Jetstar Aiming for 50% Gender Spilt in Interview Candidates

[neville_nobody]

As if this industry wasn't hard enough already.

To start stipulating a 50% figure when the actual ratio gender split of the total pilots or engineer population is nowhere near 50% is flat out discrimination and a great way of discouraging otherwise keen capable males.

Taylah Smith, 20, doesn't fit the stereotypical image of an avionics engineer. But the second-year apprentice at Jetstar's Newcastle engineering facility says she loves her job.

"It is such a unique and specialised field," she says. "Most people, when I tell them what I do, they have no idea and their jaw drops."

Ms Smith, who has been interested in engineering since she was at school, is one of four female apprentices at the low-cost airline's engineering facility in Newcastle. She works 11-hour day or night shifts on a four day on/four day off basis to ensure the aircraft keep flying safely.

Jetstar, which unusually for the aviation industry has a female chief executive, Jayne Hrdlicka, and a female chief pilot, Captain Georgina Sutton, has been working hard to recruit more women in traditionally male-dominated fields.
Advertisement

​For the past year, it has had a policy in place to aim for an even split between male and female candidates for interviews and shortlisted for jobs. If that cannot be achieved in the event nobody from a specific gender applied or met critical technical and safety qualifications, an explanation must be provided.

Jetstar's efforts to increase gender diversity were recognised on Thursday evening, when industry group Aviation/Aerospace Australia named it as the award winner in the Outstanding Strategy for Diversity Category at its 2016 Airspace Awards.

Aviation/Aerospace Australia chief executive Ken McLean said progressive airlines around the world had abandoned the position of having women in the cabin and men in the cockpit.

"Incentives and quotas have helped reverse this situation," he said. "The challenge now is to ensure women are well represented in the technical aspects of aviation, such as maintenance, dispatch and piloting."

In NSW, less than 1 per cent of aircraft maintenance engineers are female, making them even rarer than female pilots. In Australia, women comprise around 5 to 10 per cent of pilots at the major airlines, varying by carrier.

Ms Hrdlicka said that, from Jetstar's point of view, striving for better diversity in its pilot and engineering ranks was a "no-brainer".

"I've never understood why an airline would overlook half the population when searching for the very best talent to fly, service and maintain their aircraft," she said.

The Newcastle facility remains male-dominated, with the female apprentices comprising only 5 per cent of the workforce. But Ms Smith said she had not had problems integrating into a male-dominated environment and hoped more women would follow in her footsteps.

When she completes her four-year apprenticeship she will be qualified as an aircraft maintenance engineer. Once that is complete, she could choose to pursue the qualification of becoming a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer.

"There are plenty of options," she said. "You can just keep going and go further up the ladder."

Read more: Jetstar works to boost number of women in engineering (http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/jetstar-works-to-boost-number-of-women-in-engineering-20160413-go5wzl.html#ixzz45t2nYUEf)
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

[IsDon]

"I've never understood why an airline would overlook half the population when searching for the very best talent to fly, service and maintain their aircraft," she said.

Isn't that exactly what she's now doing. Overlooking half the population, males, who may actually be more qualified and motivated, but who aren't considered because they have a penis.

Dress it up whatever way you like. When you overlook a better candidate because of a gender bias then that plain and simple discrimination.

What is really stupid is employing half your workforce purely on gender bias rather than talent or ability.

What's next, 20% must be gay/lesbian/transvestite? What about ethnic split while where at it? Or religion? Should your employment depend more upon your ethnicity, gender or sexual preference than your suitability to actually do the job? No only an idiot would think that. Seems being an idiot doesn't stop you becoming CEO of Jetstar.

[waren9]

curious to see how thats going to work for them in the flight attendant ranks

[ozziejim]

In all my years I'm yet to meet an unemployed female pilot, or if so not for long

[chuboy]

Why aren't women interesting in being a LAME?

So many different women from different backgrounds and somehow only a tiny fraction take an interest in the profession?

Modern feminism suggests this is because of the patriarchy instilling a particular set of values in our youngsters that ends up steering women away from "traditionally male" roles. Personally I just think girls generally don't really take much of an interest in machines, but maybe I'm just part of the problem :confused:

[framer]

Chuboy, I think there is at least an element of reality to your personally held views in many cases. People who have both male and female children sometimes notice this. I myself was interested that my boy took to making car/truck/ motorbike noises and becoming very excited when he saw them from about eight months old. Both his older sisters still don't get excited over these things. Maybe they never will?

[neville_nobody]

If you leave kids to their own devices it's interesting how the girls go for the dolls and dress ups and the boys want to go and play with the trucks and diggers. Feminists can say what they like but anecdotal evidence would suggest otherwise. Why do Lego now have girl focused Lego which is more about relationship rather than just the usual Pirates/Towns/Spaceship etc.

Not saying girls can't be good LAMES or Pilots but when talking about large numbers of people the average tends to sway toward the societal norms, which is what makes this 50% business a bit ridiculous. Then add into that becoming an airline pilot takes alot of sacrifice regardless of gender and that airline jobs are really very competitive anyway.

[grrowler]

curious to see how thats going to work for them in the flight attendant ranks

It seems to be heading that way at some airlines! 😳

[BleedingAir]

The whole thing is f***ing disgusting. Saw it in my previous career, seeing it here. Mandating 50% female recruitment when the pool of female applicants might be 10-20%. You dare argue it, people start using the words "sexist" and "outrage".

I wouldn't have the slightest issue with 95% female recruitment, if it was based solely on assessment of suitability and competency (as it is with everyone else). But apparently even suggesting that is veiled sexism too. I give up.

[WannaBeBiggles]

I've actually had this discussion with a bunch of female pilots not long ago. There are plenty out there that will us their gender and/or looks to get ahead while others just want to work hard and get there on their own merits.

Such policies while at face value seem like a great way to integrate the sexes, they also have the effect of people just assuming any female got the job because of her gender when she may have worked really hard and have been the most competitive candidate on the day regardless of gender.

I'm all for encouraging more females to the industry, I've worked with many and the majority of them are great operators. Some had issues with life out remote or with brash management styles of many of the owners out there, though the same can be said for their male counterparts.

Reverse discrimination does nothing to empower a given race, creed or gender.

Imagine how you'd feel if you run a race, come in 1st and the person that came in 4th also got a gold medal because they were also of the same race/gender/creed than you and you were seen as being from a race/gender/creed that "needed help".

[Runaway Gun]

Maybe it's time I changed my name to something a little more feminine on my CV.

[Keg]

Imagine being a female that got the gig. If you were fair dinkum about yourself you'd always be wondering if you got it on your own merits because you were among the best applicants it or if it was a token gesture. That'd do my head in.

I wonder when they'll start doing the reverse for occupations such as social worker or school teacher?

[mcgrath50]

Is it 50/50 across all roles in the company or is it 50/50 for each group.

It is not unusual in a corporate world to say that "Across all the jobs we advertise this year we want to aim to see a 50/50 male to female ratio". And in general, if you aren't being discriminatory, it SHOULD balance out. As there is a population balance of about 50/50. Now obviously pilots and LAMEs are more likely to be male (although is this because girls don't see it as a viable option, when people still get surprised when a female voice comes over the PA), but FA are more likely to be female. And so on. Roles such as accountants are more likely to trend towards 50/50. And across a whole company its not difficult to target 50/50.

Assuming its across the whole company and not for each job advertised, I really feel you are all brewing a storm in a teacup. :ok:

[The Green Goblin]

It's what happens when the CP is a chick along with the CEO.

Interesting that pretty much all the senior flight ops management pilots have walked out and returned to the line.

Does this alarm anyone?

[waren9]

no. it just shows that the old blue shirts brigade and its jobs for mates scheme is nearing the end of its time

however, the devil you know and all that i guess.

[600ft-lb]

So does this mean men will get favourability when applying for typically female dominated roles such as HR ?

"I've never understood why an airline would overlook half the population when searching for the very best talent to fly, service and maintain their aircraft," she said.

I think it's more of the case that half of the population overlooks being an aircraft engineer as a job they want to do. But that would be sexist to point that out.

The same reason why men generally don't become nurses or school teachers.

[Led Zep]

"Incentives and quotas have helped reverse this situation," he said.I would look to various countries' sporting teams that use "quotas". Is X the best Y coloured/gendered player? Yes. Are they better than player Z? No, but a quota had to be met. A net loss to the team.
I couldn't live with myself knowing that there was a strong chance I was employed not because I was the best for the role, but because a quota had to be met or the company recieved some "incentive" to hire me. :{

"I've never understood why an airline would overlook half the population when searching for the very best talent to fly, service and maintain their aircraft," she said.If recruitment does their job correctly, the best talent for any position, in any company, across ALL industries, would be sitting opposite the interview panel REGARDLESS of gender!!

I do not claim to be an expert in JQ/QF maint, in fact I know very little, but if they outsource overseas, I hope that the Philippine/Singaporean/etc. shed is at least 50/50 split between the sexes, and within those divisions, racial and religious splits are equal too. :\

[chuboy]

If JQ have to choose between an Indigenous male and a white female candidate, who do they pick?

[Brakerider]

What about hiring the Indigenous Female? That ticks 2 boxes and they can get on with the job..

[Led Zep]

If JQ have to choose between an Indigenous male and a white female candidate, who do they pick?A HR divide-by-zero moment. :}

[neville_nobody]

It is not unusual in a corporate world to say that "Across all the jobs we advertise this year we want to aim to see a 50/50 male to female ratio". And in general, if you aren't being discriminatory, it SHOULD balance out.


Except that isn't how it reads. It would appear that if they have 100 pilots to interview then if 50 of them are not women they have to send a 'please explain' to head office. Then depending on how it rolls from there is what will make it interesting. If it's just a token effort and a PR stunt then fair enough noone is really affected.

However if there is downward pressure from the top to actually start actively pursuing departments who can't meet the quota, then I think it's a bridge to far.

If Jetstar REALLY want more girls in aviation then they have to start at a grass roots level, by encouraging them at school age to be interested in it and offering scholarships and free flying training. I guess similar with what the AFL do with their kids programs. Unfortunately in aviation it is not a matter of just qualifying, you then have 5+ years of hard slog meager salart before you even get an interview with Jetstar with basically zero work/life balance.

I think this aspect is going to be the hardest sell to any woman especially in a male dominated industry. I have seen it in the past, girls who were otherwise quite competent who either just didn't want it badly enough, or couldn't hack the whole GA scene, and the negative effect it has on your life as whole. And in all honesty that's probably fair enough too.

However this kind of arbitrary recruiting won't fix that problem.

[airdualbleedfault]

Aaaaand society continues down the sh1tter thanks to the loud, bleeding heart, do gooder minority

[Capt Kremin]

Its all about "gender equality". Which appears to be a fluid term.

The RAAF has instituted the "Graduate Pilot Scheme (http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/airforce/jobs/Pilot/?entryTypeId=22)". On the face of it a great deal.

Do the 3 year Aviation degree at Griffith University.

After completing one year of degree you can apply for GPS.

*HECS paid.
*Complete the RAAF pilots course as YR3 of the degree
*ROSO of 3 years.

Mentors provided on course.

One extra requirement-Those without Lady-bits need not apply.

Great deal if you are a woman but graduating beside a bunch of males who jumped the same hoops without any of the above assistance and now face a ROSO of 10 years may take some courage.

[Metro man]

South African Airways won't employ any white male candidates and have openly stated this. A 200 hour non W/M would be taken over a test pilot with perfect scores all round, who happened to be a white male.

[Massey058]

If Jetstar REALLY want more girls in aviation then they have to start at a grass roots level, by encouraging them at school age to be interested in it and offering scholarships and free flying training. I guess similar with what the AFL do with their kids programs. Unfortunately in aviation it is not a matter of just qualifying, you then have 5+ years of hard slog meager salart before you even get an interview with Jetstar with basically zero work/life balance.

This.

Why don't they institute an advertising campaign to get the message out there? Highlight all the women that work for the airline across all levels and then back that up by going grass level as you say.

I've always felt that a lot of the gender disparity in the industry comes down to historical norms, it will take some time to change that but it won't happen without some grass level work, not just decreeing a simple 50/50 split. That and also sometimes I feel the fairer sex might be a lot smarter by not getting themselves into this at times maddening, crazy industry. Those that do though I have very much enjoyed working with.

[Mr.Buzzy]

White Heterosexual Taxpayer...... The new minority group.

Bzbbzbzzbzbzbzb

[mcgrath50]

White Heterosexual Taxpayer...... The new minority group.

Don't worry Buzzy, the deck is still stacked firmly in your favour. Don't confuse things become more equal with you being less than equal.

[Fly4Business]

I really enjoy selection criteria based on skills and capabilities, but I do feel bad if I have somebody right seat, who might be hired due to "gender split" consideration ...

[Howard Hughes]

The same reason why men generally don't become nurses or school teachers.Geez mate, where I work the nurses are pretty much a 50-50 split, all the blokes are 'midwives' too! :ok:

[Gligg]

May be some openings for social engineers.

[oicur12.again]

I always get a laugh out of watching poor white men, who own 95% of the jobs in a particular sector, getting their tool belts in a knot when a proposal comes along that may upset this massive imbalance.

“Overlooking half the population, males, who may actually be more qualified and motivated, but who aren't considered because they have a penis.”

Nowhere in the article or in JQ/QF policy does it state or imply that a male will be overlooked despite being more suitable for the job. NOWHERE!!!!

“What's next, 20% must be gay/lesbian/transvestite?”

Wow, a really poor excuse for a thin edge of the wedge argument. Yes mate, and next they are going to try and recruit bunnies to fly their planes. What next!!!!

“Seems being an idiot doesn't stop you becoming CEO of Jetstar.”

Nope, or a pilot either.

“Mandating 50% female recruitment….”

No, again, incorrect. This has not been proposed and would be illegal anyway.

“It's what happens when the CP is a chick along with the CEO.”

No, its called progress, something Australia has great difficulty with.

[A320 Flyer]

I left this organisation last year because of the direction that the current management was heading....

The new CEO didn't seem to have any idea what was happening on the ground floor and was too preoccupied with 'women in aviation' lunches and speaking appointments....

Initially when the new CP started there was a rise in morale because the boys club had finally been disrupted...... The EBA back pay and QF bonus keep everyone happy at the same time....

Shortly after Aunty Jacks appointment, everyone realised the boys club we 'knew' had been replaced by a far more worrying "Carla and the women" coup......

Some very worrying vacancies in highly important flight ops roles followed and the place really started to fall apart.... (By by TS)

Please don't misunderstand me...... The women I have flown with in both the general aviation and airline environment have been some of the best pilots I've had the pleasure of working with... They are just fewer and far between.....

These mandated minimums are unachievable and could conceivably hold to best person for the job from getting the position they deserve.... (And should be in) Purely because they don't meet Carla's gender equality requirement.

I am all for equality in aviation however Jetstar are bordering on (backward) sexism.....

This is the very wrong that they are so vehemently trying to fight.

Anyway.... Another few miles of sand (or maybe jungle) to cover tonight....

Fly safe.....

(No longer) A320Flyer

[oicur12.again]

“The new CEO didn't seem to have any idea what was happening on the ground floor”

As apposed to . . . . any other CEO in Australian aviation. Taken a look at what the Virgin folk are saying about the ineffective CEO they have been lumbered with? Trust me, the CEO at AN had no idea what was happening and he was a . . . . bloke!!!

Maybe it’s a CEO problem as apposed to a gender problem?

