The FAA Plans To Enforce Merit-Based Hiring Standards

[Dry Guy]

https://simpleflying.com/end-of-dei-coc ... it-hiring/

In an announcement on Friday, US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy revealed the FAA's OpSec A134 will make it a legal requirement for airlines to "formally commit to merit-based hiring for pilots." As for what exactly determines merit, the FAA emphasized technical knowledge, cognitive skills, qualifications and piloting experience, with FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford stating that "someone’s race, sex, or creed, has nothing to do with their ability to fly and land aircraft safely."

According to the FAA, instances of airlines persisting with race or sex-based hiring remain, so they will now be required to certify that these practices have ended or face an investigation. Airlines for America (A4A), which represents the majority of carriers in the US, has stated its approval of the directive, stating that its members will "comply with all federal regulations and laws."

Secretary Duffy commented,

"When families board their aircraft, they should fly with confidence knowing the pilot behind the controls is the best of the best. The American people don’t care what their pilot looks like or their gender—they just care that they are most qualified man or woman for the job."

[oldnbold]

The whole concept of DEI was created by an HR industry that is highly misandrist. The way males have been treated by society for the last few decades has swung way beyond equality and into retribution.

1771822834449159.jpg (40.47 KiB) Viewed 886 times

[digits_]

Sounds like a political statement without much effect. Also seems hard to enforce, especially in non unionized airlines where salary discussions will happen.

[tsgarp]

No worries, Carney will fast track the FAA rejects here under the new immigration rules.

[Red_Comet]

Interesting change, but there's a reason DEI is running rampant in the US. It's called the Civil Rights Act, which stipulates that ANY career whose employees do not perfectly represent the general demographics of the country are by definition discriminatory. This is what has been hollowing out American industries for decades. We have our own version here now in the form of the Human Rights Tribunal, which effectively does the same but goes beyond the current demographics into "more diversity is better". And we all know what "diversity" means in this context: no Europeans/Asians or any other high performing demographic need apply.

The Soviet Union may have lost the Cold War, but they won the culture war. Their Frankfurt school agents which penetrated FDRs cabinet (Harry D White, Morgenthau, etc) worked tirelessly to bring about this triumph. America's diversity was alas not its strength after all. They dug into the racial/sexual cracks in American society and applied prolonged force over decades. America cracked, and we are seeing the crumbling of the behemoth now.

[Bingo Fuel]

Neither the U.S. Civil Rights Act nor Canadian human-rights law says that a profession must “perfectly represent” national demographics. What they prohibit is discrimination in hiring and employment decisions. Courts have been explicit on this point for decades: statistical imbalance alone is not proof of discrimination. If it were, virtually every profession requiring rare skills, long training pipelines, or self-selection would be illegal.

DEI in aviation does not mean abandoning merit. It means ensuring that access to the merit pipeline is not arbitrarily restricted.

[YYCAME]

I could point to this NIH (US National Institute of Health published) study on literacy that showed women were better at reading comprehension as a rebuttal to the meme above about reading comprehension (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/P ... 978/#sec12) but I think a more appropriate statistic that relates to this industry is the driving accident statistics as published by NHTSA. Statistically men are much more likely to be killed while operating a vehicle primarily due to their willingness to engage in risky behaviour. If safety is actually a concern in aviation then women are likely much better suited to this profession. Perhaps not when it comes to military combat where aggressive and risky behaviour can be rewarded but certainly in the day to day operation of aircraft where consistency and caution is important. Here is an example, from (https://dklaw.com/insights/car-accident ... and-gender) Men account for 72% of traffic deaths despite driving ~63% of total miles. Per mile, men are 63% more likely to die in a crash. Speeding, alcohol, and seatbelt non-use explain most of the gap based on the 2023 NHTSA FARS data · Updated February 2026.

Personally, I don't think gender has that significant a role in anything other than that it bestows some initial starting advantages and disadvantages to us at birth. It's what you make of it and personal achievement that I think has the greater effect. However if people want to go down the road of merit based qualifications I would argue that disproportionately and unfairly wealthy people occupy higher paying jobs not because they are more qualified but because the bank of Mom and Dad could pay for their opportunities and to work low paying jobs for years while they were building their qualifications. Yeah rich people were pissed off that they had to give a more qualified candidate a chance rather then their nephew or friend's delinquent son but it was my understanding that this is what DEI was created to push back against. Meritless dipshits who believed they deserved the jobs because Daddy was the manager or their drinking buddy worked somewhere they were applying. DEI is definitely flawed, but I'm not sure if it's less flawed then the previous system where sucking up to the right people was the best way to get opportunities. It seems kind of naive to assume that when you remove rules and laws that people are going to do the right thing and hire on merit. I would say it's more likely that you will see greater tribalism and cronyism in hiring and promotion of candidates because that will protect the jobs and power of the current managers. Case in point, I don't think Trump has a great hiring record when it comes to appointing qualified and merit based people because loyalty is more important than ability.

