Wanna
“….one can make statistics seem whatever they want to support their point of view.”
True, data can be massaged to prove either side of many arguments. But not this one, its very conclusive, they are not my numbers.
Take a look at what these people say:
ABS
WA Department of Commerce
House of Representatives standing committee on gender inequality.
OECD
Fair Work Ombudsmen
Macquarie University.
Plenty of other sources of data if need it.
“….unless of course you have hard evidence that females are being paid 20% less in aviation.”
Do you have hard evidence that they are not? The data supports the point that women are paid less in nearly every industry, including aviation.
Joe
“Let's address some of your concerns;”
No, they are not my concerns. As I have pointed out before, JQ is just the latest industry participant to wake up to the fact that a key component of dealing with the looming pilot shortage is increasing the participation rate of women.
You have not chosen to argue with me, you are picking a fight with the likes of Boeing, Airbus and a long and growing list of airlines the world over. Just today the headline news: “Emirates to attract more female Emirati pilots”.
But lets continue nonetheless:
“20% pay difference between women and men”
Thanks for your explanation, however at no point have I suggested that female pilots are paid less than male pilots, airline pilots generally do not negotiate as individuals. My broad-brush comment regarding the wider airline industry is in response to several other posters view on the wider industry and society in general. Compylot for example: “If we really want to advance the causes and equality of all women”
“they have nix to do with who gets hired.”
They have a lot to do with setting recruitment policy.
“if an airline narrows down 100 applicants, with defined suitable experience”.
Lets call this the short list shall we? According to Jetstar policy as mentioned in the article, if “only three percent of those applicants are female”, then the corrective action would be: an “explanation must be provided”.
But your reading of the JQ media release is that JQ would proceed thus: “to bypass a significant amount of those applicants”. You think JQ would then cull a large number of males in order to achieve a 50/50 gender split.
I understand how you arrive at such a conclusion, the JQ media package is not well written and the end game is not very clear.
However when airlines around the world AND the two major aircraft manufacturers are publishing articles regarding ways to solve the crisis of pilot shortages for the future, it’s a reasonable conclusion to draw that:
Quotas ACHIEVE THE OPPOSITE and it would be pointless for JQ to turn away applicants.
It’s important to understand that this entire debate really comes down to one line in the article that launched this thread. The policy in place at JQ is not new and has not resulted in the culling of males in order to achieve a more balanced gender field. Why are you assuming it will in the future?
“The results are generally, that the airline gets "the best person for the job".”
Interesting really that no one has yet mentioned cadets. A self-funded cadet program, as used in Australia before, is a huge barrier when an airline is striving to obtain the best person for the job. Why are we not spending more time on this?
Neville
“….you can't just recruit people who don't actually exist”
Correct, and JQ are not trying to. They are however trying to lay the groundwork for a change in behavior that will one day in the future result in those people actually existing.
Curtain
“That is, the total potential pilot base is increased”
Correct, this is exactly what JQ are aiming for and yes Virgin will follow suit, why wouldn’t they?
But more importantly, the rest of your post is interesting and I want to make sure I read you correctly.
Your theory suggests that the industry should not broaden the applicant numbers to help mitigate the effects of pilot shortages in the future because the increase in competition for roles will scare away males applicants?????
Interesting, so your implication therefore is that males only become involved in aviation because the lack of participation by women results in a lower level of competition for sought after jobs. It makes it easier for men to become pilots because women, by not participating, are creating an artificial shortage.
Are you really comfortable with that argument or would you like to . . . . evolve it a little?
Das Uber, as several other posters on here have found, your abrasive and cyber angry tone is not worth debating. Good luck with that.