DEI And Aviation — Boeing’s take.

[rookiepilot]

This topic arose from comments on the YYZ and DCA accidents. It practically screams for its own thread, and so I am starting this one with Boeing’s initiatives on this subject.

Let’s keep the accident discussion to the accident factors, perhaps, and Discuss this topic here.

The subject IS appropriate for discussion. Boeing thought so! Racist comments are not.

As the author of this thread I would appreciate and expect comments to remain free of overt racism and sexism. Be thoughtful . I invite the mods to delete any inappropriate comments.

WHY BOEING KILLED DEI

https://www.city-journal.org/article/wh ... killed-dei

A reckoning is underway in corporate America. After the death of George Floyd in 2020, it seemed that every Fortune 500 company had launched a “diversity, equity, and inclusion” program. But now, four years later, many companies are quietly acknowledging the failure of these initiatives and, in some cases, winding them down.

Earlier this year, we reported on the DEI troubles at Boeing, which an insider described in this way: “DEI is the drop you put in the bucket, and the whole bucket changes. It is anti-excellence, because it is ill-defined, but it became part of the culture.”

That is changing. Earlier this month, Boeing’s newly installed CEO, Kelly Ortberg, quietly dismantled the DEI department and accepted the resignation of the office’s vice president. To understand how this happened, we reached out to the same insider. In the following interview, edited slightly for clarity, the insider provides a glimpse into the change of heart—and administration—at company headquarters.

Christopher Rufo: Tell us what happened with DEI. It went from dominant to extinct in a very short period of time.

Insider: We are shifting from a company whose culture is simply the average of corporate America to a distinct and deliberate vision of leadership. Kelly Ortberg wants Boeing focused on being an airplane company with our own culture and vision. The resulting cash crunch from the strike accelerated this culture shift. When you start to focus on delivering value instead of preserving status, it becomes obvious what drives value, and it’s not DEI.

Rufo: This is happening shortly after the arrival of Ortberg as Boeing’s new CEO. Was this a decision that was made at the top? And if so, why did he make it?

Insider: Yes. Our CEO has always been fighting for efficiency, but the strike and associated cash crunch brought into focus what really drives production. Kelly is looking at every business and every process with fresh eyes, asking the basic question, “Does this help us build airplanes?” HR organizations like to make the argument that you need the right mix of skin color and gender preference to perform and innovate. But everyone who has had to build things knows that what really drives value is integrity, hard work, and technical expertise. This doesn’t mean that bias doesn’t exist and that we don’t need to fight it, but he [Kelly] gets that the best culture directly promotes values and results, not identity groups.

There is one additional factor: the new HR leadership under Kelly has a legal background from outside Boeing. Lawyers are more focused on managing risk and business value than classical HR leaders, who tend to focus on preserving their status in the global HR community.

Rufo: My sense is that many executives are not genuinely committed to DEI as an ideology—they simply want to build airplanes, create software, etc.—but feel social pressure to maintain these departments. Is that true at Boeing? And if so, when did the calculus change?

Insider: DEI is lazy thought leadership best practiced by companies in smooth waters with margins large enough to afford the associated inefficiency. That isn’t Boeing today. When the new boss prioritizes results over fitting in with other CEOs, it sends a strong signal to the culture and builds trust because employees know the rules and it’s clear how to succeed: through hard work and results. McKinsey’s now-debunked analysis was the standard driver in corporate boardrooms, but even if DEI has to defend itself on purely logical grounds, it doesn’t stand up. Boeing more than anything needs an aligned workforce focused on building airplanes, and it’s an easy decision to reject the divisive and U.S.-centric language of DEI in favor of a unified vision for a diverse, global company.

Rufo: Has there been a shift in the conversation or culture within the company?

Insider: Yes. Kelly’s focused question, “Does this help us build airplanes?” combined with the will to change and act, represents a real culture shift. In every big company, a lot of people just push legacy processes forward; you can’t do that when you face a real cash crunch. The furloughs and subsequent layoffs were sufficiently painful to drive a real reckoning that forced us to evaluate whether our actions were driving value or just tied to inertia.