In the context of the original article, if they are serious about making it more merit based that sounds great. Personally though it sounds like a lot of doublespeak.

[Red_Comet]

Neither the U.S. Civil Rights Act nor Canadian human-rights law says that a profession must “perfectly represent” national demographics. What they prohibit is discrimination in hiring and employment decisions. Courts have been explicit on this point for decades: statistical imbalance alone is not proof of discrimination. If it were, virtually every profession requiring rare skills, long training pipelines, or self-selection would be illegal.

DEI in aviation does not mean abandoning merit. It means ensuring that access to the merit pipeline is not arbitrarily restricted.

Wow, glad we have a member of the DNC here to give us their party line. Yeah, that's exactly how it was sold. But then, how do you PROVE discrimination? You can't, so therefore you go hunting to see if every profession has demographic representation at least equal to the population. The only other explanation would be that certain races/sexes don't want to be doctors/pilots/engineers as much as others, which is anathema to modern liberal sensibilities. And so that's why medical schools in the USA have segregated application streams by race, where your acceptance rate is determined by the GPA/MCAT average of your racial applicant pool. So black applicants are accepted at much lower GPA/MCAT scores than others, etc.

So no, your utopian system doesn't exist. It implements exactly the racial discrimination it purports to combat, as shown by countless lawsuits over the years. And best of all, it is going to tear America apart, along with any other nation stupid enough to drink the DEI kool-aid (..yes, that's us!). Keep beating your equity drums though, and see where it leads.

[Bingo Fuel]

Neither the U.S. Civil Rights Act nor Canadian human-rights law says that a profession must “perfectly represent” national demographics. What they prohibit is discrimination in hiring and employment decisions. Courts have been explicit on this point for decades: statistical imbalance alone is not proof of discrimination. If it were, virtually every profession requiring rare skills, long training pipelines, or self-selection would be illegal.

DEI in aviation does not mean abandoning merit. It means ensuring that access to the merit pipeline is not arbitrarily restricted.

Wow, glad we have a member of the DNC here to give us their party line. Yeah, that's exactly how it was sold. But then, how do you PROVE discrimination? You can't, so therefore you go hunting to see if every profession has demographic representation at least equal to the population. The only other explanation would be that certain races/sexes don't want to be doctors/pilots/engineers as much as others, which is anathema to modern liberal sensibilities. And so that's why medical schools in the USA have segregated application streams by race, where your acceptance rate is determined by the GPA/MCAT average of your racial applicant pool. So black applicants are accepted at much lower GPA/MCAT scores than others, etc.

So no, your utopian system doesn't exist. It implements exactly the racial discrimination it purports to combat, as shown by countless lawsuits over the years. And best of all, it is going to tear America apart, along with any other nation stupid enough to drink the DEI kool-aid (..yes, that's us!). Keep beating your equity drums though, and see where it leads.

There are legitimate debates to be had about how DEI is designed and implemented. But the argument being made here still rests on misunderstandings about law, evidence, and how high-skill professions actually function.

Discrimination is not proven by demographic imbalance alone. Courts require evidence of biased processes, unequal treatment under the same standards, or exclusionary practices. If representation mismatch were itself proof, the aviation industry would be legally indefensible everywhere. DEI emerged because audits and lawsuits repeatedly showed qualified candidates being filtered out for reasons unrelated to performance, not because perfect demographic mirroring was declared mandatory.

The claim that the only alternative explanation is that some groups simply “don’t want” these professions presents a false binary. Between overt discrimination and innate preference lie well-documented structural barriers: access to early exposure, financial costs, legacy pipelines, mentorship, and attrition from hostile or exclusionary environments. The aviation industry illustrates this clearly. Becoming a pilot requires early awareness, large upfront capital, geographic flexibility, and social support. Those constraints shape applicant pools long before hiring begins, without implying inferiority or ideological coercion.

