "disabled people", "Jews" or "trans-gendered people" - and see how it feels on your lips.

If you want to summarize my post into that, then that is up to you. Men and women obviously think or act differntly with regards to flight training, otherwise there would be 50% female pilots. I don't see anything wrong with trying to find out what that difference is. A difference, by definition, will result in at least one characteristic/factor that will be higher or lower for either men or women. I think financial risk aversion is such a factor.

[photofly]

If you want to summarize my post into that, then that is up to you. Men and women obviously think or act differntly with regards to flight training, otherwise there would be 50% female pilots. I don't see anything wrong with trying to find out what that difference is.

One enormous reason for the different way men and women are disposed towards flight training is that 95% of people who have already achieved "success" in the industry by becoming airline pilots are men, and mostly white men.

Airline pilots are commodities, hired on the basis of perseverance of endeavour, longevity in the field and duration of experience, and not for their individual skills one over the other. Sorry folks, it's true - you are not superheroes, and the travelling public couldn't care less whether it was you at the helm of their flight or another indistinguishable chap in uniform, except that some people would appreciate more airline pilots from visible minorities, and women.

There's no harm in artificially boosting the number of women in the job. Unless you happen to be a white male, in which case, suck it up - you've had it too good for too long.

[mel gibson]

“There's no harm in artificially boosting the number of women in the job. Unless you happen to be a white male, in which case, suck it up - you've had it too good for too long.”


Moderators, this is a racist post and needs to be removed.

[digits_]

There's no harm in artificially boosting the number of women in the job.

Depends on how you do it. If you try to increase the trained pilot supply, by trying to get more women to sign up for flight training, then nothing is wrong. I'd find it a waste of resources, but if that's what someone wants to do, go for it.

If you want to hire more women without increasing the actual supply, then you will run into trouble at some point. Not every pilot who achieves a CPL, will be well suited to fly commercially. Whether that's 1% or 5% or 50% that shouldn't be flying, that's hard to determine. Let's assume that number is the same for both genders.

If United's policy results in hiring more women without increasing the supply, eg hiring close to 100% of the 5% female CPL pilots, then the incompetent pilots will get hired as well. And that would be bad.

Unless you happen to be a white male, in which case, suck it up - you've had it too good for too long.

You have a weird way of fighting for equality photofly.

[Zaibatsu]

Women simply don’t want to be pilots.

Risk aversion is one aspect. Complete disinterest is another.

Risk aversion is why you will rarely see women working outdoors, in industrial settings, in remote locations, or doing otherwise dangerous work or embarking on financially risky ventures. It’s also probably why even more men aren’t pilots, because there’s a ball and chain at home telling them no.

It’s why that in spite of men accounting for a very high percentage of so called successful people, they also over represent in terms of homelessness, addiction, suicide, and workplace fatalities. When those are all equal, you will probably see equal representation and remuneration in the work force.

If you poll a student body asking them who wants to be a pilot, you won’t find an even split along gender lines............ whatever that even means anymore.

POC is another more complex issue, but you can distill it by asking yourself why they over represent in the NBA. Try not to be racist and explain that. And why there isn’t a drive for diversity there?

Truthfully, affirmative action fails in so many ways. It enables the progression of less skilled individuals who got picked because of their demographic. It cheapens the achievement of those demographics who made it on merit alone. And it limits those demographics to a quota. Why not have a 100% black airline or a 100% female airline? It would set the NBA back if they had to have race and gender quotas.

[simply_no_one]

“There's no harm in artificially boosting the number of women in the job. Unless you happen to be a white male, in which case, suck it up - you've had it too good for too long.”


Moderators, this is a racist post and needs to be removed.

Racist towards white men. Yes.

[photofly]

Women simply don’t want to be pilots.

Yes. That's the problem. Most women don't want to be pilots, which is strong evidence that there's systemic discrimination stopping them from wanting to be pilots. That means there are very few women pilots, which means that the ones who actually want to be pilots are discouraged from the whole process, You have summed up the problem very scuccinctly, in only eight words.

Now what's the solution?

Truthfully, affirmative action fails in so many ways. It enables the progression of less skilled individuals who got picked because of their demographic. It cheapens the achievement of those demographics who made it on merit alone. And it limits those demographics to a quota. Why not have a 100% black airline or a 100% female airline? It would set the NBA back if they had to have race and gender quotas.