Rufo: Will this improve Boeing’s ability to make airplanes and address some of the real problems at the company?

Insider: Hiring on merit while truly caring for people, regardless of arbitrary one-dimensional identity- or affinity-group labels, is the way to go. After all, people do not want to be beneficiaries of bias any more than they want to be victims of it. Getting past the sloppy wording of DEI to clear goals and criteria for success will help any organization.

Rufo: Do you expect that other companies will follow Boeing’s lead? How do you expect corporate America to look at DEI in the short and medium term?

Insider: Companies will follow Boeing and others’ lead as they acknowledge DEI’s flawed approach. DEI not only oversold imaginary return on investment that could not be measured or verified, but it did so at the cost of expending critical resources and tying up head count earmarked for DEI activities instead of activities that boost performance and capability. There is no way to keep production in focus while also allowing an externally focused bureaucracy with weak ideas to drive culture. In the near term, corporate America is increasingly aware that DEI does not mitigate or eliminate bias or the stereotypes that fuel it. Rather, DEI is simply transferring bias and stereotypes directed at one group to another group. Courageous leadership is finding its way back into the C-suites and finally forcing the logical audit of DEI rhetoric, narratives, and claims that was previously avoided.

[Sulako]

Interesting argument made by Boeing. They appear to say that they don't have the money to administrate DEI programs and that they'd rather trust their hiring managers to be completely oblivious to sex and ethnicity when making hiring decisions. Honestly, that would be great if it happened. In a perfect world, DEI wouldn't exist. I totally believe in hiring the best person for the job. What evidence has shown over time is that all other things being equal, white men hire other white men. That leaves lots of qualified people with limited options. What DEI sought to address was that exact mindset.

Let's use pilots as an example. Roughly half the population are women, but just under 5 percent of pilots are women. Why is that? Are female pilots less safe than male pilots?

An American study (1) in 1986, of National Transportation Safety Board data, found male pilots were 60 per cent more likely to have an accident than women pilots, and male pilots were twice as likely to have fatal accidents.

A decade later, a study (2) of American pilots found that when adjusted for age and experience, men and women commercial pilots had about the same accident rates.

American research in 2000 (3) found that while there were real physiological differences between men and women aviators,
the advantages and disadvantages of those differences affected both sexes. For instance, it found women had faster reaction times, seen as vital in an emergency.

But other research in 1989 found men had superior visual spatial ability, needed to operate in a three-dimensional environment, such
as flying (4)

1 Pilot-error accidents: male vs female. Vail G and Ekman L, St Mary’s University
of Minnesota, 1986, in Aircrew Co-ordination and Communication, 2006.
2 Comparing Pilot-error Accident Rates of Male and Female Airline Pilots.
Mcfadden K, Northern Illinois University, 1996.
3 Gender Differences in an Aviation Physiology Environment. Howell C,
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, 2000.
4 Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities (1st ed.) Halpern D, Claremont
McKenna College, California, 1989

Now let's look at race for a moment.

In the USA, more than 90 percent of all pilots are white males. White males make up 58 percent of the male population though.

There isn't a whole lot of data around aircraft accidents by ethinicity or race, so the best I could do is car crash data over 8 years. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Pu ... ion/813493
Page 5 has a decent graphic that shows overall fatality rates in car crashes, and it shows that white drivers are somewhere in the middle of the pack, slightly less than African-American drivers, but more than Hispanic and Asian drivers. Not sure if this is even translatable to aviation, but I just figure that if race had anything to do with crashes it would stand out prominently in other modes of transpotation besides aviation. I could be totally wrong, and I am open to additional data.

