I wish to neatly side-step the central issue of "fairness" for another more subtle issue, posited by orange future:
Originally Posted by orange future
No one has suggested bypassing a certain demographic at all. Increasing womens participation is simply broadening the applicant base giving the airline greater access to "the best person for the job".
This policy is clearly designed to send a signal, and in fact, it actually sends two, the first overt, the second, covert. Embedded in orange future's statement is an implicit assumption ("assume makes an ass out of you and me" and all). That is, the
total potential pilot base is increased. However, is this necessarily true?
On one side of the coin, will females become more interested in aviation in response to this policy (will Virgin be under pressure to follow suit)? It is still a damn hard slog, risky & brutal business to get the required training & experience. Will it suddenly become more attractive because of a change of policy at the "glamour" end? This is the overt signal, the carrot of making it to the top of the industry.
Here's a hypothetical scenario, the other side of the coin. Put yourself in the shoes of a potential young male who has dreamed of flying as their future career. He visits the local flying school, notices mostly male students and instructors. Being a child of the internet, he goes home and research the process & costs, time & potential career path.
It probably won't take long into either the research phase or even the start of flying before the penny drops. He is now competing for only 50% of the slots with every other male, of which is almost everyone in either training or instructing.
The reality dawns, the same number of men are all trying to escape through a hole that is only half the size it once was. Almost everyone will wake up to this fairly quickly.
In short, he comes realise, opportunities for
him in the industry may be significantly diminished. Whether this is actually true or not, is irrelevant,
it is the perception that counts, for someone who is about to spend $100,000++ upfront just to get a seat at the table.
Given that a CPL qualification has virtually no income generating potential outside employment as a pilot, will parents loan the money by re-mortgaging their home to fund a now highly risky future?
Very few other jobs have such binary qualifications, with such high upfront costs, you make it or you don't, and if you don't, all of that money and time has been wasted. This is the covert signal being sent
This policy could have the unintended consequence of actually discouraging a significant number of the entrants potential pool, prior to, or early in their training.