That would be a problem if being an airline pilot was achieved on the basis of skill. It's not. No airline pilot in existence makes it on "merit" - merely on sticking it out as an instructor, or on the ramp, and in the right seat of a Piper Navajo, than all his competitors. And then on having the right contacts at a regional, and having someone to put in a good word for them.

Having preferential hiring for brain surgeons or for Nobel laureates for literature would be problematic. Pilots are, like truck drivers and crane operators, easily trained, and easily replaced one for the next.

If you want to hire more women without increasing the actual supply, then you will run into trouble at some point. Not every pilot who achieves a CPL, will be well suited to fly commercially. Whether that's 1% or 5% or 50% that shouldn't be flying, that's hard to determine. Let's assume that number is the same for both genders.

Let's hope that United can be trusted to promote only those women who are suited to fly commercially. I think, if we trust them to make that selection for men, we can trust them to make that selection for women, don't you?

[photofly]

double post

[digits_]

Yes. That's the problem. Most women don't want to be pilots, which is strong evidence that there's systemic discrimination stopping them from wanting to be pilots. That means there are very few women pilots, which means that the ones who actually want to be pilots are discouraged from the whole process, You have summed up the problem very scuccinctly, in only eight words.

Why do you see this as evidence of systemic discrimination? Can you give a possible example?

The hypothesis is that women don't *want* to be pilots, not that they are being discouraged from the whole process.

If you want to hire more women without increasing the actual supply, then you will run into trouble at some point. Not every pilot who achieves a CPL, will be well suited to fly commercially. Whether that's 1% or 5% or 50% that shouldn't be flying, that's hard to determine. Let's assume that number is the same for both genders.

Let's hope that United can be trusted to promote only those women who are suited to fly commercially. I think, if we trust them to make that selection for men, we can trust them to make that selection for women, don't you?

Only if they increase the supply. If not, they'll have to lower their standards for female pilots, otherwise they won't meet their quota goal. That's my point.

Their current selection process seems to work: 6% female pilots, 5% CPL holders. If that turns into 10% female pilots if there are only 5% female CPL holders, you'd end up with lower ranked female applicants that get hired over higher ranked male counterparts.

In reality, they might succeed in increasing the supply a bit, but to reach 50% female hires, I find it very realistic they would also have to resort to hiring lower ranked female applicants.

Time will tell...

[photofly]

Why do you see this as evidence of systemic discrimination? Can you give a possible example?

The hypothesis is that women don't *want* to be pilots, not that they are being discouraged from the whole process.

In an equal world, the same number of women will want to be pilots as men, because absent discrimination there is nothing about being a pilot that is more suited to one sex or the other.

If in a particular country there are a lot more boy babies born than girl babies, that's evidence that the girl babies are being aborted before or murdered at birth. You don't need more evidence. The imbalance *is* the evidence.

Only if they increase the supply. If not, they'll have to lower their standards for female pilots, otherwise they won't meet their quota goal. That's my point.

Pilot recruiting standards are routinely lowered and raised according to supply and demand. Two years ago, 500 hours instructing in a 172 would put you in the right seat of a Q400. Now, five thousand hours PIC on a Navajo won't get you the same job. To pretend that women shouldn't be selected because it would "lower standards" is absurd.

All you have to do to become a successful airline pilot is:

• Stick it out long enough in a low paying job
• know the right people
• not suck

Nothing about being a successful pilot has anything to do with merit or skill. Since pilots are not currently selected on skill, there is no reason to suppose that the average skill level of pilots would change if women or visible minority applicants were preferentially selected by an airline.

You have a weird way of fighting for equality photofly.

I'm not the one taking this action - United Airlines is. At least they are taking action, however. What's your contribution?

[digits_]

In an equal world, the same number of women will want to be pilots as men...

I disagree with this hypothesis. Having different preferences is not a sign of inequality. It's just a sign of being different.

Only if they increase the supply. If not, they'll have to lower their standards for female pilots, otherwise they won't meet their quota goal. That's my point.