Anyways, my entire point here is that white men dominate aviation. In addition to that, there appears to be a mindset that minorities (women and brown people) are somehow less safe but the data doesn't substantiate that argument. In addition, employment data shows that minority groups are underrepresented in aviation. For every anecdotal story of 'Oh that female/brown pilot doesn't deserve to be there, they clearly got their job just by virtue of having a vagina/melanin/both', it seems to totally discount the fact that minority pilots can have the same skillset as the white men who make up the majority. If aviation was truly inclusive, the makeup of the professional pilot group would look a lot different.

I posted this in a different thread after having to remove several nasty posts, but the intent of DEI isn't to put underqualified people into cockpit seats, it's to make sure that qualified people aren't left behind in order to accomodate underqualified white men. Because that has happened repeatedly since professional aviation was a thing.

[rookiepilot]

Further colour:
Can job postings in Canada exclude white people? Short answer: yes

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/ca ... answer-yes

[‘Bob’]

The reason why there aren't more female pilots is because the overwhelmingly don't want to be pilots. Same with the aversion to the transportation field in general, trades, or most jobs that involve horrible pay, horrible hours, poor working conditions, exposure to the elements, and risk of death or dismemberment.

There are exceptions, and exceptions to the jobs as well (like nurses who work awful hours and in horrible conditions for not enough money) but you can't FORCE them to work jobs they don't want to.

Most female pilots I've worked with became pilots because their dad flies for Air Canada or Westjet.

[DanWEC]

I have a small sample group, but here's what I'd like to say;

I've taught roughly 100 pilots. Maybe 6 or 7 were women.
Of those, every single one was exceptional compared to the overall 100.

Taking an average from the men and the women, the women showed up better prepared, more intent, and less hungover. They were more even-keeled, owned up to mistakes better, and improved on weaknesses better.

If there was anything that could be a challenge it could be that they can be a little meeker and more polite initially- but that's only an issue in an operating environment full of boisterous dudes.
After a few years on the line, any hint of that is definitely gone!

[pelmet]

Have you ever noticed that the DEI frauds whine about not enough female airline pilots and have all kinds of programs to try and get more of them but not one of them EVER complains about not enough construction workers, garbage collectors, plumbers, truck drivers etc, etc.

It is all just a scam to try to reserve the glory jobs but avoid the tough ones, even if the pay is good. Why is that?

[Justjohn]

Saluko your blind spot in your whole argument is that since men and women are roughly equal parts of the population that it follows that they would naturally be roughly equally represented in aviation.

In your own words men and women are psychologically different.

I don’t think that they are vastly different but I too see differences. Lots and lots of men self select in other directions than aviation. I think even more women do.

My Dad tried to talk me out of flying. He had a flying career that I can only envy. I’m at the tail end of my career and I’m glad I didn’t listen to him but I sure don’t want my kid to fly for a living. She deserves so much better in life.

People on the outside looking in see the challenges that come with our chosen profession. I think more women than men don’t want that kind of lifestyle.

When I drop my daughter off at school I notice that most of the teachers are women with only a few men. This has been true at every school and daycare that we’ve been involved with. Why? I believe that women and men self select in ways that fill cockpits with more men than women and classrooms similarly draw more women than men. That doesn’t mean that there is something nefarious afoot.

And THAT is the root of the DEI problem. These programs assume that if a broad sampling of a groups population isn’t roughly representative of the population at large then something nefarious MUST be afoot and needs correcting.

[pelmet]

I have a small sample group, but here's what I'd like to say;

I've taught roughly 100 pilots. Maybe 6 or 7 were women.
Of those, every single one was exceptional compared to the overall 100.

Taking an average from the men and the women, the women showed up better prepared, more intent, and less hungover. They were more even-keeled, owned up to mistakes better, and improved on weaknesses better.

If there was anything that could be a challenge it could be that they can be a little meeker and more polite initially- but that's only an issue in an operating environment full of boisterous dudes.
After a few years on the line, any hint of that is definitely gone!

They quite possibly are as good or better. But that doesn't change that not nearly as high a percentage want to be a pilot at all or an airline pilot. Just like guys are not interested in horses as much. That is just the way it is in the difference in thinking between the two genders.

