Agreed Dre.
I’ve been in Qantas long enough to know there were a lot of absolute tools employed years ago who wouldn’t be employed under the current culture, many for the reasons you mentioned. Some of that attitude still prevails, but is progressively being stamped out - and it has little to do with gender, but perhaps if there were more females in the organisation earlier, it would have been stamped out earlier.
However, I think the biggest problem (and the reason for this thread) is that the Company, from the CEO down, have made multiple public statements that they are targeting more female pilots, or actively seeking to improve the gender gap, The very fact that they say “improve” the gender gap implies that there currently exists a “problem” with the gender gap. It’s very convenient language because they get to imply that there is a problem with the gender gap without actually having to justify that there is a problem with the gender gap, or indeed, why. As others have pointed out, the gender gap in other vocational areas of the Company is apparently not a problem - only, it seems, with the pilots.
So long as there is doubt as to the equivalent merits of the larger number of females being employed, there will be friction. The females won’t know if they were employed on merit, and the male applicants won’t know either. That’s not a good state of affairs. Many contributors “in the know” have said it’s not the case, but an similar number “in the know” have said it is. The first QFTA course just happened to be 50/50. Coincidence?
The exact reason for the huge focus by Qantas on female pilots is unknown.
Possibilities:
1. It could be pure
PR, Qantas is known for spending huge dollars on marketing while telling every other department to cut costs. The current CEO has previously shown talent for using his position to pursue a social agenda. But I actually doubt he hopes to attract more of the flying public to his airline simply because he targets more female pilots, so I don’t think he would do this from a pure business perspective.
2. Qantas (or it’s CEO) views the pilot employee group as arrogant, overpaid and underworked. They may have statistical data that the current female pilot demographic tend not to be involved in industrial activities, and to be potentially more compliant with the gradual but continued reduction in terms and conditions. Someone mentioned female Presidents earlier... how many females have been actively involved in AIPA in the past? I can only think of one: and she is now a management pilot actively standing next to AJ promoting more female pilots in Qantas. I could be wrong, but I don’t think she ever had any children either. That’s fine, but pretty much all other female pilots I know do have children, and don’t get involved in AIPA industrial work.
3. The female pilot demographic actually performs better than the males (according to whatever KPI’s), perhaps in terms of training failures, incidents, disciplinary matters, or are simply easier to deal with from an HR point of view.
Those are 3 possibilities that I can think of to explain the focus on targeting more females. I’m sure there could be other reasons.
Someone earlier in thread stated that they knew a lot of female pilots, but didn’t know any female pilots with “stay at home husbands”. My anecdotal evidence is the same. I actually have 2 close friends who are “stay at home husbands” - but their wives are both high-earning corporate executives. The rest of us can only wish...
Qantas is a largely international airline, and you don’t get to be a pilot with an international airline without going away from home for multi-day trips. In Qantas you could expect to be away for up to 10-11 days at a time on 3 of the types, or up to 6 days on the A330, and you currently don’t have a choice to avoid that, unless you bid to join the B737. Even on the B737 you can be away for 4 days (it would have been 6 if the latest EBA had been voted up). This is simply not friendly with children unless you have a stay at home partner, or a willing grandparent around the corner.
Not to say it can’t be done, of course, and there are a few who do it, and do it well. I’ve flown with many females. They pretty much fit in to the same bell curve as males... a few good ones, most average, and a few were crap. The ones I’ve known have all taken extensive time off work for children, but most of them have come back. A couple resigned to be stay at home mums. Many of those who stayed took advantage of “carer” legislation to make sure they only worked part time and had weekends off - thus ensuring that all the male pilots (who also had kids, but didn’t qualify as carers because they had a wife) did all the weekend work. And that’s with a 5% female demographic. I’m sure the males with kids are really looking forward to a 50% demographic of females who are legally entitled to weekends off.
The ones who worked part time were generally average. I won’t say all, because some were great because they acknowledged that they worked part time and they kept their eye on the books in their time off and they knew that they weren’t particularly recent and kept their eye on the ball. But some didn’t, and you could could tell as you had to prompt them regularly for simple things as their mind was still on the kids with Grandma.
So there are many reasons why this job is not so attractive to females. So to imply that the gender gap needs to be “fixed” is disingenuous.