“…..and was too preoccupied with 'women in aviation' lunches and speaking appointments”

Does it matter what preoccupies the CEO and diverts attention from the task at hand. Would it be more acceptable if she spent the time at the footy instead of attending a women in aviation lunch?

“everyone realised the boys club we 'knew' had been replaced by a far more worrying "Carla and the women" coup......”

So it appears we have a problem with clubs or cliques and your simplistic comment alone indicates that these exist regardless of the chief pilots gender.

“These mandated minimums are unachievable and could conceivably hold to best person for the job from getting the position they deserve.... (And should be in) Purely because they don't meet Carla's gender equality requirement.”

Again, nowhere has it been suggested that “the best person for the job” will be bypassed in order to achieve a quota.

[morno]

Nowhere in the article or in JQ/QF policy does it state or imply that a male will be overlooked despite being more suitable for the job. NOWHERE!!!!

Hmmmm, not exactly how it reads in the article by my interpretation.

For the past year, it has had a policy in place to aim for an even split between male and female candidates for interviews and shortlisted for jobs

I thought we're all supposed to be equal these days? If that were the case we wouldn't have to be talking about these stupid things. But it appears I have my chances severely reduced if I was against a female candidate even if my standard was higher.

[WannaBeBiggles]

Regardless of what form of inequality one talks about, as soon as those who try to "help" differentiate one from the other they're creating more inequality.

Creating those sort of rules is nothing more than a wanky managerial metric where managers can pat each other on their backs and tell themselves what a great job they've done, it does nothing to actually help the cause.

How about they concentrate getting more females into the industry at grassroots level? Bolster those numbers and the number that'll be standing in front of your interview panel in 5-10 years will grow organically. But of course, how many CEO's and CP's will still be in their respective position to receive all the kudos if they did that?

[Stationair8]

Please explain, Jetstar need to recruit 100 pilots in 2016.

To keep the dream alive, that means fifty of those pilots will have to be female.
What happens if only twenty females apply who meet the requirements, do they all get a job?

Does that mean they can only recruit twenty male pilots to keep 50/50 ratio?

What happens if Jetstar pickup additional flying and need to recruit two hundred pilots, but only get fifty female applicants with lady bits? Do they cut back the expansion plans?

From another angle for the class of 2016 they recruit 100 pilots, with fifty of those being female. How will the gender ratio balance out, when say fifty percent of the females, head of on maternity leave within a couple of years of being employed?

WTF do company CEO's spend so much time on the lunch time speaking gig-aren't they employed to run a business and make money, not tell us how good they are?

[Beer Baron]

Use some reading comprehension skills fellas...
For the past year, it has had a policy in place to aim for an even split between male and female candidates for interviews and shortlisted for jobs. If that cannot be achieved in the event nobody from a specific gender applied or met critical technical and safety qualifications, an explanation must be provided.
So it is not a 50/50 recruitment split, just interviewed and shortlisted. They can still pick the best candidate for the job regardless of gender.

Clearly they don't recruit every female who applies if they haven't reached 50% they just send an email upstairs saying "we only got 5 female applicants for 20 jobs so we won't hit the target this time". Simple really.

Fixing gender imbalance can't be achieved by any one action alone. You are quite right to say there needs to be action at grassroot/highschool level. But there also needs to be action at the highest levels of the industry too. The media around this story is exactly the sort of thing that spurs grassroot interest.

[josephfeatherweight]

Its all about "gender equality". Which appears to be a fluid term.

The RAAF has instituted the "Graduate Pilot Scheme". On the face of it a great deal.

Do the 3 year Aviation degree at Griffith University.

After completing one year of degree you can apply for GPS.

*HECS paid.
*Complete the RAAF pilots course as YR3 of the degree
*ROSO of 3 years.

Mentors provided on course.

One extra requirement-Those without Lady-bits need not apply.

Great deal if you are a woman but graduating beside a bunch of males who jumped the same hoops without any of the above assistance and now face a ROSO of 10 years may take some courage.

The above is true. And it's a disgrace. Particularly perturbed, when this was introduced, were the awesome female pilots who had jumped the same hurdles as their male colleagues, met the grade and accepted the same conditions (ROSO). Our concerns regarding this discrimination (it is, undeniably, discrimination) were raised up the chain and CAF's response was that positive discrimination is legal. What a world we live in.
Two of the BEST instructors I had in my career in the RAAF were female and I KNOW both of them are appalled at this ridiculous concept.
As an aside, I've got kids - the boys like trucks and diggers and cars and the girl likes dolls and prams - they haven't been pushed in that direction and if the boys wanted to play with the dolls and the girl wanted to play with the diggers, that's great. Thankfully, none of them seem much interested in aeroplanes!!
But, you can't artificially make half the population join a career stream that they simply may not be interested in.

[Mail-man]

Would it not be simpler to remove gender specific information and names at the application stage?

[oicur12.again]

“Hmmmm, not exactly how it reads in the article by my interpretation.”

A policy aim of interviewing candidates and short listing for jobs does in no way imply that “a male will be overlooked despite being more suitable for the job”.

You may read it that way but it is not the intent and would be considered illegal.

“To keep the dream alive, that means fifty of those pilots will have to be female.”

No, that is NOT how it will work. As beer baron has explained, airlines are still free to pick the best candidate for the job.

Guys, don’t panic, you still hold 95% of the positions in a world where half the people are women.

[mikewil]

Guys, don’t panic, you still hold 95% of the positions in a world where half the people are women.

That is because 95% of the people who desire to learn to fly happen to be male. Why give special treatment to the remaining 5% who happen to be female just because they are perceived to be a minority.

[600ft-lb]

It's already been done. Watch if you want to englighten yourself as to why certain genders gravitate towards certain roles, even in a gender equal utopia such as norway where they have tried very hard to get a 50/50 split.
p5LRdW8xw70

[das Uber Soldat]

“Hmmmm, not exactly how it reads in the article by my interpretation.”

A policy aim of interviewing candidates and short listing for jobs does in no way imply that “a male will be overlooked despite being more suitable for the job”.

You may read it that way but it is not the intent and would be considered illegal.

“To keep the dream alive, that means fifty of those pilots will have to be female.”

No, that is NOT how it will work. As beer baron has explained, airlines are still free to pick the best candidate for the job.

Guys, don’t panic, you still hold 95% of the positions in a world where half the people are women.
oicur12.again is offline Report Post
Sorry mate but I don't follow;

The interview stage of the recruitment process isn't stage 1. Candidates have already often gone through multiple levels of selection to get there. Initially the CV is assessed for experience and qualifications, then there may be psychometric testing and personality testing.

If you stipulate that 50% of interviewees must be female, then you absolutely are affecting the selection process, discarding people who may be more qualified.

But don't take my word for it, lets ask Uncle Math!

Assume 30% of applicants are female and we want to interview 50 people.

We get 100 applications. 70 men, 30 women. Lets assume (rightly of course), than women are just as capable as men. So experience, testing results are consistent across the groups.

Of the 100 applications, we select 50 for an interview. If taken in the correct ratio, representing the top results from both groups, that would give you 35 men, and 15 women.

But wait a minute, that doesn't meet our targeted ratio! What do we do? The only thing we can do. Discard the bottom 10 men who scored above standard, and include 10 women who scored below it. Now we have 25 male and 25 female candidates. Success right?!

Do you understand now how this policy reduces the overall quality of applicants and discriminates by gender? And 30% is a very generous figure for female applicants. The real number is more like 10%.

But you know, math is hard.

Speaking of, clue me in on how men hold 95% of the jobs in the world? Do you have a source for this statistic?

[Sprite]

That is because 95% of the people who desire to learn to fly happen to be male. Why give special treatment to the remaining 5% who happen to be female just because they are perceived to be a minority.

And 95% of the people who desire to fly are male, because 95% of people who fly are male, therefore children see it as a men's only job Little girls are discouraged by adults and their peers for their entire lives from wanting to be a pilot. It is not genetic programming that dictates which gender becomes a pilot - it is entirely environmental. The job is just as suited to men as to women.

The problem is the societal pressure (and it is significant, noticeable if you are a woman, perhaps not so much if you are a man).

Women need to be encouraged to fly as much as men are...but when they are girls - much as boys are subtly encouraged and grooomed throughout their childhood (as opposed to women, who are subtly groomed by relatives and teachers to be good wives). Yes it needs to be done at a much earlier stage than interviews...positive discrimination only invites claims that women, despite the evidence, are only in the position because of their gender.

You may not want to acknowledge it, but the women who have made it into aviation currently have faced a much harder battle against societal norms than boys ever did - and they deserve to be congratulated for persisting in chasing their dream. Women in aviation should be encouraged - anyone who thinks that it is a job more suited to men is mildly delusional and does not properly ackowledge that women are just as capable and competent as men. Liking tractors or dolls has entirely no relevance.

[mikewil]

Women in aviation should be encouraged - anyone who thinks that it is a job more suited to men is mildly delusional and does not properly ackowledge that women are just as capable and competent as men.

Agreed, but they shouldn't be given a free ride when it comes to interviews and even scholarships for flying training.

They can be encouraged by marketing at the flying school stage but to actually have a quota to meet when it comes to selecting candidates is outright discrimination.

[Sprite]

Perhaps it simply balances the negative discrimination that they experience their whole lives, being channeled away from aviation because it is a "boys job"? Just playing the devils' advocate. I do not, in any way, think that people should get a pilot job simply because of gender.

[RENURPP]

Unfortunately quotas are not new.
Pre- 2000 I was instructed by senior management to find females (jet jobs), as the company didn't have any applications from females on file.
I phoned around and found a few. They were not required to attend an interview, they were invited to have a quick phone conversation outlining the companies training program. They had jobs because of their genda, nothing else.

I haven't personally met all the ladies involved however anecdotally some of them were consider to be quite good.

Were they better pilots than the male candidates out there? Who knows.

The system sucks and I'm glad to be getting closer to leaving the industry. Unfortunately it's not only the way we employ females, it goes further to training, checking and all levels of management. The best people rarely are offered positions as they threaten the incumbents. The modern HR created the mess and they are incapable of understanding the problems.

I recall as a chief pilot in GA a young female pilot coming in for an interview at her request. ( we had no jobs available) she didn't wear a bra and had her shirt only buttoned up to about 3 buttons from the top. She consistently leant over my desk ensuring I could see all that was on offer and I'm pretty sure it was. There was still no job available at the end of the interview. She's probably an A380 captain today?

I have two daughters and I hope to god they have no interest in this industry!

[Jetdream]

I have encountered some excellent female pilots and am all for working with them up the front if they have achieved the position the same way their males peers have had to.
Unfortunately, I have also seen many handed jobs purely because the chief pilot thought he had a chance, and who knows what went on behind closed doors. Genuinely, the ones handed jobs were more trouble than they were worth, and some just outright dangerous.
One special case was asked to leave more GA jobs than you can poke a stick at, and now she is flying a jet apparently.

[oicur12.again]

Das Uber,

Do you understand that:

“If that cannot be achieved in the event nobody from a specific gender applied OR MET CRITICAL TECHNICAL OR SAFETY QUALIFICATIONS, an explanation must be provided.”

“Speaking of, clue me in on how men hold 95% of the jobs in the world”

Badly written by myself. 95% of airline jobs in a world where half the people are women. Here in the US its actually 5.4%, probably higher than in Australia.

“Why give special treatment to the remaining 5% who happen to be female just because they are perceived to be a minority.”

Prior to the D.W case against AN, it was a given that airlines in Australia did not employ women. Would you consider that this was “special treatment” for men?

“Unfortunately, I have also seen many handed jobs purely because the chief pilot thought he had a chance…..”

Yes, and I have seen MANY men handed jobs in aviation for reasons unrelated to skills or qualifications too. Aviation is FULL OF jobs for mates, handed out for dubious reasons.

[framer]

I can see good points being made by both sides of the argument here.
I like the idea that names and genders are removed from the stack of cv's prior to selecting pilots for interviews. It not only removes gender bias but many others as well, ie ethnicity.
I was on a panel that trailed through cv's for pilots to interview a while back. We definitely gave two girls a shot that had well below the standard for total time and one had no command time at all apart from that required for a licence. At that time no bloke without some good command time would have got an interview that is for sure. I have no idea how they worked out as I left the outfit shortly after.

[das Uber Soldat]

Das Uber,

Do you understand that:

“If that cannot be achieved in the event nobody from a specific gender applied OR MET CRITICAL TECHNICAL OR SAFETY QUALIFICATIONS, an explanation must be provided.”
I do. Explain to me how in the example I provided, this criteria isn't satisfied?

Selecting those for interview is about competition with their peers. Its quite possible that all 100 applicants passed minimum technical and safety qualifications. We just selected the top 50 most competitive. Yet to satisfy this stupid requirement, we discarded more competitive men for less competitive women.

If you're suggesting that an airline would never do that, and that they will only ever select the 50 most competitive people regardless of gender, then why have this pointless program or objective in the first place? The only way it could ever be achieved is if they had an equal number of applicants! Considering by your own information, only 5% of applicants are female, its an impossible goal and one bound for failure.

Considering also statements such as; "Incentives and quotas have helped reverse this situation", where its openly acknowledged that quotas are good, it seems clear to me that the intent is to take action to artificially increase the number of women to be interviewed and short listed.

You appear to be attempting to whitewash this program by putting forward a scenario where HR picks the 50 most competitive people and when inevitably 50% aren't women, are happy to just write an email to management "missed out again! maybe next time!" with that being the end of it. To suggest thats the real goal of the program I believe is to be intentionally disingenuous.

Badly written by myself. 95% of airline jobs in a world where half the people are women. Here in the US its actually 5.4%, probably higher than in Australia.
Ok, but so what? 97.7% of primary and kindergarten teachers are women. 92% of registered nurses. The list goes on.

That a field is heavily dominated by one sex isn't reason to start up a program of discrimination. Action should be taken to ensure that every field is AVAILABLE to anyone who wants to pursue it. But this is an issue of culture and doesn't have a lot to do with the actions of an airline. Seeking to correct discrimination with, drumroll, more discrimination is absurd.

If I were a minority (sex, ethnic or other), I would want to see an airline engaging in a meritocracy. That would give me the motivation and belief to make myself as good as I can be, and win the job on merit. What I wouldn't want to see was an airline engaging in discrimination that this week at least, was in my favor.

[mcgrath50]

Ok, but so what? 97.7% of primary and kindergarten teachers are women. 92% of registered nurses. The list goes on.

Got a source for that one Das? Cause this makes it seem unlikely, although granted it's not quite the same descriptions as yours.

Click here for actual source that isn't made up BS gut feeling (https://www.wgea.gov.au/sites/default/files/2013-07-25%20-%20Women%20in%20the%20workforce%20by%20industry_FINAL_0.pdf)

[das Uber Soldat]

I was using older data from the US, as thats where the poster appears to be from.

I actually cant find the original source I used, which is the same data a few years before. This data from 2012 however mirrors it;

Women's Bureau (WB) Occupations - 20 Leading Occupations for Employed Women, 2012 (text version) (http://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/20LeadOcc_2012_txt.htm)

Hopefully the US department of Labor qualifies as an 'actual source' and not 'BS gut feeling'. Though I did appreciate your flippant comment.

:rolleyes:

Now beyond bickering about a couple of % points, do you actually have a point?

[Falling Leaf]

The best people rarely are offered positions as they threaten the incumbents.