The argument presented by Sulaku about safety is irrelevant. What is relevant is fairness in hiring. The DEI supporters say that unfairness in the past justifies it in the future but somehow, they are better people.

[mmm...bacon]

The argument presented by Sulaku about safety is irrelevant. What is relevant is fairness in hiring. The DEI supporters say that unfairness in the past justifies it in the future but somehow, they are better people.

Where did you get that DEI is unfairness in hiring? What I always understood about DEI is that it is trying to make hiring more of a meritocracy that is colour/gender/disability blind…

[Daniel Cooper]

What I always understood about DEI is that it is trying to make hiring more of a meritocracy that is colour/gender/disability blind…

I always try to see things from other people's perspective but I don't understand how anyone could see it as a meritocracy. It's the exact opposite of that.

[Inverted2]

I do know in the trucking industry there is a certain group of drivers that seems to have a very poor safety record. I won’t open up that can of worms on here but it’s pretty concerning. I hope that doesn’t ever carry over to aviation.

[Eric Janson]

Where did you get that DEI is unfairness in hiring? What I always understood about DEI is that it is trying to make hiring more of a meritocracy that is colour/gender/disability blind…

Equality of Opportunity - everyone can apply and the best people get hired.

Equality of Outcome - hiring is based on things like Race, Gender etc. etc.. It is designed to correct perceived inequalities. This is DEI - it has no place in Aviation imho.

It's important to understand what is meant with "Equality" - they're talking about Equality of Outcome.

[pelmet]

I bet every DEI supporter would cast aside ant DEI desire if they had to be the one to decide on who they would hire for life-saving surgery for themselves and simply choose the person they thought was the best.

[rookiepilot]

Where did you get that DEI is unfairness in hiring? What I always understood about DEI is that it is trying to make hiring more of a meritocracy that is colour/gender/disability blind…

Equality of Opportunity - everyone can apply and the best people get hired.

Equality of Outcome - hiring is based on things like Race, Gender etc. etc.. It is designed to correct perceived inequalities. This is DEI - it has no place in Aviation imho.

It's important to understand what is meant with "Equality" - they're talking about Equality of Outcome.

Nailed it IMO.

Its this distinction where, collectively IMO, we have gone horribly wrong.

[Bede]

Roughly half the population are women, but just under 5 percent of pilots are women. Why is that?

Ask my wife. She's a pilot with about 2000 hrs. She thinks the idea of sleeping in a different hotel room each night, away from her family, is nuts. She doesn't care about money.

Are female pilots less safe than male pilots?

No. From my anecdotal observations, they're fantastic. Besides the studies cited, I believe only 1 female pilot has ever ended up in front of the TATC.

Now let's look at race for a moment.

Anyways, my entire point here is that white men dominate aviation.

I go to a few ALPA PUB nights from different airline groups. The overwhelming majority of my colleagues, aged 40 and up, flying for large carriers are white. Now go to the tier 2 operators. The group is younger and you see less white people. Go to the tier 3 operators, and it's pretty much a broad distribution of Canadian society. In 20 years, these pilots, who currently fly B1900, will be the face of the tier 1 operators. No DEI programs needed, just equal opportunity and a bit of time.

Anyways, my entire point here is that white men dominate aviation. In addition to that, there appears to be a mindset that minorities (women and brown people) are somehow less safe but the data doesn't substantiate that argument.

That's a straw man. No one (or at least no credible commentator) believes that. You can't look at a few posters on AvCanada and make such broad generalizations about a "mindset".

In a perfect world, DEI wouldn't exist. I totally believe in hiring the best person for the job.

But you have the benefit of working in an environment where DEI was just a PR talking point. Very few believed in the true religion. I actually agree with how the aviation industry promoted "DEI". That is promote aviation amongst women and other non-traditional groups. I'm 100% for that.