Pilots are not selected on meeting a standard. All you have to do to become a successful airline pilot is:

• Stick it out long enough in a low paying job
• know the right people
• not suck

Agreed, but the 'do suck' group has an unknown size. Selecting one of those can have dire consequences. You can even be a successful airline pilot if you do suck, as long as you never encounter a situation that requires you to not suck.

You have a weird way of fighting for equality photofly.

I'm not the one taking this action - United Airlines is. At least they are taking action, however. What's your contribution?

Nothing, because I don't see a problem.

But if you do see a problem, threatening ("you've had it too good for too long") the group from which you expect a behavioural change, rarely will have the desired outcome.

[photofly]

In an equal world, the same number of women will want to be pilots as men...

I disagree with this hypothesis. Having different preferences is not a sign of inequality. It's just a sign of being different.

You're contradicting yourself in consecutive sentences. Being different is inequality. Un-equal - not the same - different. See?

Nothing, because I don't see a problem.

Eyes wide shut. But that's ok. Change will happen around and over the top of you. In time.

But if you do see a problem, threatening ("you've had it too good for too long") the group from which you expect a behavioural change, rarely will have the desired outcome.

I don't think "you've had it too good for too long" is either a threat, or even threatening. Even if it were, I have no power, so no threat I could make should worry anyone.

More importantly, the group whose behaviour needs to change is airline management, driven by public demand. And it looks like it is. Existing pilots are not going to be asked about it, nor should they. Their opinion is irrelevant. All the opinions expressed in this thread do is make obvious the need for things to change.

[ReserveTank]

Be careful. You're one tiny step away from "men and women are different, and the differences mean that men make better pilots".

I find it weird that you don't find it weird that more men want to be pilots than women want to be pilots. I don't see why any physiological differences (height, mean lifespan etc) affect career choice. What I see in the statistics is a very very clear indication that women are discouraged from aspiring to be pilots, and that discouragement is caused by a variety of factors. I think that's really bad. I think one of those factors is that very few women are already career pilots: not everyone wants to, or should have to break new ground in gender equality to pursue a career.

Physiological differences mean everything to every kind of animal, regardless of the trash psychology that you've been spoonfed.
Women are discouraged from flying for the same reasons as they are discouraged from coal mining. The reproductive system and the associated hormones provide direction towards reproduction and caring for children. For most women, competing with men is not something that they are inclined to do naturally. If you inundate people with twisted mass psychology and open up the possibility of a life that is an amusement park of hedonism, nature can be overridden to an extent. Enter the 1920s...and 60s. I'm talking about tricking one's rather powerful natural instincts of repulsion.

Forcing people against their nature is cruelty and abuse.

There's no harm in artificially boosting the number of women in the job. Unless you happen to be a white male, in which case, suck it up - you've had it too good for too long.

You failed to read between the lines. They aren't so much "boosting" diversity as they are eliminating White men from the industry.
Remind me, in what way have White males had it so good?

[photofly]

The reproductive system and the associated hormones provide direction towards reproduction and caring for children. For most women, competing with men is not something that they are inclined to do naturally.

You're not helping your cause. On a side note, why is being competitive a helpful trait for an airline pilot? I want my pilots cooperative and risk-averse. Don't you?

Forcing people against their nature is cruelty and abuse.

Yes, it would actually be cruel and abusive to encourage women to be pilots. Keep going.

You failed to read between the lines. They aren't so much "boosting" diversity as they are eliminating White men from the industry.

When the proportion of white men in the cockpit drops to 7%, you'll have a valid point.

[Inverted2]

I’m sure there will be lots of women lining up to be pilots now. Between the unemployment over the past year, and irregular hours while you are working and being away from your family for extended periods what’s not to like?

[Inverted2]

Plus the days of college to airline are gone for a while. The appeal of living in northern communities is appealing as is the crappy starting pay at airlines. Of course you can experience the joys of commuting if you can’t afford to live in one of major cities airlines base you in.

[ReserveTank]

You're not helping your cause. On a side note, why is being competitive a helpful trait for an airline pilot? I want my pilots cooperative and risk-averse. Don't you?

You completely missed the point. It's about nature. Women are generally repulsed at the idea of "bringing home the bacon." Your Western psychology notwithstanding, they have to be convinced (tricked, really) into such an undertaking.