Medical school admissions are also routinely mischaracterized. GPA and MCAT scores are predictors, not measures of professional competence. Schools already use holistic evaluation because long-term performance depends on far more than test optimization. Different acceptance averages do not mean unqualified candidates are admitted, and all graduates must still pass the same licensing exams. If DEI were producing underqualified professionals, failure would be obvious downstream. It isn’t.

It’s true that some DEI programs have overreached or been poorly executed, and courts have struck those down. That demonstrates legal correction, not systemic collapse. Tool misuse does not invalidate the underlying goal of ensuring access to opportunity. The aviation industry already operates on this principle: holistic evaluation followed by uncompromising, objective performance gates. Anyone who can’t meet them washes out.

The claim that DEI will “tear society apart” confuses cause and response. Social fractures were not created by DEI, they were documented long before it. What historically destabilizes societies is exclusion masked as neutrality and inherited advantage mistaken for merit. You can argue about whether DEI is the best response, but denying the problem it addresses doesn’t resolve it.

Most importantly, the alarmist competency narrative doesn't hold water. You cannot DEI your way past a checkride. If DEI were undermining competence, it would be obvious in the accident and incident statistics. Instead, safety outcomes continue to improve.

The real debate isn’t whether merit should matter. It already does, absolutely. The question is whether we’re willing to examine which barriers actually measure merit and which simply restrict access to the training pipeline.

[Red_Comet]

If DEI were producing underqualified professionals, failure would be obvious downstream. It isn’t.

Ah yes, and there it is: theological belief in the DEI theory-of-everything. Axiomatic assertion with zero evidence. I understand I'm debating a religious fanatic, but do you realize how dumb you sound when you are defending a system that is specifically designed to bypass merit based hiring? Why else would we need legislation and fines to force people to hire a specific group of people? Aviation is the last frontier, as all other professions have been conquered by DEI with very predictable results.

By the way, my spidey senses tell me I'm talking to an AI slop generator, so I'm happy to report that you will be replaced by AI soon enough so you can rest easy as your crusade will be meaningless when there are no jobs to compete for. What will you do then?

[Bingo Fuel]

If DEI were producing underqualified professionals, failure would be obvious downstream. It isn’t.

Ah yes, and there it is: theological belief in the DEI theory-of-everything. Axiomatic assertion with zero evidence. I understand I'm debating a religious fanatic, but do you realize how dumb you sound when you are defending a system that is specifically designed to bypass merit based hiring? Why else would we need legislation and fines to force people to hire a specific group of people? Aviation is the last frontier, as all other professions have been conquered by DEI with very predictable results.

By the way, my spidey senses tell me I'm talking to an AI slop generator, so I'm happy to report that you will be replaced by AI soon enough so you can rest easy as your crusade will be meaningless when there are no jobs to compete for. What will you do then?

Cool story. Another keyboard warrior fighting to exclude people who don't look like him.

[lostav8r]

If DEI were producing underqualified professionals, failure would be obvious downstream. It isn’t.

Ah yes, and there it is: theological belief in the DEI theory-of-everything. Axiomatic assertion with zero evidence. I understand I'm debating a religious fanatic, but do you realize how dumb you sound when you are defending a system that is specifically designed to bypass merit based hiring? Why else would we need legislation and fines to force people to hire a specific group of people? Aviation is the last frontier, as all other professions have been conquered by DEI with very predictable results.

By the way, my spidey senses tell me I'm talking to an AI slop generator, so I'm happy to report that you will be replaced by AI soon enough so you can rest easy as your crusade will be meaningless when there are no jobs to compete for. What will you do then?

Let me get this straight, despite almost everyone in this industry yelling "it's not what you know it's who you know" And the same time it's a 100% merit based field? How can both things be true?

[tsgarp]

fighting to exclude people who don't look like him.

Ironic that you just perfectly described what DEI has evolved into.

[Red_Comet]

fighting to exclude people who don't look like him.

Ironic that you just perfectly described what DEI has evolved into.

And today's DEI is far from its final form. Tribalism is as old as two legged mammals, and buddy here is eagerly sliding down the slope thinking he's on the "right side of history". But he doesn't know you can't stop the ride exactly when you've had your fun. The ride has just started, and he's not going to like where its headed. "Tribalism for me, but not for thee" won't work for long. If you have half a working brain you figure that out pretty quick if you've opened a history book or two.

But hey, we'll see who is right soon enough. Let's see how far you can push young Canadian men who have no job prospects, no housing, and no future. Sure it'll end well.