BUT, when the DEI folks talk about DEI, they're not talking about DEI how we've experienced it, they're talking about how Robin D'Angelo and Ibrim X. Kendi envision it. For that, look how DEI works in academia. Look at the multiple universities that explicitly state the race of applicants. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/waterloo
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/divers ... es-report
This despite the fact that white males make up a small fraction of university faculty. Now look at the qualifications the ads require. The basic pre-requisite for faculty is a PhD, usually with a post doctoral fellowship. The advertisements for the race based ads often list a minimum of a master's degree. So, an advertisement for a lower qualified applicant as long as they are a certain race. Academia's view of DEI is far, far beyond making sure everyone has an equal opportunity because "white men tend to hire white men."

Imagine aviation adopted DEI as true religion like universities do. "Airline X is looking for first officers on B777. Must be this race or this sexual identity. Must have commercial pilots license."

You might believe that DEI is about hiring the most qualified applicant, but the true believers don't. They believe that certain identities are inherently oppressed by other identities and it is their job to promote the oppressed.

[pelmet]

I posted this in a different thread after having to remove several nasty posts, but the intent of DEI isn't to put underqualified people into cockpit seats, it's to make sure that qualified people aren't left behind in order to accomodate underqualified white men. Because that has happened repeatedly since professional aviation was a thing.

This despite the fact that white males make up a small fraction of university faculty. Now look at the qualifications the ads require. The basic pre-requisite for faculty is a PhD, usually with a post doctoral fellowship. The advertisements for the race based ads often list a minimum of a master's degree. So, an advertisement for a lower qualified applicant as long as they are a certain race. Academia's view of DEI is far, far beyond making sure everyone has an equal opportunity because "white men tend to hire white men."

Imagine aviation adopted DEI as true religion like universities do. "Airline X is looking for first officers on B777. Must be this race or this sexual identity. Must have commercial pilots license."

You might believe that DEI is about hiring the most qualified applicant, but the true believers don't. They believe that certain identities are inherently oppressed by other identities and it is their job to promote the oppressed.

One of the ways that the DEI supporters work is to say that they are only ensuring that qualified groups are getting hired. What they don’t mention is that they lower the standards to meet the standard of being qualified in order to encompass the targeted groups and then start giving the preferential hiring. It was quite a long time ago that they did that with certain strength requirements for firefighters.

[Eric Janson]

Straight from the Air Canada Career website - part 4 of the Pilot application.

Diversity

At Air Canada, we want to fly higher when it comes to employment equity. We are committed to creating a workplace where diversity and inclusion are valued and encouraged. As a result, Air Canada strongly encourages members of designated groups (women, Aboriginal people, members of a visible minority, and people with a disability) to self identify.

Self-identification is the only mechanism that Air Canada can use to measure the effectiveness of its diversity initiatives and determine the composition of its potential workforce.

The answers you provide to the questions below will remain confidential and will only be used by Air Canada for the purpose of carrying out our obligations under the Employment Equity Act. With your consent, however, this information could be used by our Diversity team in the implementation of special equity programs.

More Equality of Outcome imho.

[Tigger]

Competence in any given skill set is commonly charted on a bell curve. On the left are people with lesser abilities, at the top are those with average ability, and on the right those with greatest abilities. In an attempt to perfectly balance gender/race/whatever, when the minority candidate group is significantly smaller and the total requirements are high, its a simple mathematical fact that you will be forced to draw candidates from the smaller minority who are further left on their respective bell curve; ie. less skilled. This is the primary failing when DEI policies are improperly applied.

[Scoob]

Competence in any given skill set is commonly charted on a bell curve. On the left are people with lesser abilities, at the top are those with average ability, and on the right those with greatest abilities. In an attempt to perfectly balance gender/race/whatever, when the minority candidate group is significantly smaller and the total requirements are high, its a simple mathematical fact that you will be forced to draw candidates from the smaller minority who are further left on their respective bell curve; ie. less skilled. This is the primary failing when DEI policies are improperly applied.