Regardless of the gender argument raging here this is a bigger problem in this industry. Average people elevated beyond their level of competence who spend more time being 'politicians' then managing their areas of responsibility, as they need to knife all threats in the back as soon as possible. :ugh:

[RENURPP]

I hope my comments aren't read as a "gender argument" and I'm sure 99% of the others feel like me. I am not against females becoming pilots, I'm against unfair practices that give them (or any group, males included) an advantage when they may not be the best person for the job.
If they are equally qualified, (experienced) equally talented no problems. A quota system is not a fair system.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

The pool of applicants for apprenticeships in Aviation would usually be 99% male and 1% female. I know females who had knocked back an apprenticeship offer then begged by the HR people to reconsider....


Gender should have no bearing on recruitment decisions.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

If airlines want so called genda equality, why not make the job attractive to women rather than give them a free ride.

Truth be known though, this idea has come from some insecure female HR manager with a point to prove, and guess what kind of pilots she is going to employ.

[Slippery_Pete]

This is blatant discrimination.
Female pilots are just like male pilots - there's good and there's bad, just like any industry. Accepting applications, or preferencing for interviews based on anything other than ability and qualifications is illegal - and a text book definition of discrimination.

Perhaps many years ago, the management who instigated this scheme were once subject to discrimination for being female - and have an axe to grind. You'd have thought they wouldn't be so ignorant as to be unable to realise they're now doing the exact same thing to male applicants.

I've flown with some crap female pilots and many really good ones. Just like males.

The last few posters make a good point, too. Jetstar already has one pathetic little cretin who used her furry logbook to get to where she is today.

I say they hire the best people for the job based on qualifications and ability and experience - and be done with their little crusade.

[Keg]

Oicur has a point that the intuitive that JQ is talking about here is simply reporting back why there wasn't equal representation. IE only 20% of applicants were female so that's why only 20% of those being interviewed are female.

i wonder though whether this is still a subtle pressure on the recruiting system. You know the boss is after more female recruits so a politically motivated recruiting system can make a name for itself by saying there were 20% female applicants but they make up 30% of interview candidates and 40% of recruits.

[titan uranus]

Sadly it does nothing for gender equality at all.

The plenty of really competent women I know who have made it without the fanfare & chest beating, cringe at this kind of corporate nonsense.

Promote interest for both gender's in the industry at the grass roots level and let competence do the rest. If someone actively discriminates (I know of no-one who has/would), then that's a different scenario.
This silliness just invokes distrust and harms the very women they think they're supporting.

Remember, this as always, has absolutely nothing to do with notions of "the greater good". It's part of the narcissistic nature of a couple of individuals perpetually trying to raise their own "brand" profile....

[gordonfvckingramsay]

Titan, you said it perfectly.

[das Uber Soldat]

Oicur has a point that the intuitive that JQ is talking about here is simply reporting back why there wasn't equal representation. IE only 20% of applicants were female so that's why only 20% of those being interviewed are female.
That's not how I read it. Look at the statements;

"Captain Georgina Sutton, has been working hard to recruit more women in traditionally male-dominated fields."

"it has had a policy in place to aim for an even split between male and female candidates for interviews and shortlisted for jobs."

"Incentives and quotas have helped reverse this situation,"

Those are statements of action. Support of quotas etc.

There are only 2 possibilities. People are 'working hard' to simply write reports on the gender balance of applicants, which seems a rather strange turn of phrase not to mention entirely pointless activity when they have no control over the gender balance of applicants;

Or they are 'working hard' to artificially increase the number of women represented at interview and shortlist level. ie, exactly what they said they are doing.

I don't believe for a second this is a passive program.

I agree with rennurpp.
I am not against females becoming pilots, I'm against unfair practices that give them (or any group, males included) an advantage when they may not be the best person for the job.
If they are equally qualified, (experienced) equally talented no problems. A quota system is not a fair system.

[capt.cynical]

So,
if you are a handicapped, aboriginal, lesbian, any job at jokestar is yours.

[oicur12.again]

“incentives and quotas have helped reverse this situation”.

It’s interesting how we all take away a different message from the same quote.

Yes they have helped, however I suspect the intent behind the comment was one of historical reflection as apposed to policy objective, don’t you?

As I said before, quotas ARE NOT LEGAL in the private sector in Australia and QF/JQ know that to apply one would be instant trouble.

This is an industry dragged down by conservative grumpy old white men with little ability to adapt to change and I for one would love to see the power balance change. Hell, if Jetstar want to apply a quota to get more . . . . .. martians into the job then lets give it a try.

“If I were a minority (sex/ethnic or other)”

Which sex in Australia is considered a minority? Its not uncommon during this debate to hear women (accidently) referred to as a minority. With such a mindset, it’s no wonder that in 2016 we still have only 5% in the cockpit.

“A quota system is not a fair system”

And the vast majority of women want the job based upon their individual merit, not as a result of legislation.

Which is why there are not nor will be any pilots allocated jobs via quota.

[Keg]

In the context of the numbers of CPLs held by men and women, women are in the minority. There is nothing derogatory about that, it's simply a statement of fact within the context that we're discussing.

Similarly, men are a minority of primary/ infants teachers. They'd be in the overwhelming minority of early childhood teachers. Again, statements of fact.

[morno]

and QF/JQ know that to apply one would be instant trouble

What makes you think JQ haven't broken the law before?

[blow.n.gasket]

Yes Minister

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhZRDoGZg00&sns=em

[das Uber Soldat]

“incentives and quotas have helped reverse this situation”.

It’s interesting how we all take away a different message from the same quote.

Yes they have helped, however I suspect the intent behind the comment was one of historical reflection as apposed to policy objective, don’t you?
No, I don't. Considering they've literally said its their stated policy objective.

As I said before, quotas ARE NOT LEGAL in the private sector in Australia and QF/JQ know that to apply one would be instant trouble.
Refer morno

This is an industry dragged down by conservative grumpy old white men with little ability to adapt to change and I for one would love to see the power balance change. Hell, if Jetstar want to apply a quota to get more . . . . .. martians into the job then lets give it a try.
So are you advocating quotas or not? If so, explain to me how you go about implementing them without also implementing a program of discrimination.

“If I were a minority (sex/ethnic or other)”

Which sex in Australia is considered a minority? Its not uncommon during this debate to hear women (accidently) referred to as a minority. With such a
mindset, it’s no wonder that in 2016 we still have only 5% in the cockpit.
Oh grow up would you. As Keg corrected you, Women are a minority (by your own admission no less) in the context of applications for airline positions. Just as men are a minority in Nursing. Its a fact, not a condemnation of the capabilities of women.

“A quota system is not a fair system”
And the vast majority of women want the job based upon their individual merit, not as a result of legislation.
Good.

Which is why there are not nor will be any pilots allocated jobs via quota.
Another wild assertion from someone clearly fond of them (I did enjoy you single-handedly resolving the nature vs nurture debate that's raged for 200 years earlier in the thread)

Jet* say they're 'working hard' on this program. Explain to me what they're doing? Considering I've mathematically demonstrated its impossible to get a 50/50 split on merit when there is a variance in applications (a vast variance in fact). What is it exactly that they're doing to achieve this stated goal? How are the getting more women to the interview and shortlist stage?

[Pinky the pilot]

"Captain Georgina Sutton, has been working hard to recruit more women in traditionally male-dominated fields."


I knew Georgina when she was still a serving SAPOL member. Even then she was determined to make it on her own merits, without any favouritism, quotas etc. Indeed if you had mentioned such a thing as quotas I suspect she would have bitten your head off!:eek::=

Which is why I just don't believe the above quoted statement as coming from her!:ugh:

[Ned Gerblansky]

G'day

At one interview I was asked how I would function with a person who was not of my race/gender/ethnicity/religion/preference in pets etc. etc... and I replied that, fortunately, I was blind. This led to the immediate questioning of my riposte, because obviously I had an ATPL. (The question had been put to me by the HR (Human Reject) representative.

My answer was, and still is, that what you do on a flight deck, your knowledge,your manipulative skills, your ability to function as a member of ALL the crew is exclusive of your melatonin or what you have between your legs, nor which book of lies you read.

Once while I was in-between jobs I was interviewed by Brisbane Transport for an "RPT" position, successfully. A few days into the training we had the seemingly compulsory HR lecture, which every airline person has endured. Questions such as; "What is wrong with having a poster that gives 10 reasons why beer is better than a woman?". Well it's discriminating against us wine drinkers for starters.

I was pleasantly surprised when she didn't ask such rubbish, instead she started quoting stats like:
Males and females are roughly 50-50 in the population. Indigenous Australians are 5%, yet in our organisation the ratios are 82% male, 18% female, and 2% of them are indigenous. So how do we fix that?"

Coming from many airlines I instantly suggested that we drop the standard, and she was horrified. "NO! We advertise in different avenues, we make the jobs attractive to the non-usual applicants, yet we still maintain our standards. We get more applicants without discrimination due to higher exposure." I muttered something about Sunstate and the 1990s, but zipped my lips.

The job was driving buses, and Bob Hawke called us all "glorified bus drivers" at one stage. Oh he was so wrong! Every Brisbane bus depot has a hot kitchen that is subsidized, and open from the first sign-on. They also have a fully equipped gym, with a personal trainer who comes in once a week, and when you make an appointment they will evaluate you, and give you a regimen. There are also "quiet rooms" where you can sleep if you are on a split shift, and entertainment rooms where you can just catch a movie. Showers and ablutions are there: it goes without saying.

Unlimited sick leave, yes, unlimited. However if your sick leave falls into a pattern such as every Friday and Saturday night, you will be counselled twice, before being fired. Sure the money is crap, but for a short time it was nice to see how a management ethic that valued staff with actions and not words could be implemented.

Cut to the chase, that HR lady in BT knows more than any KPI driven exec in any Australian aviation company, and bus drivers won't put up with the crap airline pilots get. In your nose Bob Hawke!

Have a good one & all

Ned

[oicur12.again]

“No, I don't. Considering they've literally said its their stated policy objective.”

Please point me in the direction where JQ state that quotas are their policy objective. Your evidence thus far does not carry water.

"Incentives and quotas have helped reverse this situation,"

“Those are statements of action. Support of quotas etc.”

Commenting on past practices in other locations does not imply support for such practices in this industry for now or the future. Why on earth would JQ publicly ANNUNCIATE a policy that is ILLEGAL?

More importantly, JQ is motivated by dollars; in this case, making sure that there is a plentiful supply of pilot applicants in the future. A quota DOES NOT solve this problem for JQ at all.

Simply forcing a woman into a job in preference to a man does not solve future crewing needs for an airline.

People are not learning to fly in anything even close to the numbers they once did and JQ is simply providing a framework to figure out why it is that only 5% of pilot applicants are female.

Also, by fostering an industry that does not attract applicants from almost HALF of society’s members is also effectively providing a preferential treatment to MEN. It makes it much easier to get an airline job when HALF of your potential competitors don’t even apply.

“So are you advocating quotas or not?”

Do you approach everything in life with such a black and white view? No, in the case of airline pilots, no I don’t. I have not even suggested that I do.

As I have said before, quotas are not legal in the private sector and in an airlines case not even beneficial.

[Keg]

I'd love to see the stat of the percentage of female CPL holders that are employed in aviation compared to the percentage of male CPL holders employed in aviation. I reckon a much higher percentage of females that gain their CPL find employment than would males.

Also, by fostering an industry that does not attract applicants from almost HALF of society’s members is also effectively providing a preferential treatment to MEN. It makes it much easier to get an airline job when HALF of your potential competitors don’t even apply.


I call BS on this. 'Fostering an industry'? The 'industry' doesn't discriminate, people do and I've not come across a single person who has discriminated against a woman in my 25 years in the industry.

I recently facilitated a mentoring day with UNSW 3rd year aviation degree students. 5 out of the 23 were female. It's the 21st century. What these days is 'actively discouraging' females from becoming pilots? You're the one that made the allegation that it's the industry that prevents women from starting training as aviators. I'd be interested as to what you think this may actually be.

I worked with a lot of kids in the Air Force cadets. In our senior ranks we often found that we had a much higher representation of female cadets compared to the ratio when they joined. Interestingly though, whilst these young women were very capable, few of them were interested in careers as aviators. They were given the same exposure to aviation activities as their male colleagues, they were encouraged the same as their male colleagues. Given how they performed on promotional courses you could extrapolate that and suggest that they'd be more successful in gaining flying scholarships. Despite encouraging them to apply, they simply weren't interested at the same rate as their male colleagues.

So maybe it actually is the industry, not due to the industry not fostering the interest, maybe some women just aren't interested in aviation as an industry.

[das Uber Soldat]

Please point me in the direction where JQ state that quotas are their policy objective. Your evidence thus far does not carry water.
Quota : "1. the share or proportional part of a total that is required from, or is due or belongs to, a particular district, state, person, group, etc."
​Jetstar : "For the past year, it has had a policy in place to aim for an even split between male and female candidates for interviews and shortlisted for jobs"

First math lessons, now English. I should start charging.

More importantly, JQ is motivated by dollars; in this case, making sure that there is a plentiful supply of pilot applicants in the future. A quota DOES NOT solve this problem for JQ at all.
50% correct.

JQ is simply providing a framework to figure out why it is that only 5% of pilot applicants are female.
More whitewashing. JQ hasn't started a careers research centre. They are actively 'working hard' to alter the gender split for interviews and shortlist positions. Its not something for the future, its been happening for a year.

Changes to culture to give women the confidence to pursue a non traditional field takes years, decades. You cherry picked past this point last time, but lets try again.

What is J* actively 'working hard' on, to alter the gender split for interviews and shortlist jobs right now?

Keg has already called you on the 'fostering the industry' tripe.

Lastly;

[Do you support Quotas?] - No, in the case of airline pilots, no I don’t. I have not even suggested that I do.
Hell, if Jetstar want to apply a quota to get more . . . . .. martians into the job then lets give it a try.

I'm seriously starting to think you're someone I know trolling me for laughs.

[Ngineer]

Overlooking one's abilities because he/she is not of the required gender is blatant discrimination, regardless of what quota's are in place.


I am not at all surprised by this crap. Just another experimentation in mismanagement. How it is allowed to continue in this day and age is mind numbing. Especially as apprentice careers are being destroyed at the red rat.

[oicur12.again]

“For the past year, it has had a policy in place to aim for an even split between male and female candidates for interviews and shortlisted for jobs”

This DOES NOT constitutes a quota. A quota allocates actual jobs, interviews and short lists DO NOT. They are wishes, preferences if you will. Targets. But nothing more. Most companies have them and many fail to achieve them.

“Its not something for the future, its been happening for a year.”

Great, that’s fantastic; JQ started a program a year ago with a long-term view to help encourage women to join the industry?

“Changes to culture to give women the confidence to pursue a non traditional field takes years, decades.”

Yes, even generations. Which is why JQ have put in a framework to start this ball rolling. I have never suggested that JQ have enacted policy that will yield changes to the cockpit make up immediately.

“Hell, if Jetstar want to apply a quota to get more . . . . .. martians into the job then lets give it a try.”

Please tell me you are not interpreting this clearly tongue in cheek comment as confirmation of my enthusiasm for quotas in this situation? You just don’t get nuance or humor do you?

“I'm seriously starting to think you're someone I know trolling me for laughs”

You know what they say about someone who resorts to name-calling. Thank you sincerely for this comment. It’s the escape clause I have been looking for.

[das Uber Soldat]

I do. Do you know what they say about people who can't read? Did I call you a name? Where is it?

And for the umpteenth time, you've again evaded answering my question.