Yes, it would actually be cruel and abusive to encourage women to be pilots. Keep going.

Why do you want it for them so badly? They don't even want it. Stats. You gonna deny numbers?

When the proportion of white men in the cockpit drops to 7%, you'll have a valid point.

"DO NOT PAIR" down to 93%, then. Doing my part.

Don't get too cocky, the government isn't going to send cheques forever.

[rookiepilot]

More importantly, the group whose behaviour needs to change is airline management, driven by public demand. And it looks like it is. Existing pilots are not going to be asked about it, nor should they. Their opinion is irrelevant.

Covers it well.

[photofly]

You completely missed the point. It's about nature. Women are generally repulsed at the idea of "bringing home the bacon."

Any sentence written by a man that begins "Women are generally...." is 100% guaranteed to be a humdinger which tells you nothing about women and everything about the man who writes it. Yours is not an exception.

Why do you want it for them so badly?

I'd like the people who fill well paid and responsible jobs to reflect society around them. I think diversity is a moral good. If there's a way to achieve it I think it should be explored.

[ant_321]

Hire the best person for the job. Period. Who cares what their gender or colour is. We should be striving for equal opportunity, not equal outcome. If you want to attract a more diverse people into a particular job do it at the grass routes level, not in preferential hiring practices.

[simply_no_one]

Hire the best person for the job. Period. Who cares what their gender or colour is. We should be striving for equal opportunity, not equal outcome. If you want to attract a more diverse people into a particular job do it at the grass routes level, not in preferential hiring practices.

Exactly.

[ReserveTank]

Any sentence written by a man that begins "Women are generally...." is 100% guaranteed to be a humdinger which tells you nothing about women and everything about the man who writes it. Yours is not an exception.

You're denying nature, and therefore, science. Like most Western men, you are uneducated on the basics of humans and the differences of the sexes.

I'd like the people who fill well paid and responsible jobs to reflect society around them.

Our society has been steadily devolving for the past 60 years. You'll certainly reap the reflection of society that you seek.

I think diversity is a moral good. If there's a way to achieve it I think it should be explored.

Diversity's real meaning is forcing people into positions that they weren't qualified for or didn't desire in the first place. One way diversity is achieved is through lowering/eliminating testing standards.
There is no doubt that the state will achieve it-They are way beyond the exploration phase. It's only news to you now.

Of course, what you're failing to mention is what effect booting White guys from an industry will have:

Severely lowered wages
Extreme competition for few open jobs
Reduction/elimination of benefits
Return of loose or even abusive contract language

You know, all those things that terrible Whitey fought against.

You see, it's not about diversity and moral good. It's about resetting the clock on working conditions so that every pilot can work like an Amazon distribution centre slave or an Uber driver. The oligarchy has already firmly established through decades of trial and error that diversity is the way to create a slave class. So what you're promoting is indeed abusive to women and...diverse people. It's slavery, the very thing you believe that you're against.

As I've said, it's all psychology, and you've been tricked.

[photofly]

. Like most Western men, you are uneducated on the basics of humans and the differences of the sexes.

One of us is, for sure.

Of course, what you're failing to mention is what effect booting White guys from an industry will have:

Severely lowered wages
Extreme competition for few open jobs
Reduction/elimination of benefits
Return of loose or even abusive contract language

I am broadly in favour of those things happening, on the way to "airline pilot" becoming a thing of the past, like "underground coal miner". Jobs monitoring complex machinery that are better operated by computer need to vanish.

You see, it's not about diversity and moral good. It's about resetting the clock on working conditions so that every pilot can work like an Amazon distribution centre slave or an Uber driver. The oligarchy has already firmly established through decades of trial and error that diversity is the way to create a slave class. So what you're promoting is indeed abusive to women and...diverse people. It's slavery, the very thing you believe that you're against.

As I've said, it's all psychology, and you've been tricked.

No I haven't been tricked. I disagree with your premise that diversity means slavery: but your end point is correct, and I support it. Then you can all find something more productive to do. I don't feel any responsibility to protect what you think is important.

However, for as long as being an airline pilot is a well paid and respected job, I would like my daughter to have the same access to it as a career as my son; without the extra hurdle of being the only woman in her ground school class, the only woman on the type rating course, and the only worman in the flight deck.