It seems that as an industry, we're taking people on the lesser ability side of that curve and trying to force them through training, give them a ton of extra help to push them through, etc. Perhaps that's because some companies are desperate for pilots, perhaps some for DEI purposes, doesn't really matter. Perhaps we ought to re-evaluate our standards, and re-evaluate how hard we want to try to push a candidate through.

Consider the United 767 that had a buckled fuselage and was almost written off after the FO's hard landing at IAH (July 2023), or the FO of Atlas Air 3591, or the Captain of Colgan Air 3407. Struggling or marginal at best candidates that were forced through.

Giving up on candidates is expensive. So are hull losses.

[BigQ]

IQ bell curve:

[pelmet]

IQ bell curve:

One thing a lot of people have not learned yet is that IQ and common sense are two very separate things. That is why a lot of smart(high IQ people) have really dumb ideas of how things should be. I guess they do well on figuring out those shapes on the IQ tests.

[IJNShiroyuki]

So there is four candidate.
1. White male with 3000 hour
2. White male with 1000 hour
3. Black female with 3000 hour
4. Black female with 1000 hour

The left think without DEI #1 and #2 will get hired, DEI is implemented to give #3 a chance, since she is equally qualified.
The right think without DEI #1 and #3 will get hired, DEI is implemented to hire #4 while not hiring #2

The left think DEI is a tool to fight against inequality in a labour market that doesn't give equally qualified minority a chance.
The right think DEI give minority a leg up because they are not white male, in a merit based hiring market.

Which one is true is up to everyone's interpretation.
But I doubt any company is hiring less then competent pilot just because they are minorities, since failed training cost the company tens of thousands of $$.

But one thing everyone can all agree on is hiring should be based on skill and qualification, never race and gender.

This whole post is a waste of time. You got yourself right into the culture war trap while ignoring other urgent matter that need to resolved in our society and aviation community.

[pelmet]

So there is four candidate.
1. White male with 3000 hour
2. White male with 1000 hour
3. Black female with 3000 hour
4. Black female with 1000 hour

The left think without DEI #1 and #2 will get hired, DEI is implemented to give #3 a chance, since she is equally qualified.
The right think without DEI #1 and #3 will get hired, DEI is implemented to hire #4 while not hiring #2

The left think DEI is a tool to fight against inequality in a labour market that doesn't give equally qualified minority a chance.
The right think DEI give minority a leg up because they are not white male, in a merit based hiring market.

Which one is true is up to everyone's interpretation.
But I doubt any company is hiring less then competent pilot just because they are minorities, since failed training cost the company tens of thousands of $$.

But one thing everyone can all agree on is hiring should be based on skill and qualification, never race and gender.

This whole post is a waste of time. You got yourself right into the culture war trap while ignoring other urgent matter that need to resolved in our society and aviation community.

The problem is that the DEI types don't agree with your highlighted sentence.

Of course, the hiring process is very subjective as there is the interview. But many companies also have skill tests and sim evals. The first step is to stop asking questions in the initial application process is race and gender. Then have a third party eliminate names and anything else on the application that identifies these items. Then, the hiring board can do the initial step of the hiring process of looking at the resume/cover letter. Biases in either direction can unfortunately come into play from individuals during interviews which can be difficult to avoid but a group of interviewers and group review can lessen this possibility. Video of a sim eval which is later deleted as per company policy can be done. Written exams can be easier from a marks point of view.

[goldeneagle]

But one thing everyone can all agree on is hiring should be based on skill and qualification, never race and gender.

Tell that to your unions, when you have somebody with 10 years of WB captain experience sitting at the bottom of a seniority list and there is an opening for a WB captain at your airline. Surely that promotion should be based on skill and qualification, not some arbitrary number on a seniority list....

[CpnCrunch]

IQ bell curve:

You do realise this was a hypothetical (made up) example of what the bell curve does NOT look like. Here is the tweet:

https://x.com/nuance_enjoyer/status/1785602734483534275

Most meta-analyses shows very little difference between male and females, so the second graph (above) is probably legit.