Imagine my surprise. The rest of your post is as easily debunked as the others, but I won't bother.

Goodbye.

[Acrosport II]

Jetstar Aiming for 50% Gender Spilt in Interview Candidates


That is most definitely 'Sexism'.


Its not new though.
Has been happening for years. Maybe not a 50% split regardless of what split the Applicant are though.

[neville_nobody]

So maybe it actually is the industry, not due to the industry not fostering the interest, maybe some women just aren't interested in aviation as an industry.

Personally I think this is really the root cause of the problem which noone in an airline will be able to fix, or will want to spend the money on. Hence they just come up with half-arsed ideas that just make everyone's life more difficult.

I would like to see some of the Air Force Stats as that provides a much friendlier environment for a career and lifestyle than GA to airlines would.

What ratio does the Air Force have applying and what ratio is then recruited?

For all those trying to suggest that is a good idea, how would you feel as a bloke missing a recruiting window and be stuck in a low paying job just because a woman who had inferior experience to you (but still make the minimums) got an interview and you didn't? Airline recruiting comes in waves and it is easy to just miss out for whatever reason then be on the backburner for a long time without even getting a shot.

[Pinky the pilot]

Which is why I just don't believe the above quoted statement as coming from her!

Further to my earlier post, part of which I quote above;

Given further information now; Maybe I was wrong.:ooh:

Wouldn't be the first time.:(

[josephfeatherweight]

instead set about being a very good pilot and one with good interpersonal skills to boot
But if you support what is being suggested here, and you're male, that won't matter. Even if you ARE the better candidate. I'm not in disagreement that a male dominated industry (which I agree, aviation is) is a difficult one to crack for the female applicant - but it'll do them no favours to positively discriminate by way of easier terms and conditions (I refer to the RAAF scheme).

[mikewil]

Far easier for females to get jobs in this industry. Take Wrightsair in the outback of SA for example, I recall seeing an article in the paper a few years back about how there were 6 females working for this small operation. Can't blame Trevor Wright using this as a talking/selling point but I wonder how many hundreds of fresh male CPLs had their resumes put in the bin only to have these girls shortlisted for the simple fact they have lady parts.

[Compylot]

The pay gap in most industries is real by the way, for no reason at all.



Hi, could you give an example of 'an industry' in Australia or please refer me to Australian Enterprise Agreement that stipulates a woman getting paid less than a man in the same position?


Cheers :ok:

[ozziejim]

Smash Bugger , whatever gets you laid bro

[Compylot]

Hi Smash Bugger.

I didn't actually ask for you to provide me with a link to the 'Gender Pay gap fact sheet', otherwise I would of said 'could you please provide me a link to the Gender Pay Gap Fact sheet'.

No, what I did ask is for is a link to an Australian Enterprise agreement that details a male employee being given a different rate of pay than a female for the same job description.

Seeing as you are so good at using this Google thing I suggest you also type in the term 'Why the gender pay gap is a myth', there are some excellent counter arguments I'm sure a reasonably intelligent person as yourself can comprehend, cheers :ok:

[Keg]

I accept your point yet what other methods can be used to redress the balance?


So you're suggesting that to address the fact that only 1 in 5 (or thereabouts) CPL holders (and therefore those able to be employed as pilots) are female we should be employing 40% or more females? That's a fair solution?

In what way are women discriminated against from gaining entry into our industry? Zero
In what way is it implied that our industry isn't suitable for women? Zero.
Are there programs that specifically target women to encourage them into the industry? Yes.

Yet despite all this you support hiring not on merit but on identity. Insanity.

[Sprite]

Smash bugger and oicur12, well done for standing up to the bullies, with well researched, logical and well thought out opinions.

As you may have noticed, those who are protesting most are those who seem to be black and white thinkers, or deliberately misunderstand what is stated. They also engage in some of the classic 'errors of reason' i.e. the black and white thinking, straw man argument or begging the question. To those who use these arguments, and there are a few on this thread, have a read of this The Most Common Logical Fallacies (http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/eng207-td/Logic%20and%20Analysis/most_common_logical_fallacies.htm) to realise why your arguments are not nearly as effective as you think they are.

Jetstar stating that they want more women at interviews does not necessarily mean they will choose women applicants over men, it may mean that they will make an effort to go into schools or advertise the career options in areas have not done so in the past, in a manner in which appeals to women rather than men.

In my years of professional aviation I have noticed that those who bitch the most at women being in their domain are those who bitch about everything being unfair on them (whilst not recognising that their failings are theirs alone, not the responsibility of others).

It is valid to say that a woman should not get a job just because of her gender, but it is equally valid that girls have been discouraged from higher paying aviation jobs by society for many years and something needs to be done to even up the balance. It is a worry that children still seem surprised when they meet a female pilot - this means the conditioning starts early.

[compressor stall]

Weasel Words.

Howard mastered the government being "committed" to doing something. It doesn't mean it will be doing it, and there is no accountability if it doesn't. This approach has been adopted by all and sundry since. You can't be accused of breaking a promise made with a commitment.

Jetstar is no different. The company is aiming for something which on the surface sounds good. It doesn't have to reach the 50% goal, and if it doesn't, it still looks good for trying.

[Derfred]

Exec to recruiting manager:

"Please explain why only 20% of your short list is female."

Response:

"Oh, is it? I'm sorry, I wasn't paying any attention to gender. That would be illegal."

Remember the Nuremberg defence? Following orders is no excuse to break the law.

[The Green Goblin]

Funnily enough what if you changed this around to 50% of our recruits shall be men?

The feminists would be screaming :)

[das Uber Soldat]

As a male I have absolutely no problem with this 'policy'.

There is no doubt whatsoever that women are up against it in most walks of life in this 'developed' western society and if you have any doubt about that then you're either too young and idealistic or too myopic to be convinced of any other truth than that which you think is right.

Most of the protesting viewpoints posted here purporting to be voices of reason merely show what a closed mindset women are up against with the slightest opportunity given to redress any imbalance - and it is surely an unjustified imbalance - in our industry is guffawed down with brouhaha and calls of sexism.
So, you actually believe the solution to discrimination is, drumroll, more discrimination.

Amazing.

Women are a minority in aviation, no question. We should discard more qualified and experienced men for lesser female candidates to help this. A 50/50 split is what we should be aiming for! Why? Because its equitable right?

But what about left handed people? A bit over 10% of the population is left handed. What are we doing to ensure they are adequately represented?!

How many Hindu lesbian black guitar playing over 6 foot vegans are being represented in the airline industry?! Does anyone not think of them!?

This is the problem with this ridiculous attitude. The 'rules' needed to redress the absurd requirement for equity in employment are endless.

The alternative is simple. There is only 1 rule. The best person for the job.

[das Uber Soldat]

As you may have noticed, those who are protesting most are those who seem to be black and white thinkers, or deliberately misunderstand what is stated. They also engage in some of the classic 'errors of reason' i.e. the black and white thinking, straw man argument or begging the question. To those who use these arguments, and there are a few on this thread, have a read of this The Most Common Logical Fallacies to realise why your arguments are not nearly as effective as you think they are.
I'm dying for you to point out these 'logical fallacies' with actual examples.

Jetstar stating that they want more women at interviews does not necessarily mean they will choose women applicants over men, it may mean that they will make an effort to go into schools or advertise the career options in areas have not done so in the past, in a manner in which appeals to women rather than men.
Do you have any evidence for this?

In my years of professional aviation I have noticed that those who bitch the most at women being in their domain are those who bitch about everything being unfair on them (whilst not recognising that their failings are theirs alone, not the responsibility of others).
Cool story. Totally irrelevant to the thread but 10/10, would read again. I could care less how many women there are in aviation. My mother and my wife are both pilots. Its great. Both of them howeve believe in a meritocracy. Solving perceived discrimination with more discrimination is moronic and serves only to cast a shadow over those women who have achieved legitimately in the field with a suspicion that they simply got their job because of their gender. That is doing a true disservice to women.

It is valid to say that a woman should not get a job just because of her gender (Ya think!), but it is equally valid that girls have been discouraged from higher paying aviation jobs by society for many years and something needs to be done to even up the balance. It is a worry that children still seem surprised when they meet a female pilot - this means the conditioning starts early.
Just as children are surprised when they meet a male nurse. Damn evil society.

But this, this is the part I liked the most.

So how about you just take your Uncle Maths and your perceived victimisation and instead set about being a very good pilot and one with good interpersonal skills to boot which will make any quota or policy irrelevant anyway - you'll surely make it through any selection process on those grounds alone.

Brilliant. Get lost maths! With your stupid provable, logical facts. Sure, you may have demonstrated that in a quota situation, a much better applicant could be discarded for a much worse one, But Smash has shown this to be false because if you're just 'really good', the quota will suddenly cease to exist! HR will be so blown away by your amazingness that they'll discard their hiring practices and shoot you straight to the top! CEO! Why didn't we think of this before?!

So, relax everyone, Smash has got it figured out.

:ugh:

[Led Zep]

If groups stopped worrying "how many x are employed by industry y" and simply hired the best person for the job, the world would be a better place. Trying to engineer "equality" into an industry that holds no appeal (yet lacks any barriers for entry/progession/success) for a subset of the population is a waste of resources.

In my years of professional aviation I have noticed that those who bitch the most at women being in their domain are those who bitch about everything being unfair on them (whilst not recognising that their failings are theirs alone, not the responsibility of others). Incidentally, in my experience in multi-crew, I have found that those who seem to have an innate dislike for female pliots are...female cabin crew. :ooh:

[neville_nobody]

it may mean that they will make an effort to go into schools or advertise the career options in areas have not done so in the past, in a manner in which appeals to women rather than men.

I don't think that's going to be the issue it will be the ~10 years of low salaries, no certainty and a lot of financial risk that will be what turns them off.

If you want more women in aviation you have to increase the participation rate of women which as Keg pointed out earlier may never happen for a myriad of reasons.

[titan uranus]

Reading all this baloney, I think it's made my point. A divisive, poorly executed, poorly communicated nonsense policy that will be lost like tears in rain with the next trendy thought bubble.

[Keg]

Irony: accusing people of engaging in logical fallacies such as straw man arguments and then actually putting forward your own straw man.

Brilliant.

[The Green Goblin]

In South Africa, the discrimated against demographic were up arms about the lack of representation in South African airways.

They were hired in the same numbers as their 'white counterparts, (50/50), but where not getting through the exams or training.

They were up in arms in the media that they were being discrimated against, and the standard was too high and should be lowered.

This was despite the fact most of their 'other' colleagues generally passed.

The best person should be the best person for the job regardless of any other factor.

After all, you don't want a 'quota' warming the window seat on a dark stormy night when things go bad, and your family is onboard.... In fact, it doesn't even have to be dark and stormy as demonstrated by Air Asia, asiana and numerous others....

[neville_nobody]

From the Economist May 2014.

SOUTH AFRICAN AIRWAYS (SAA) has been taken to task by Solidarity, a trade union, over its discriminatory hiring practices for pilots. The union is angry with the state-owned carrier's decision not to admit Daniël Hoffman to its cadet pilot programme for the second year in a row. Mr Hoffman, whose theory and psychometric tests were described as exceptional by Solidarity, is a white male. That puts him at a handicap against other applicants because of the airline's self-professed bias towards hiring black, coloured (mixed race), Indian or white female pilots.

In 2012, Solidarity submitted two near-identical applications for SAA's cadet pilot programme. There was just one difference: one applicant was white, the other was black. The white candidate received a swift rejection letter; the black one was accepted onto the programme. SAA defended its policy at the time by noting that 85% of its serving pilots were white. A spokesperson for the airline told Beeld, an Afrikaans-language daily newspaper, that whites will only be hired once efforts to find applicants of other races are exhausted. The subsequent media furore forced SAA to ditch its policy, but Solidarity suspects it is still being implemented behind the scenes.

Most commercial pilots in Africa are not indigenous to the continent. This has nothing to do with whites being better at flying and everything to do with the better opportunities they have historically enjoyed. They usually come from richer backgrounds and have better access to education, which gives them a head-start. SAA is therefore trying to level the socio-economic playing field by shifting things back in favour of disadvantaged blacks.

Affirmative action is a central pillar of government policy in South Africa. The government has launched various Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) programmes in an attempt to reverse the injustices of history. Most white South Africans concede that some form of post-apartheid redress is inevitable. As long as it is pursued fairly, such re-balancing should benefit society. But a blanket ban on training white male pilots seems crass. Putting aside the prestige and compensation that pilots enjoy, their job is one of the most demanding and socially responsible functions in any economy. Millions of South Africans entrust their lives to commercial pilots each year. Elevating arbitrary criteria such as skin colour above objective, performance-based measures should be roundly condemned.

There are better solutions. Ethiopian Aviation Academy, a subsidiary of Ethiopian Airlines, another large African carrier, is training indigenous pilots in record numbers. The academy already processes 1,000 trainees per year, and it plans to quadruple this figure over the next decade. Applicants are drawn not just from Ethiopia, but from across East Africa and beyond. These graduates should, over time, turn the tide from majority-white to majority-black flight crews on the continent. SAA’s cadet programme, meanwhile, selected just 40 candidates last year (none of them white males).

Pilots may not be the only victims of SAA's policies. When the airline had to select a new boss last summer—its fifth in as many years—Nico Bezuidenhout, an experienced white airline executive, was among the front-runners. He lost out to Monwabisi Kalawe, a black executive with no prior experience in the industry. One year on, Mr Kalawe is reportedly being investigated over four allegations of impropriety; the airline insists he has done nothing untoward. Most South Africans simply want their flag carrier to be run by a competent, experienced manager. Likewise, most passengers simply want a competent, experienced pilot to land them safely on the ground. Skin colour should be a non-issue

[chuboy]

It's discrimination alright. Nobody is denying it. Only some types of discrimination are unlawful. Discrimination in favour of employing women in some industries doesn't come under that category - a sign of the times we live in I suppose.

[das Uber Soldat]

You'd think nobody would deny it. Then you read this thread. :ugh:

[josephfeatherweight]

I have discovered a horrifyingly unacceptable statistic - male nurses make up only 8% of the nursing population. This outlandish statistic MUST be rectified to "redress the balance" - I propose:
- No HECS debt for male nurses
- Individual mentors provided to male nurses as they complete their studies

This female dominated industry must be forced to artificially increase the percentage of males within its ranks to be "equal".

Seriously, I'm done with this hogwash...
Guess we will have to agree to disagree...

[Compylot]

Interesting to see the South Australian Police Association today expressing serious concerns about a similarly ridiculous proposal.





SA News
Police officers have rejected a new 50-50 gender recruitment quota

April 21, 2016 12:43am
STEVE RICEPOLICE REPORTERThe Advertiser

POLICE officers have rejected “rigid” gender recruitment quotas amid claims they will compromise public safety by lowering standards.

The Police Association has criticised the imposition of a 50-50 recruitment policy it says dictates gender is more important than ability when selecting new officers.

Opposition to the quota — introduced on January 1 this year — comes as new figures reveal 22 per cent fewer men would be recruited as police officers because of their gender.

Police have denied excluding men or lowering standards, saying the 50-50 recruitment policy is a “win-win situation” for the community and people wishing to become officers.

It says recruiting equal numbers of men and women is part of a plan to promote a modern, professional workforce.
But Police Association president Mark Carroll told The Advertiser:

“The goal is to be an employer of choice.”

“The challenge for all professional occupations is to attract quality applicants — men and women — who possess the requisite aptitude, skills, values and education standards,” he said.

