Originally Posted by Orange future
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?
The central question (completely unresolved by credible evidence) is why there is a low level of female participation?
Is it because woman want to be pilots at the same rate as men, but are deterred because of perceptions about the industry? Or, is it because they are far less interest than men?
If the first case turns out to be correct, then the pilot base will broaden, and my argument is invalid.
If however, the second possibility, ie woman are far less interested in being pilots than men, the consequence could be to shrink the base, as the signal being sent via a quota system is the perception that opportunities will be significantly reduced for men.
Another way of saying it, is asking two questions, will a quota system a) reduce men entering the industry, and b) increase female participation sufficiently to offset this? In a nutshell, will this policy drive out more entrants than attracts?
You have twisted my argument that the current situation is an "artificial shortage". It is not, as far as I can understand there are no rule or regulations that reduce the ability of either sex to participate in the industry. Unlike many other heavily regulated industries (medicine, law, Pharmacy), pilots have a virtually free market for their skills, there is no quota or cap whatsoever on how can train, and this has been the case since the Wright brothers.
To argue there is an "artificial shortage" implies some grand conspiracy to employ men first, woman second. My experience is employment is based on ability rather than a tick on a birth certificate, and this has been the case for at least the last 25 years. I have flown with many woman over the years as instructors, First Officers & Captains.
The answers to these questions are unknown
a priori, we will only become clear in hindsight. I am trying to make no assumptions, however, I question whether those who have designed this policy are doing so for ideological or pragmatic reasons. If it is for ideological reasons, this policy has potential to actually damage the pipeline of entrants given the huge risks and uncertainty that either men or woman face becoming a professional pilot.
Are you actually a pilot Orange Future? I note this question has previously been asked. Because, if not, it is very difficult to understand the risks, determination, no, sheer bloody-mindedness that is required to make it into a jet in this region. Every single pilot who you see walking through the terminal has demonstrated, at some point in their career a rare ruthless determination to succeed, usually prior to the point before there is any guarantees.
They have totally committed every single one of their chips to a single hand. If you haven't been there, it is difficult to understand the pain & anguish of the process. Perhaps that is why airlines are desperate to attempt to broaden the base, people are no longer willing to take such risks, or they perceive the pay-off to be too low.