“Any applicant who reaches the necessary high standards should not be denied employment based on rigid gender quotas.

“Likewise, an overnight change to long-established recruitment practices that does not take into account the reasons many women leave the police force misses the point entirely.

“A rigid policy to recruit equal numbers of men and women doesn’t address this problem.”
Police Commissioner Grant Stevens announced in December last year a 50-50 recruitment policy to address gender imbalance within the force.

Mr Stevens said the changes would be introduced to ensure police better represented the community it served.
Freedom of Information figures obtained by The Advertiser reveal that, between 2012 and 2015, 75 per cent of police force applicants were men.

The figures also show that, during the same period, there were 443 men — or 72 per cent — among the 615 new officers recruited.

Based on those figures under the 50-50 gender recruitment policy, 22 per cent fewer men would be employed in favour of women.

Mr Carroll said the union was concerned about the ability of the police force to retain both men and women.
He said female officers left the force, on average, after seven to eight years of service.

“We argue that SAPOL needs to recognise that men and women — at certain points in their careers — require flexible working arrangements to balance family commitments,” he said.

“In a 24/7, 365-day-a-year occupation, finding that balance is a unique challenge, but it is not insurmountable.

“The police profession already offers highly competitive employment conditions as well as diverse and unique fields of endeavour within the job.

“This is an important feature of the job and it enables it to attract the right type of recruit regardless of gender.”
Family First MLC Robert Brokenshire, who sought the FoI figures, said policies such as gender quotas would not necessarily deliver the best outcome for an organisation.
Mr Brokenshire said there was a risk of missing out on the best talent with a 50-50 recruitment policy, which left men at a disadvantage in their opportunities to become a police officer.

“If the best talent is more women than men then fine but it should be on talent and ability and not on a quota,” he said.

“Policing is one of the most complex occupations in society and therefore you need to ensure you have the best possible skill mix.”

Mr Brokenshire said he had spoken with men who were concerned about the increased difficulty of becoming police officers.

“There is a risk that men may decide their chances are going to be even slimmer now with a 50-50 gender policy and go and look elsewhere for a career,” he said.

“If the best talent pool is 90 per cent women and 10 per cent men in a given year then you take 90 per cent women but you look at the talent pool not at a policy of 50-50 at all costs.”

A police spokesman said its recruitment standards “are and will remain high” and that gender parity was not about excluding men or lowering standards.

“Growing a fair, equitable workplace has the benefit of attracting the right sort of person — men and women — into our job,” he said.

“It is a win-win situation for the community as well as for every person who desires to become a police officer.”
The spokesman said police needed to reflect the community it served, having traditionally been an occupation for men.

“We are promoting a modern, professional workforce in a way that aims to attract more applications from women right now who might not have considered a policing career in the past,” he said.

[das Uber Soldat]

But hold on, OIC in his infinite 'well researched' opinion said that this practice is illegal!

[Toruk Macto]

She is on record saying she wants %50 . Great . Let's get on with it and see what happens .

[Chocks Away]

Seriously, Australia needs to have a really good hard look at itself in a room full of mirrors! :ugh:

It has become a very sad, stagnating left wind socialist "nanny-state" where you legislate for the stupid and idiotic fools. You get a medal for just being there, NOT for winning or 2nd/3rd place! What ****e is that? :hmm::ugh:

Take a good look around the world at the countries that followed this socialist line and look at the mess they're in now!

If you want to be a pilot, do it and if you're good enough and pass the myriad of tests, you make it. End of story! Male OR female.

The reason alot of people are not joining the industry now has been covered in many a thread here on PP.

[chickendrummer]

Interesting info:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oqyrflOQFc

[mattyj]

I'm equal parts English, Irish, Scottish and Dutch with parts of that making up about 1/4 Jewish (paternal so doesn't count I hear)

Surely that combination should represent about 1 in every 10 successful candidates!?

[framer]

That's nothing, I spent the first twelve years of my life in Launceston yet I don't see any special treatment on the horizon for me.

[Pakehaboy]

I have,over the years been very successful with ticking the "South Pacific Islander" box.Im obviously the albino kind,as Pakeha as can be,but no one has ever questioned it.
On the question of the 50/50,just ask UAL how that type of hiring worked out for them,it not only didn't work,but there is lingering resentment to this day!!!!

[Orange future]

Love the nonsense flying around on this thread.

Das Uber, you will find with a little research yourself that the government: police and defense for example, can use quotas when selecting candidates for positions. Oic made the point that the private sector cannot. You should be a little more careful with how you cherry pick quotes.

And Keg thinks the industry has done nothing to foster the massive workforce imbalance in the airline industry. How did such an imbalance come about then? Examining what can be done to encourage more women to join the industry should not imply the assignment of blame, no one is suggesting you are any individual is at fault for the state of affairs. The airline game needs to figure out how to make the industry more accessible to women and as someone has already suggested, that requires a grass roots approach. And a generational change. A quota system has merit in some situations but not this one.

Plus, a little research will quickly reveal that it's not legal.

[The Green Goblin]

Just tick the identify with being indigenous box. You don't need to prove it, you just have to identify with being.

Suddenly all sorts of 'help' will appear from government to HR :)

[Frank Arouet]

50% L, 50% G 50% B 50% T 50% I 50%. That all adds up OK.

[WannaBeBiggles]

How about all people take responsibility for their own wants, desires and pursue their dreams despite what they think other people think?

Do we really need to all be treated like a special little snowflake now a days?

There are very very few people who have gone through GA that have had an easy run regardless of their age, race, sex or sexual orientation, so why should anything but pure skill, determination and ability, including the ability to work as an effective member of the team be a determining factor whether you get a job?

While we're at it how about anyone who had their family fund their training be excluded? Or maybe anyone who used a government loan scheme to get their licence? Maybe anyone who's right handed should be excluded from a position? Wait, I think redheads are unfairly being excluded from pilot jobs.

There's plenty of people blaming others as to why they're being kept down, but at the end of the day you're only responsible for keeping you down, you!

On another note, I would really like to see some more albino, buddhist, redheads from both an australian aboriginal and alaskan malamute background that feel that they are gender neutral be promoted to higher levels of aviation.

[600ft-lb]

The problem with quotas in any job whether it be a male dominated field such as pilots or a female dominated field such as nursing, if you encourage applicants on the simple fact that they need to fill a quota you're not necessarily getting applications from an equal pool of application.

It is a simple fact that different genders gravitate toward different industries. Even when there are concerted efforts from the state or private industry to change this fact, the genders in the long run tend to go back to where they have always been. Women are almost never carpenters. Men are almost never nurses. There is no natural 50/50 split to almost any industry today.

That being the case, if the entire pool of potential applications isn't a 50/50 split in the first place how are you going to get the best person for the job if you aim for a 50/50 split in the workforce but 90% of the applicants are men and 10% are female for example.

That would mean you would need to be an exceptional male candidate and a mediocre female candidate to be successful in a male dominated industry. Conversely you would need to be an exceptional female candidate and a mediocre male candidate in a female dominated industry.

Common sense would dictate that is a crazy notion to entertain however in today's world of PC craziness I'm sure there is a catchall word to shut down any discussion to the contrary. Modern society doesn't tend to deal with simple facts these days moreso they deal with the feelings based ideologies of the left wing.

[Keg]

Don't verbal me Orange future. I'm not ignorant to the fact that 40 Yeats ago the industry employment bodies were allowed to discriminate. So I'm that respect your statement....


And Keg thinks the industry has done nothing to foster the massive workforce imbalance in the airline industry.

... is complete and utter BS.


The airline game needs to figure out how to make the industry more accessible to women.......

Before we start looking at the proferred solution of quotas, care to tell me what it is that currently makes the industry inaccessible or less accessible to women in Australia? Laws prohibiting women from becoming pilots? Hiring practises by airlines that discriminate against females? Difficulty for women in accessing training? What exactly is it? No one has yet defined what these barriers are and until that time you have a solution (quotas) dressed up to fix a problem that you deliberately and mischievously misdiagnose.

At least you agree quotas aren't the right fix. Still, until you diagnose the problem correctly it's simply noise.

[das Uber Soldat]

Das Uber, you will find with a little research yourself that the government: police and defense for example, can use quotas when selecting candidates for positions. Oic made the point that the private sector cannot. You should be a little more careful with how you cherry pick quotes.
Out of 4 pages of content including the comprehensive put down of the absurd argument put forward that quotas are either good, necessary or that women are somehow inhibited from joining the field of aviation, you select that one comment of mine and dare lecture me on 'cherry picking?'

You couldn't make this garbage up.

The rest of your post, as keg puts it, is noise.

[BleedingAir]

"The airline game needs to figure out how to make the industry more accessible to women......."

Orange future, give me one example of how the current industry is not accessible to women. With the exception of the odd rouge GA operator, I don't see the slightest impediment to women in the industry, and no woman I've worked with has had the slightest bit of trouble achieving their career goals, or being completely accepted by their male peers (with the exception of a handful of near-retirement dinosaurs, but you'll always get that).

You're discussing solutions to a problem which doesn't exist, unless your definition of the "problem" is "we have more male pilots than female pilots".

[Pakehaboy]

Either way,after reading articles and posts on the subject,I now firmly believe Americas version of "affirmative-action" has finally extended its ugly tentacles downunder,they just want to call it something else.The furor over this type of "business"has still not subsided in here parts,and there are many instances of its futility.

[dr dre]

I don't think the problem is with quotas that mean male candidates miss out on flying jobs.

I think a real issue coming up is an acknowledgement that currently too many women write off becoming pilots, and we are missing out on almost 50% of the population and almost 50% of the available talent pool in recruitment. Which I think could come back to bite airlines in the future.

And it's not just female pilots being positively portrayed in the media etc, I've spoken with many people who still think aviation is a profession that can only be performed by physically strong, emotionless, adrenaline-seeking Type A personalities (qualities seen as more "macho" than feminine) and any woman who pursues aviation is sort of a "tomboy". Of course in reality that's definitely not the case but those perceptions do exist in the wider community.

[Orange future]

Still, until you diagnose the problem correctly it's simply noise.

Why would it be up to me to diagnose the problem? I don't select pilots. I don't purchase the planes either so I don't really need to graph the relative merits of Airbus versus Boeing.

However there obviously is a problem. Can we all agree that females were not born disinterested in flying (A rhetorical question obviously)? Somewhere along the way they have been socialized into turning away from the profession. As I mentioned before, this argument is not to assign blame. Its not our fault, its not Jetstar's fault. I have not suggested that women are not given a fair chance. But clearly there is a problem as so few women see airline flying as a viable profession as evidenced by their participation rate.

But it is a problem that impacts JQ (and all airlines) and you should not fault them for laying the groundwork for figuring out how to adjust course in this regard.

Until then, if the VAST majority of cockpit seats are occupied by men only, then statistically you are not always employing the best person for the job, something which appears to concern many of you.

[SevenTwentySeven]

Interesting research paper (written by a female):

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263752787_Comparing_Pilot-error_Accident_Rates_of_Male_and_Female_Airline_Pilots

finds that female pilots have higher accident rates and that

"affirmative action programs should not be
designed to lower the flying standards for
females in order to increase the number of
female airline pilots."

:ugh:

[PoppaJo]

Here's an article from DL herself.



Pioneer female pilot Deborah Lawrie says mission accomplished in the airline cockpit
http://www.smh.com.au/content/dam/images/1/0/m/2/7/o/image.related.thumbnail.320x214.10lxn1.png/1411637335737.jpg
September 27, 2014 - 12:15AM
Captain Deborah Lawrie.

Deborah Lawrie, trailblazer for women in the Australian airline industry, took a Tiger Air flight out of Sydney the other day with another female beside her in the cockpit. "It was a training trip, part of her upgrade to captain," Lawrie says. "So there were two females up front. There are still not a lot of female pilots, but the number is gradually increasing."

It was a far different story in 1979 when Lawrie, using her married surname of Wardley, took Ansett Airlines to the Equal Opportunity board, its first sexual discrimination case. Until then all Australian airline pilots were male, Ansett proprietor Reg Ansett famously saying that females were unsuitable due to (among other things) their menstrual cycles.

Lawrie was awarded $14,500 by the board (all of which went on her legal fees) and Ansett was ordered to employ her. The airline appealed to the High Court but lost - and Lawrie eventually achieved her ambition. However she was never a captain. She was still qualifying when the Ansett pilots strike occurred and, along with her colleagues, she lost her job.

Today she says that sexual discrimination has disappeared in aviation. "The girls get a fair go," she says. "But worldwide, the percentage of females has never been large. At Tiger Air, 13 of the 185 pilots are female. Six of the 13 are captains, which is a very high proportion."

Lawrie saw several reasons for the lower numbers of females. "Lack of role models," she suggested. "And it is very hard to do. Sometimes it means starting off with jobs in [places like] the outback and doing things you may imagine only guys would do."

Lawrie, whose marriage eventually ended, was raised in Melbourne and started working life as a maths and science teacher. After Ansett, she flew with KLM then Jetstar where she was based in Christchurch. She now lives in Sydney and is a training captain with Tiger Air, which is owned jointly by Virgin and Singapore Airlines. She remarried last year.

However, while discrimination has disappeared in airline cockpits, it may still be lingering in the passenger cabin. Lawrie says that while flying with KLM, the crew told her of a British passenger who was upset the pilot was female. Lawrie had a reassuring chat with him during a transit stop and the passenger picked up her Australian accent.

"I think I've flown with you before," he said.

Replied Lawrie: "Did you get there last time?"

End of problem.

[Ned Gerblansky]

Pilots get where they are due to merit. The myths of "opening the hairy checkbook" are just that. (Or "feeding the poor in Brazil", nowadays.) I would personally ask the JQ CP how she got the job, when it was never advertised? Why wasn't it advertised? If she is going to pontificate about a selection system she sees as biased, then upon what evidence does she demonstrate that she was the best person for the position?

People in glass houses... get very hot in summer.

[Keg]

Why would it be up to me to diagnose the problem?

Youre the one saying there is a problem. You've used the term 'obviously'. Yet you avoid responsibility for diagnosing the problem you say the industry has?

I know you're just trolling because you refuse to even engage on what the barriers are to women joining the aviation dusty are that obviously continue to cause this imbalance. ! := :ugh: :rolleyes:

PS my daughter is disinterested in flying..... Unless in J/C going on holiday. I've encouraged her. I've told her what's available. I've always had aeroplane models in the house to play with. She however has decided she wants to be a paediatric nurse. Was she born that way? I suspect so.

[Orange future]

[QUOTE]Interesting research paper (written by a female) finds that female pilots have higher accident rates and that…../QUOTE]

You are correct; it is an interesting research paper however I suspect you didn’t actually read it. You will note that a significant result of the study was:

“After adjusting for variables included in the model, accident rates for males and females were not significantly different. “

And that:

“ . . .as* ‬a direct consequence* ‬of* ‬the statistical results* ‬of* ‬this* ‬study,* ‬airlines* ‬should* ‬make* ‬every effort* ‬to* ‬recruit* ‬and* ‬retain* ‬experienced* ‬female aviators.* ‬”

D.W suggests that “sexual discrimination has disappeared in aviation” and that is probably true. Nowhere have I suggested that airlines discriminate against prospective or presently employed women pilots. However, D.W has been vocal about the lack of participation by women in the industry, a completely different argument.

[QUOTE]Youre the one saying there is a problem/QUOTE]

Actually, it’s not me suggesting the industry has a problem with gender bias. Many airlines have started programs to solve the puzzle of why women don’t apply to airlines. In recent weeks alone BA and Easyjet have published articles signaling their intent to increase the participation rate of women.

Airbus and Boeing have both been in the press expressing a concern for the lack of women in the industry. Airbus in particular see it is a crucial element in reducing the impact of the looming pilot shortage by stating that “resolving the gender imbalance is a crucial element in reducing the impact of the looming pilot shortage”, interestingly enough.

And Boeing: “There is such an enormous demand to meet the growth that the gender bias will have to be pushed aside.”

Airlines in Asia, ME and even Africa are starting to wake up to the fact that solving a shortage of crew without encouraging women to be involved will not be effective.

Heavens above, even Singapore airlines are employing women now.

But to you, this is just trolling?

[titan uranus]

Put a tax on male wage earners whose daughters don't take up flying or engineering

[Sprite]

Interesting research paper (written by a female):

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263752787_Comparing_Pilot-error_Accident_Rates_of_Male_and_Female_Airline_Pilots

finds that female pilots have higher accident rates and that

"affirmative action programs should not be
designed to lower the flying standards for
females in order to increase the number of
female airline pilots."

:ugh:

No, it finds that when corrected for experience and age, there is no difference in accident rates. "After adjusting for variables included in the model, accident rates of males and females were not significantly different. These findings suggest that neither males nor females are a safer pilot group. Airlines should make every effort to recruit and retain experienced females".

Other studies have found lower accident rates among female pilots. (Comparing ATPL holders in the USA found that women accounted for 1.4% of accidents, when they were 4% of the total pilot population).

And Keg, re the old nature vs nurture argument, I doubt many parents would recognise their unconscious, ingrained biases which in turn affect the desires of their children.

To those who complain about not getting the best person for the job, Orange Future is absolutely correct - at the moment the entire set up (not blaming any one gender for this, it's just the way society is) makes it far easier for men to follow a career in aviation than for women to do so. Therefore, by discouraging women, airlines are missing the chance to recruit "the best" as they are ignoring a large pool of possible candidates. Since some are supposedly worried about the best person for the job, maybe they should focus on encouraging women in aviation?

[titan uranus]

The "entire set up" makes it "far easier for men". That's a broad statement. Please elaborate how so?

[mikewil]

However there obviously is a problem. Can we all agree that females were not born disinterested in flying (A rhetorical question obviously)? Somewhere along the way they have been socialized into turning away from the profession. As I mentioned before, this argument is not to assign blame. Its not our fault, its not Jetstar's fault. I have not suggested that women are not given a fair chance. But clearly there is a problem as so few women see airline flying as a viable profession as evidenced by their participation rate.

Why is this seen as a 'problem' anyway?

Is it a problem that men are disinterested in teaching or nursing?
Is it a problem that women are disinterested in mining or driving trucks?

Society seems to function fine with different genders interested in different professions. Attempting to even out the numbers for no beneficial reason is leftist social engineering at its worst.

[titan uranus]

From now on I want to be known as Loretta... Why? Because I want to have babies

[BleedingAir]

And I'll again ask the question that has already been asked 100 times -- why is the lower proportion of women in flying jobs seen as a "problem" or "puzzle" that needs to be fixed or solved? Why not any of the other roles in the industry that are dominated by one gender, as has been mentioned above?

Women should be made aware at a grass roots level that the industry is not at all discriminatory and if they're interested in a flying career to go for it. Then let the statistics fall where they may.

[rammel]

There did used to be a female honeycart operator in Melbourne. There were also a few females who worked in the baggage make up area, but I'm not sure what it is like now. But even without quotas etc. the women in Ramp Services were treated the same as everyone else if a role came up in another ramp department.

[Sprite]

And I'll again ask the question that has already been asked 100 times -- why is the lower proportion of women in flying jobs seen as a "problem" or "puzzle" that needs to be fixed or solved? Why not any of the other roles in the industry that are dominated by one gender, as has been mentioned above?

Women should be made aware at a grass roots level that the industry is not at all discriminatory and if they're interested in a flying career to go for it. Then let the statistics fall where they may.
The lack of diversity in pilot jobs is a problem because it could lead to a safety implication. "Studies conducted on teams, measured their productivity, creativity and problem solving skills and the more diverse a team was the higher it scored on each of the measures." I think we can all agree that our job requires teamwork and problem solving - if there is more diversity it has been shown that problem solving, creativity and productivity are improved. Therefore the profession as a whole improves with more diversity. The same could be said of Nursing - more male nurses would lead to better patient outcomes. Engineering - more females involved could lead to better problem solving and creativity. Gargage collecting does not have a safety implication for the general public so it is not a problem if women are not involved.

Whilst the industry is not deliberately discriminatory the barriers to women achieving at the highest level are many. The fact that people consider flying a man's job is enough to put off a few from pursuing the career. Then there is the fact that a women who succeeds is put down by some as having succeeded by opening her legs - this sort of toxic innuendo is also harmful to confidence (and confidence is a big part of succeeding in aviation.) The fact that some (and very few, but it only takes one to really put someone off a career in aviation) men will use their position to recruit women and then put pressure on them for sex also puts another barrier in front of a woman applying for a job - are they being recruited to be treated as an object or is it a genuine chance for a job?

The fact that the industry is male dominated mean women have far fewer role models. The fact that women have a limited time to have children and during those younger ages is when a huge committment to the career is required in order to gain experience, must also be an added barrier.

If the processes required to get the job are putting off women to such an extent, then maybe those processes need to be examined and modified?

It is not only the fault of men, women also are responsible for perpetuating myths about job suitability. This is not an attack on one gender but simply an attempt to logically present some reasons why things need to change.

[2EggOmelette]

I think Sprite is quite correct about team diversity. I seem to recall a number of studies carried out by the RAF and USAF back in the 80's and 90's in regards to reaction times due to audible oral warnings and orders issued by the voice of the opposite sex. In all instances the reaction time and decision making process was faster and more correct when the warning was issued by the opposite sex to the pilot. That led to a few changes within both organisations with the aircraft warning systems. At that time almost all air force pilots were male so a female voice was used - I believe a few of the women who lent their voices were Kim Crow and Sue Milne - both of whom gained something of a celebrity status. Their instructions saved lives, without doubt. Take from that what you will.

[Shot Nancy]

At that time almost all air force pilots were male so a female voice was used

Yep became "Bitching Betty" on one aircraft type.

So is J* replacement Manager Training Standards mandated (sorry, womandated) as a non- male?

[Orange future]

[QUOTE] I doubt many parents would recognise their unconscious, ingrained biases which in turn affect the desires of their children./QUOTE]

It starts at birth. Gender bias is deeply engrained, subtle, sometimes imperceptible but very powerful.

And we see the results in aviation.


[QUOTE]Is it a problem that men are disinterested in teaching or nursing?/QUOTE]

It is if there is a shortage of applicants and it is if you want the best person for the job!

[Derfred]

There are a lot of opinions on this thread, and some pointless arguments, primarily because this thread has lost direction.

It started with an "aim" from JQ of equal opportunity. Their "aim" has been interpreted differently, hence the wide variety of opinions on this thread.

Of particular note, I don't think a single contributor has had the opinion that "piloting an aircraft is a man's job".

That is interesting of itself because my first employer (many decades ago) would never have employeed a female, on the grounds that it was a man's job. He said as much to me on several occasions.

So, perhaps we should restrain this thread to the topic at hand, and the multitude of other topics that have arisen should be discussed in new threads.

Such as:

1. The male vs female desire to pilot an aircraft.

2. The male vs female desire to pilot an aircraft for a living (not the same thing).

3. The physical barriers for (1) or (2)

4. The cultural barriers for (1) or (2)

5. Whether "reverse discrimination" or "affirmative action" is desired or warranted to change (1) or (2).

6. Nature vs nurture... The Norway (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/577602-jetstar-aiming-50-gender-spilt-interview-candidates-3.html#post9346678) video linked early in this thread deserves a discussion of it's own.

7. Has the JQ CP's comments achieved nothing other than to get pilots and the public talking about the subject, and if so, has she achieved progress? The number of pages of this thread could indicate so.

P.S. 2Egg:

In all instances the reaction time and decision making process was faster and more correct when the warning was issued by the opposite sex to the pilot.
TCAS went female for a while, and has now gone back to male voice. What happened there? Is that study now out of date?

[2EggOmelette]

Good post Derfred. Quite right too.
In answer to your question, I really do not know. It may well be that a new study has ascertained differently. Or of course it could illustrate that there are more female airline pilots now than there were back then. If so, does anyone have a link? It would make interesting reading.

[Kelly Slater]

It Jetstar succeed in employing 50% female pilots, this will give them a tremendous financial advantage over the competition.

[SevenTwentySeven]

How's that Kelly? Doesn't it cost more to employ a female? Taking into account maternity leave and more of them taking flexible working arrangements?

[engine out]

I think you will find Qantas when it recruits will be using exactly same policy as Jetstar.

[The Green Goblin]

Kelly is being sarcastic, as apparently there is a pay gap between the genders. If there was, Jetstar would have an exclusive female pilot group.

[psycho joe]

Unfortunately it seems to be the trend for executive managers to reduce themselves to that of politician, who themselves are little more than 20 second sound bites. The idea of a manipulated 50% gender split in recruiting is a wonderfully warm and fuzzy sound bite for the uninitiated purveyor of meaningless media, but in reality it is as plausible as aiming to fly an A320 to the moon.

The simple fact is that the vast majority of qualified Pilot applicants for airlines are Anglo, hetero, alpha males. The reasons for this are many and varied, but that is the simple fact and shouldn't be confused as a form of personal or industry bias or a populist "ism". If an airline wished to bypass even a portion of this demographic then they risk not only being massively understaffed, but also not having enough applicants to even justify holding a recruitment session at all.

Airline recruitment sessions these days are multi-faceted and expensive to run. There is huge pressure within airlines to get the best bang for their buck. Applicants must pass clearly defined benchmarks and any attempt to manipulate the outcome to suit an agenda would ultimately be seen as a waste of resources, possibly open a company to litigation and quietly be shelved as a failed plan.

So when the day comes that executive managers declare that all Pilot recruits will be disabled, post op (non gender specific), left handed lesbians with gender dysmorphia. Then you can rest assured that the fabled "Pilot shortage" has finally arrived.

[titan uranus]

"Unfortunately it seems to be the trend for executive managers to reduce themselves to that of politician, who themselves are little more than 20 second sound bites."

Spot on Joe. The greatest leap backwards in the notion of "leadership". We are treated like idiots; they can't understand why we won't follow them?

[framer]

They all spout on about "Leadership" yet I bet if an enemy rolled over the horizon they'd scatter like rats while " workers " stood up to lead us through.

[Kelly Slater]

727, everybody knows that Females earn less than their Male counterpart for the same job, just ask the Female activists.

[Compylot]

It is interesting to note that in Norway, which ranks as one of the most gender equal countries in the world, many so called 'gender' specific jobs are still populated by the traditional stereotype, despite attempts by Government and policy makers.


In fact it has even become known as the "Gender Paradox".


Why is it that females and males gravitate toward specific 'activities' and 'career choices'?


Unfortunately, in this era of "Third Wave Feminism", after years of convoluted and shaky "research" within "Social Sciences" that has escaped rigid peer review (due to the threat of being shouted down as misogynistic) a lot of misinformation is now parroted as 'fact'- Things like "Rape Culture" and "Gender Pay Gap".


It is political correctness gone mad.


As an example, just over a week ago the University of California cancelled a forum that was hosting some of the top computer game designers in the world. Why? Because it was an all male panel and the university was seeking to promote 'diversity'.


USC Cancels 'Legends of the Games Industry' Event for Not Including Women (http://heatst.com/culture-wars/usc-cancels-legends-of-the-games-industry-event-for-not-including-women/)


This is an example of the hysteric lunacy surrounding anything to do with gender in our society, and don't for a second try and question it or you will be shouted down as misogynistic!


I keep hearing 'There should be more women CEOs!' "More women should be politicians!' etc yet the basic truth of the matter is that not all women want to pursue these choices and why should we expect that they should?


Now, in the majority of Western cultures women are afforded the same rights as men and traditionally male orientated roles are open and accessible to any female who wishes to pursue them.


This is especially apparent in aviation and, as has been repeated here many times, if a woman wishes to embark on a career in aviation there is little if any resistance and indeed many women have and will continue to forge successful aviation careers within Australia.


However, there are many millions if not billions of women around the world who are currently not afforded anywhere near the same rights as men and horrifically so.


From women not being able to drive cars in Saudi Arabia, denied the vote in Brunei, to forced child brides in Pakistan and the abhorrent practice of female genital mutilation that is actually a real and ongoing concern for some young girls here in Australia.


If we really want to advance the causes and equality of all women, we should be focusing our priorities on shining a light on the true inequalities that many more women worldwide face than the mythical barrier a woman apparently has to be given an interview for a position in a billion dollar Airline within a democratized, secular, western country.

[IFEZ]

Spot On Compylot, great post. Absolutely nailed it. :D

[Orange future]

"....that is a simple fact...."

A simple fact it is, but that does not make it appropriate. And it does not make it inflexible to change either.

"If an airline wishes to bypass . . . . . Demographic"

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".

No one is attempting to manipulate the outcome or ignore clearly defined benchmarks.

"Everybody knows females earn less than thier male counterparts"

Yes, this is correct. In Australia the gender pay gap hovers around 20% in the private sector, there is ample data out there in support.

"There should be more CEO's" followed by "not all women want to persue these choices".

Very true, not all women want to become CEO's. But I assure you that those senior executive women who are aiming to become CEO find it incredibly difficult to break through the glass ceiling. Please dont assume that only a small proportion of CEO's in Australia are women simply because they choose not to be.

"We should be focusing our priorities on shining a light"

Yes, but are we really so drained of intellectual capacity that we cant shine a light in Saudi Arabia AND focus on providing greater opportunities for women at home?

[WannaBeBiggles]

Yes, this is correct. In Australia the gender pay gap hovers around 20% in the private sector, there is ample data out there in support.


People love arguing this point. While there is some merit, one can make statistics seem whatever they want to support their point of view.

Lets ignore that the 20% gap comes from averaging out salaries. I could quite easily survey 10 males doing the same job across 10 different private sector companies and I can guarantee you that there will be quite a spread in salaries. It all comes down to negotiating ability and the individual company.

Statistically speaking males ask for pay rises more than their female counterparts. Unfortunately we live in a capitalist world, so you might be doing a stellar job but unless you ask you're not going to get anything. Why should an employer spend more money for you to do the same job you're doing now? Yes, some employers will show their appreciation with their chequebook without being prompted, some.

Now back on subject, unless of course you have hard evidence that females are being paid 20% less in aviation.

[psycho joe]

Orange Future. It's obvious from your posts that you aren't an Airline Pilot. You don't understand the nature of Airline pilot recruiting, the role of flight ops and its relationship with executive management.

You seem to believe that there is some sort of bias against women wrt airline recruitment. I can tell you that this isn't so.

Let's address some of your concerns;

20 PERCENT PAY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN.
Let's take two successful Airline Pilot applicants. Let's call them John and Moyra. John and Moyra join at the same time, have relatively the same experience and are employed under the same EBA. Therefore, they earn the exact SAME WAGE. And based on their similar positions on the airline seniority list and assuming similar high personal standards and ability, they will be offered a command opportunity at roughly the same time. So where is the pay difference? Well the difference between Moyra and John is that Moyra has a uterus and a desire to bear children. So whilst John continues flying uninterrupted, Moyra decides to take a few years off to raise children. The airline does what it can to facilitate this through mat leave and extended leave without pay. But ultimately Moyra will earn less over her working life in this scenario. So who do we blame for this? Nature? God. Men's unwillingness to grow a uterus and bear children?

AIRLINE RECRUITING AND GENDER FAIRNESS.
Firstly we have to understand that executive managers from CEO down are NOT actively involved in airline recruiting. They don't vett applications, they don't interview applicants and they don't set performance benchmarks for applicants. Beyond signing off on departmental budgets and okaying mass recruitment after flight ops has explained that planes are about to be parked up against a fence without more pilots being hired soon, they have nix to do with who gets hired. And even if they did, do you really think that CEO's and other exec managers really care about what demographic make up their front line staff? To exec management the staff are a means to an end, they are units of productivity to be measured in dollar terms.

Which brings me to your quote;

"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".

These days every flight ops department has tight budgetary and time constraints and applicant experience and performance bench marks are set in order to get "the best person for the job". The relevant training and recruitment departments have neither the time the budget nor the inclination (desire to be sued), in order to be playing silly gender games. Put simply, if an airline narrows down 100 applicants, with defined suitable experience and only three percent of those applicants are female, then the only way to achieve 50% gender split is to bypass a significant amount of those applicants. Note; this is discrimination, it is grossly inefficient and a waste of time and money, which ultimately is coming out of the flight ops budget. Put even more simply, you can't hire people who don't exist. Ahhh, but what if we somehow "broaden the base" as you have suggested. The only way to do this is to reduce experience requirements and performance standards in the hope of finding a larger pool of the target demographic (females). Firstly, this is a flawed plan in terms of numbers. It supposes that there is a higher proportion of female pilot's with low qualifications to men, than women with higher qualifications. This type of recruiting would also put a massive and unacceptable strain on an airlines training department in order to bring low experience/qualified candidates up to the required standard. Of course, you could lower training standards, but then you have a less safe airline and no longer have "the best person for the job".

Which lastly brings me back to your statement about the present system not being appropriate. Why so?

Airline recruitment is expensive and considered, Pilots set the standards required and applicants are selected without gender bias. The results are generally, that the airline gets "the best person for the job".

[neville_nobody]

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"

Well I will bet my house that Jetstar or any other airline for that matter does not have the budget nor the appetite for such an expensive and risky venture.

As pyscho joe points out you can't just recruit people who don't actually exist. So if you want to increase the participation rate of women in aviation you better open your cheque book. You will need to start offering women only flying scholarships, at well in excess of 100K each one, some career counseling and pray that your chosen candidates don't: lose their medical, die in an accident in GA, get married and find that aviation is very difficult on married life, just lose interest, graduate and find that aviation isn't all that it's made out to be and go and study something else or suffer and enconomic downturn and get stuck in the system before they get a few thousand hours and about 5 years of experience before they will even be in a position to apply to Jetstar.

You see the problem in aviation unlike every other industry which women participation is an issue, is that there is a long time between qualifying and actually getting in a position to work as a airline pilot. Mining companies, Banks and the government can just offer uni scholarships and part time work which will boost their numbers instantly but airlines can't do that. Maybe ask around and see how long some QANTAS cadets have been waiting for a shot at QF lately. I would guess 6+ years so far.

IF and it is a to big an IF IMHO you want to increase the participation rate you have to spend money at grass roots aviation in the hope that women will filter through to airline level quality graduates. That is going to take 5-7 years minimum. And is a very very risky venture from the airlines point of view as the chance of losing them along the way is actually quite high.

[CurtainTwitcher]

I wish to neatly side-step the central issue of "fairness" for another more subtle issue, posited 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.

[das Uber Soldat]

"If an airline wishes to bypass . . . . . Demographic"

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".

No one is attempting to manipulate the outcome or ignore clearly defined benchmarks.
God I love repeating myself. SHOW ME WHAT THEY ARE DOING if this is what you allege. What are the nuts and bolts of what J* are doing to increase womens participation, beyond what would be normal career promotion. The wording seems clear to me and most here that they intend on manipulating those selected for interviews and shortlists. You say not, so what are they doing? Where is it?

It takes YEARS to train and garner the requisite experience for a jet job in Australia. If they're out in high schools promoting pilot careers for women, why has HR for the last year been instructed to give a written explanation for why 50% of the interview candidates aren't women, right now?!


"Everybody knows females earn less than thier male counterparts"

Yes, this is correct. In Australia the gender pay gap hovers around 20% in the private sector, there is ample data out there in support.
Utter garbage. The gender pay gap is a stupidifying stubborn myth. Its rebuttal has already been posted in this thread and neatly cherry picked by you.

"There should be more CEO's" followed by "not all women want to persue these choices".

Very true, not all women want to become CEO's. But I assure you that those senior executive women who are aiming to become CEO find it incredibly difficult to break through the glass ceiling. Please dont assume that only a small proportion of CEO's in Australia are women simply because they choose not to be.
Utterly irrelevant to aviation, and I'd still like to see actual evidence for your claim. There are no impediments to women in aviation.

Are you a pilot? It doesn't seem it.

[Orange future]

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.

[CurtainTwitcher]

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.

[WannaBeBiggles]

“….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.

Yep, look up any of the aviation EBA's, what pilots are paid is outlined quite succinctly based on rank, duty/flight times, sectors flown, overnights etc etc and how many years they've been at the company. There is no such thing in the airline world where an individual pilot can go and negotiate a salary outside of the EBA (or at least I haven't heard of one!), salary and benefit negotiations are done as a pilot group. Proof enough? Maybe you can find a clause in a pilot EBA that says something like "Should the pilot be female they shall be paid 80% of the full salary for her rank and seniority expressed in table xyz"?

[Oriana]

Nero fiddles whilst Rome burns.

[psycho joe]

Orange, is that it? Vague single sentences of broad statements with no substance?

You really have to try harder than that. You are on a professional Pilot forum attempting to condemn an industry that you don't understand, based on a perception bias that is without substance. In your six, (and I'm betting soon to be seventh), rambling, barely coherent posts you've made no argument to substantiate your belief in Airline discrimination toward women, beyond a thought bubble from a CEO or two spouting some PC rubbish in the hope of gaining some air time amongst the chattering twitterati.

Given the consistent and considered explanations offered by many here and your subsequent responses, you are either being obstinate or obtuse (or a HR underling). By all means please try to string more than two sentences together and make a cohesive argument for how it is that women, or any other group, are being discriminated against in the airline industry. Cite details of present airline recruitment processes that facilitate discrimination, details of Pay differences between men and women of equal standing in the airline industry and cite details on how you would increase female participation if you were one of the airline CEO's quoted By the media.

[Sprite]

Orange is perfectly coherent, for anyone who has basic English comprehension skills. The points Orange makes are logical and correct. There is plenty of substance behind them.

If you wish to ignore evidence and reason, there is no point in discussing the matter. If you wish to quote Compylot's adolescent reasoning skills (?!) as evidence then you really should be worried about your own priorities in life.

There are barriers to women in aviation, otherwise there would be more women in aviation. It is proven simply by the numbers, unless you believe that women's brains simply aren't suited - and anyone who believes so needs to seriously reconsider their priorities in life.

The evidence has been provided - there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

[Keg]

There are barriers to women in aviation.......

Ok. Again I'll ask. What are they? The pay issue has been dealt with as being a complete crock. Next item? This question has been asked time and again and the only response is obfuscation and dissembling.

No evidence has been provided.

Oh, and you've misquoted the Bible as well.

[das Uber Soldat]

If you wish to ignore evidence and reason, there is no point in discussing the matter.
The irony may literally kill me.

And with that, I'm done. There is no point employing logic to combat an illogical position.

[WannaBeBiggles]

There are barriers to women in aviation, otherwise there would be more women in aviation. It is proven simply by the numbers, unless you believe that women's brains simply aren't suited - and anyone who believes so needs to seriously reconsider their priorities in life.

Has anyone found any references to how many female CPL graduates there are annually? The day a flying school doesn't accept money from someone based on gender is the day hell freezes over. :ok:

From personal observations once people graduate there is a natural attrition that happens roughly in this order.


Unwilling to move away from home town, therefore can't find a job
Unwilling to go beyond emailing resumes to look for work (unwilling to travel remotely)
Doesn't get a job within a month or two like the flying school that took their money told them they would, throws in the towel
Unwilling to move to a remote location
Finds that remote living is a lot different to their hometown so retreats back to hometown
Finds that working for employers that border on sociopaths isn't that much fun
Not getting the progression they were promised by the flying school promised they would see as they were parting with 100k
Realising living in some very expensive locations on near poverty wages and paying back loans is extremely difficult, so they find a job that pays better money
Finally gets on to a twin, get those magic 500 hours multi and realises the airlines are knocking down the door like the flying school that helped them part with 100k, so they pull up stumps
Finally get an airline interview and bomb out, loses self confidence and calls it quits
Gets in to a regional, realises they're still getting paid poverty wages and that it's really not much better than GA
Fails a jet interview or two, disheartened and realises that there is no way they can support a family on this money, so finds a job that does
Gets that elusive jet job and gets worked hard and realises that it's still not really better than GA


Each of those has a certain percentage of attrition and is by no means gender specific. Now if say only 10% of CPL/MECIR graduates are female and there is an equal attrition across the above, lets say 40% of the original graduates. That'd leave 6 females and 60 males out of every 100 graduates that'll be up to an airline standard, though I'd probably guess that it is more like a 60% attrition rate on gut feel alone. As we mentioned, there is no way in hell a flying school will not turn down an income source due to sex.

Aviation is hard and sometimes miserable slog and is most definitely not for everyone. I wouldn't say that males are better equipped to handle it than females, it's more that it requires someone with certain personality traits that gets them through.

But as long as fewer than 50% of CPL/MECIR graduates are female then we will always have a disparity of qualified people at the top end, it's pretty simple.

[Sprite]

'No evidence has been provided.

Oh, and you've misquoted the Bible as well.'

I provided evidence earlier. I did not misquote the bible, I deliberately modified a well known saying (it's origin in the known form is not the bible). It's called paraphrasing.

Agreed, to have more at the interview you need more going through flying schools which means more girls in school need to be convinced it's a good career. This process would only take a couple of years. Similar arguments were used to justify the lack of equality in the medical profession until recent years - now, more medical students are female than male. Of course, that improves the overall quality of the candidates as they all have to compete with a higher number of quality applicants.

Ironically in order to encourage more women pilots it could be that some of the things quoted earlier as potential reasons that women won't fly might be changed if there were more female pilots, leading to a more family oriented, well balanced career for everybody.

[Pakehaboy]

"leading to a more family oriented, well balanced career for everybody."

I think I'm going to use that statement,and insert it in my next argument with crew rostering about the crap schedules they give me,then call my chief pilot and see what he thinks.

[Lookleft]

Ironically in order to encourage more women pilots it could be that some of the things quoted earlier as potential reasons that women won't fly might be changed if there were more female pilots, leading to a more family oriented, well balanced career for everybody.

As if rostering will change just because there are more woman in the job!Have you seen the rosters the F/A's get? If it has escaped your attention most of them are female. Pilots are pilots and they will be rostered to their maximum limits regardless of gender. The Jetstar CEO (the real one not the pretend one who has just got the boot) was very vocal about ensuring that work did not get in the way of her family time. I haven't noticed any family friendly rosters being a result of any female generated cultural change.

It reminds me of the argument about females being better leaders of countries. Google who was in charge of the belligerents during the Falklands, Yom Kippur and the various India-Pakistan conflicts. I'm also sure that if Hillary gets elected President that the Yanks wont be reducing their defence budget and spending the money on homeless accommodation.

[NowThatsFunny]

"leading to a more family oriented, well balanced career for everybody."

And therein lies the strength of this person's arguments.
:ok:

[framer]

Agreed, to have more at the interview you need more going through flying schools which means more girls in school need to be convinced it's a good career.
The more you lean towards family life, the less it is a good career. Male or female, doesn't matter. Now days you have no idea where you will be in a month and get one weekend off a month. You are not in the family home during the whitching hour approximately 50% of the time and are often out the door hours before the rest of the family rises.
Unlike most shift workers you don't progress from earlies to mids to lates to graveyard with a break between each, you swap randomly between them on an adhoc basis. It is difficult to be a reliable family member and it is the norm to disappoint the kids by being away when special occasions are celebrated.
If we want to convince girls that it is a good career, we should start by making it a good career ....like it used to be before the legal limits became the target.

[myshoutcaptain]

before the legal limits became the target.

:D

This definitely requires attention.

[Orange future]

Curtain,

“The central question (completely unresolved by credible evidence) is why there is a low level of female participation?”

This is a fair point; the industry is really struggling to figure out why women don’t participate in flying. It is not completely unresolved though, more and more studies are being conducted to find an answer. So far research has identified some issues worth considering:

Lack of support from family or spouse.
Very few women pilot mentors or role models.
Generally less exposure to mechanized hobbies and schooling at a young age.

These are just a few gleaned from brief glances at several studies conducted overseas but there are many reasons starting to emerge as to why women are socialized into avoiding flying. Studies have shown that many girls mistakenly think physical strength is required, or that they will be treated badly in the cockpit. Its up to the industry to correct these misconceptions.

JQ is simply trying to figure out why so few women upstream of the process are selecting the pilot career that is impacting applicant numbers at the coalface. This process will provide the industry with guidance as to how to attract women into the flying school. Maybe more female pilots attending job fairs? Maybe a more visible role for presently employed female pilots within the wider industry? Its up to the experts to figure how best to utilize the data.

“Another way of saying it, is asking two questions, will a quota system…..”

Again, quotas have been covered. They will not solve the problem JQ are facing and I will go on record as saying that JQ will not be writing a policy that discriminates against any group of people. You may read such a goal from the brief information provided by the article but it is not the case. It would prove to be completely counter productive.

“Are you actually a pilot Orange Future?”

Yes indeed, have been for a long time.

“…..people are no longer willing to take such risks”

Indeed a good point. This is why so few people are getting into aviation now, the flying school numbers are minute compared to the 70’s when I became involved. The pay is lower, the cost is higher and the industrial protection is far weaker.

“There is no such thing in the airline world where an individual pilot can go and negotiate a salary….”

Correct. Which is why I made the statement that “at no point have I suggested that female pilots are paid less than male pilots”

Women in the wider airline industry ARE paid less than their male equivalent, especially managers.

Joe

“You are on a professional Pilot forum attempting to condemn an industry…..”

I am not condemning an industry at all, in fact I have been very clear on several occasions: “this argument is not to assign blame. Its not our fault, its not Jetstar's fault.”

My view is that the airline industry is subject to gender socialization just like every other walk of life and I am not going to retreat into my corner and have a dummy spit simply because an airline is trying to attract women into its ranks.


“…..that you don't understand”

I understand the industry very well, however this argument is less about understanding the industry and more about understanding social behavior.

The rest of your post is jumping at shadows, accusing me of making arguments I have not made. For example: “Cite details of present airline recruitment processes that facilitate discrimination”.

I have not suggested anywhere on this thread that airlines facilitate discrimination. Please cut and paste, or use the quote function (something that I am having trouble with and I apologize) to provide an example of where I have suggested that airlines discriminate.

Keg

“Ok. Again I'll ask. What are they?”

I suspect you are seeking a golden bullet, a clearly cut solid tangible example of where women come up against barriers when trying to gain employment as a pilot.

I don’t think these clearly defined obstacles really exist anymore, although they certainly once did.

The focus should shift from trying to find barriers to trying to figure out why do girls not look at the sky and think, cool, a 727, I would love that lifestyle, as I did.

I don’t know the answer, but it’s the answer that the industry is looking for and I don’t think it’s our job to prevent them from figuring it out.

If JQ tomorrow start providing preferential treatment to women to crew their planes to keep the “PC” police happy or to make the chief pilot feel all warm and fuzzy then I will be first to argue the inappropriateness of such a move.


The central part of the argument here is that JQ will either by fumbling accident or sneaky design, make fewer pilots available to crew their planes in the future. This is simply false, as touchy feely as the policy may appear, they are guided by money only and are s%$# scared about low pilot numbers in the future.

[The Green Goblin]

To 'make it' as a pilot, you need to be single minded with an eye on the end goal/prize. You need to move on a moments notice anywhere, live out of a suitcase for a long time, have no financial security and any spare money you stumble upon goes back into aviation and booze. Flying becomes your priority and life. Everything else takes a back seat. Starting out in aviation is the ultimate gamble.

I've left girlfriends to move interstate, brought girlfriends with me and left them, sold up, sold out, chewed up, spat out. It's just the nature of it. It's also the nature of the type of person who does make it.

Basically you need to put yourself and your needs first. Sleep, study etc etc. I still find this hard balancing the needs of a family and sometimes a less than understanding wife. (Why do you need sleep? You just sit there. Didn't you sleep In the hotel? Why do you need to study? You're always studying! Shouldn't you know it all by now? You're tired? I'm tired! I've been up with the kids. It's your turn....) etc etc

Often the girls find a bloke and settle down. They don't chase it.

Cadetships are the way to get women into aviation. However I've watched many start a family and never return to line flying. It's too hard on the body to do what we do, and run a family. Especially if the hubby works a lot too. Or worse is a pilot!

[toolish]

Ok this will be fun,hard hat on.
As a response to Sprite's post a few back.
From my experience those that have the required skill set in descending order are .................................
No cant do it due to the requirment to be politically correct and not be labeled racist or sexist but i think most know where I am going from your own experience

[Lookleft]

Ironically even the cadetships only have 5% of their applicants that are female. If you want to look at an area that attracts female participation look at ATC to find out why.

[framer]

The focus should shift from trying to find barriers to trying to figure out why do girls not look at the sky and think, cool, a 727, I would love that lifestyle, as I did.

Isn't that the exact same thing as someone saying " The focus should shift from trying to find the barriers men face in entering early childhood education to trying to figure out why boys don't look at a pre-school and think, cool, loads of babies and toddlers, I would love that lifestyle."

[psycho joe]

My view is that the airline industry is subject to gender socialization just like every other walk of life and I am not going to retreat into my corner and have a dummy spit simply because an airline is trying to attract women into its ranks.

At best, this is obfuscation or a non sequitur, perhaps by using these sort of statements you think that you are setting up a straw man. At worst it is utter nonsense. In nine pages of generally polite (for PPRUNE) discourse no one here has done any such thing.

This thread started from an article containing the following quotes:

"For the past year, it (Jetstar) has had a policy in place to aim for an even split between male and female candidates for interviews and shortlisted for jobs. If that cannot be achieved in the event nobody from a specific gender applied or met critical technical and safety qualifications, an explanation must be provided."

"Aviation/Aerospace Australia chief executive Ken McLean said progressive airlines around the world had abandoned the position of having women in the cabin and men in the cockpit.

Incentives and quotas have helped reverse this situation," he said. "The challenge now is to ensure women are well represented in the technical aspects of aviation, such as maintenance, dispatch and piloting."

Here we have nine pages (mostly) written by people who know the industry, who have well and truly explained the shortcomings of these policies, and explained how the industry works, Including (IMHO) a couple of excellent posts explaining the qualities of successful applicants, including self-motivation.

In seven posts, you've quoted, mis quoted, made vague reference to "studies" without links or citation, demonstrated a perception bias, made assertions without qualification, inferred intentions that were not written in the opening article and demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the aviation industry.

It's clear that you are not a professional Pilot and have nothing to contribute toward the subject of airline recruitment beyond nefarious statements about socialisation.

[Stanwell]

joe, .. .. .. :D

[Orange future]

Framer

“Isn't that the exact same thing as someone saying " The focus should…..”

Yes, it is the same argument although I suspect it would be a lot more difficult trying to guide men into to putting up with babies and toddlers than to guide women into flying jets. But if the childhood education department sees value in increasing the participation rate of men in order to achieve satisfactory staffing levels then good on them.

GG

“Often the girls find a bloke and settle down.”

True, I think it would be much harder for women to be involved in airline flying if plans included raising kids. As a dad I was able to sneak away for trips when the lads were young but my wife was much more entrenched in the whole process, most mothers are.

No one is expecting to see the imbalance shift from 5% to 50%, clearly that is not going to happen. But airlines have a right to try and at least encourage women if possible.

Joe

Is there a reason you are closed minded and aggressive when debating on the Internet? Its not required, most posters here with opinions apposed to mine don’t resort to such childish behavior.

Does it make you feel uncomfortable knowing I am a pilot. Are you aware that many pilots out there have opinions that differ from yours; they just cant be bothered debating someone who is so fragile?

[Orange future]

British Airways targeting female pilots with women making up only 5% of those currently employed - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/british-airways-targeting-female-pilots-5179518)

Lufthansa starts campaign to lure more female pilots | Business | DW.COM | 22.08.2013 (http://www.dw.com/en/lufthansa-starts-campaign-to-lure-more-female-pilots/a-17038588)

Women are targeted as new pilots for easyJet - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/news/women-are-targeted-as-new-pilots-for-easyjet-34110843.html)

Severe Asia-Pacific pilot shortage poses significant opportunity for trainers | Financial Post (http://business.financialpost.com/news/transportation/severe-asia-pacific-pilot-shortage-poses-significant-opportunity-for-trainers)

Women pilots for SIA planes a first for airline, Singapore News & Top Stories - The Straits Times (http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/women-pilots-for-sia-planes-a-first-for-airline)

JetBlue's Creative Solution to the Pilot and Diversity Shortage (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-schmertz/jetblues-creative-solution_b_9409774.html)

Emirates to attract more female Emirati pilots with new academy | GulfNews.com (http://gulfnews.com/business/aviation/emirates-to-attract-more-female-emirati-pilots-with-new-academy-1.1616752)

[BleedingAir]

What have those articles got to do with the actual topic? Nobody is seriously arguing that we shouldn't be encouraging females to apply for flying jobs.

There's a world of difference between actively encouraging a diverse range of applicants, and artificially engineering the M:F ratio at a particular stage of the recruitment process, which has already happened in certain jobs (e.g. police) and looks like a future reality in this industry.

If you can't differentiate between the two, there's no point in continuing the discussion.

[Pakehaboy]

Can we talk about the 3 transgender pilots I fly with,.....or is that out of line

[titan uranus]

I fly with an amputee - more amputees I say.

[titan uranus]

"one day lad, all this will be yours..."
"What? The curtains?"
"No! not the curtains lad..."

[das Uber Soldat]

Brilliant.

Melbourne University advertises female-only jobs in bid to remedy gender imbalance in maths - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-18/melbourne-university-opens-up-jobs-to-women-applicants-only/7426704)

:ugh:

[das Uber Soldat]

And to the muppets (eg oicur12.again) lecturing me that J* actively altering the interview and shortlist numbers is illegal. It isn't.

Equal Opportunity Act allows for positive discrimination

The University of Melbourne positions have been advertised using a special measure of the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act.

"The use of this kind of special measure that we're using has been used with regards to Indigenous employment," Professor Owczarek said.

"For this kind of positions, permanent continuing academic positions, I believe it might be the first time it's been used," he added.

Discrimination lawyer Rowan Skinner said the Act allows organisations to take actions to promote equality.

"The Act specifically permits an organisation to engage in what is overtly a discriminatory Act, but for the purposes of ensuring that there is equal opportunity overall," Mr Skinner said.

[clark y]

so can a male reassign themselves as a female, apply, get the job then re-reassign themselves as a male?

[twentyyearstoolate]

I think Tuesday is the "Ladies Night" for free drinks. Can someone let me know what day the "Mens night" is? :}

[t_cas]

I am concerned at what the future will hold for my children. I have both male and female children.
I am a practicing equalicist!!
Good grief.

[framer]

Boy oh boy I bet there are a few male maths academics who were aiming for those slots that are fuming right now.I imagine there aren't too many positions available to Melbourne based Maths academics and now there are three less if you were born with a todger.

[Orange future]

Bleeding Air

“…..which has already happened in certain jobs (e.g. police)”

See below, the police are subject to very different provisions of the Equal Opportunity Act, it does not imply a similar policy can be employed by JQ.

Uber

“And to the muppets (eg oicur12.again) lecturing me that J* actively altering the interview and shortlist numbers is illegal. It isn't.”

It is illegal.

The example of the university you have supplied in no way proves that JQ can therefore discriminate by applying a quota system to see more women employed.

Exceptions to the Equal Opportunity Act differ widely between schools, universities, sporting clubs, government employees and private sector employees.

Exceptions can be granted based upon a wide range of needs such as health and safety or special needs, just to name a few of many.

For sure, JQ could seek an exception to bias employment of pilots towards women. The request would, however, need JQ to demonstrate a Genuine Occupational Requirement that pilots employed by the company be women. For example, if strength or stamina was an issue.

JQ could not meet any of the exemption provisions, the law is very clear.

[V-Jet]

I fly with an amputee - more amputees I say.

Indeed Titan:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsdCGV0cY0s

[Horatio Leafblower]

Jetstar Aiming for 50% Gender Spilt in Interview Candidates

My mummy was a girl and my Daddy was a boy.

Doesn't that make me 50% female?

[das Uber Soldat]

For sure, JQ could seek an exception to bias employment of pilots towards women. The request would, however, need JQ to demonstrate a Genuine Occupational Requirement that pilots employed by the company be women. For example, if strength or stamina was an issue.
That's not how I read the law.

Jetstar doesn't need to seek an exemption. Under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010, exemptions are no longer needed in many situations as they were in the 1995 act – they are regarded as special measures.


Special measures

Under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 people and organisations can take positive steps to help disadvantaged groups. These are called ‘special measures’ under the Act.

This means that it is not unlawful discrimination to take a special measure that promotes substantive equality for a group of people who have one (or more) protected characteristics, such as race, sex or disability.

This is one of the ways the Act promotes substantive equality.

Special measures are NOT limited to Government departments and Educational institutions. They are available to private companies too. Lets look at the legislation itself.


Special measures
(1) A person may take a special measure for the purpose of promoting or realising substantive equality for members of a group with a particular attribute.

Examples;
1 A company (Private, just like J*!) operates in an industry in which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are under-represented. The company develops a training program to increase employment opportunities in the company for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.
2 A swimming pool that is located in an area with a significant Muslim population holds women-only swimming sessions to enable Muslim women who cannot swim in mixed company to use the pool.
3 A person establishes a counselling service to provide counselling for gay men and lesbians who are victims of family violence, and whose needs are not met by general family violence counselling services.

(2) A person does not discriminate against another person by taking a special measure. s. 12
(3) A special measure must—
(a) be undertaken in good faith for achieving the purpose set out in subsection (1); and
(b) be reasonably likely to achieve the purpose set out in subsection (1); and
(c) be a proportionate means of achieving the purpose set out in subsection (1); and
(d) be justified because the members of the group have a particular need for advancement or assistance.
(4) A measure is taken for the purpose set out in subsection (1) if it is taken—
(a) solely for that purpose; or
(b) for that purpose as well as other purposes.
(5) A person who undertakes a special measure may impose reasonable restrictions on eligibility for the measure.

I see nothing differentiating between a Universities ability to implement a special measure, and that of a private organization such as Jetstar. All they need to do is meet the burden listed in (2) and they're legal. If you believe this isn't the case, please cite the specific legislation.

Women in aviation have suffered historical discrimination (nobody here will deny that), and are numerically under represented in the field. This absolutely is grounds for J* to implement a special measure.

Further, I've asked about 30 times, all of you (2nd person plural) have simply skipped over it. Jetstar say they've been working hard for a year on adjusting the numerical balance of interview candidates and shortlist job positions. What are they actually doing? What evidence do you have for it?

[C441]

Heard an interesting rumour this morning that this may well extend beyond mere gender balancing at an entry level and is not confined to one group entity.

Challenge to seniority anyone?

[framer]

Can you elaborate C441?
I'm not sure what you're driving at.
Ta

[pilotchute]

441 is saying the act may be used to fast track commands outside of the established seniorority list.

[framer]

To what end?

[Orange future]

Das uber,

You call people muppets and then want them to provide the links for you.

I suggest you actually read the 149 page 2010 Act instead of just downloading the 2 page fact sheet.

I am well aware of employment law in Victoria and again, JQ will not be applying quotas.

"What are they actually doing? What evidence do you have for it?"

And i may have answered this before? I dont know what they are doing. Its not my company and not my business. All I know is what is published in the article:

".....aim for an even split....." and "an explanation must be provided" and "striving for better diversity".

Maybe they have started an ad campaign to convince girls considering the industry that it is totally possible. Maybe they are holding aviation forums at girls schools.

Its up to JQ as to how they achieve an "even split", but I assure you, it wont be by applying an employment quota.

Can I ask you das uber, why do you think JQ would want to discriminate against male pilots? What do you think would be the motivation?

[mikewil]

Can I ask you das uber, why do you think JQ would want to discriminate against male pilots? What do you think would be the motivation?

Bitter man-hating feminists in executive/HR positions with a chip on their shoulder.

[das Uber Soldat]

Das uber,

You call people muppets and then want them to provide the links for you.
No, I want you to provide this brand new thing called evidence. So far you've provided none and expect empty assertion to pass for argument. That's not how it works.

I suggest you actually read the 149 page 2010 Act instead of just downloading the 2 page fact sheet.
I have. Have you? Because if you had, you'd recognize that the 2nd quoted paragraph was the relevant section of the act itself, not something from a fact sheet.

I am well aware of employment law in Victoria and again, JQ will not be applying quotas.
Ah, the list of logical fallacies grows. This is one of my favorites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

"What are they actually doing? What evidence do you have for it?"

And i may have answered this before? I dont know what they are doing. Its not my company and not my business. All I know is what is published in the article:
Let me translate that for everyone here; "No, I don't have any evidence. But let me try to phrase it in such a way so that it doesn't sound so bad."

".....aim for an even split....." and "an explanation must be provided" and "striving for better diversity".

Maybe they have started an ad campaign to convince girls considering the industry that it is totally possible. Maybe they are holding aviation forums at girls schools.
Maybe they're building a rocket to take us to Mars too.

Its up to JQ as to how they achieve an "even split", but I assure you, it wont be by applying an employment quota.
Assure me based on what evidence?

Can I ask you das uber, why do you think JQ would want to discriminate against male pilots? What do you think would be the motivation?
The real question, the better question, is why did you ask this when the answer is so obvious? The reason is you're trying to pivot the debate away from that of the legality of the discriminatory practices of Jetstar, an argument you're rapidly losing (some say lost), into an inevitably circular and pointless argument about the motivations of the company, which isn't relevant and isn't something I'm interested in being caught up in.

So, lets recap.

Is J*'s stated aim illegal? It isn't.

Why? Because I've shown you specific legislation that enables it. When challenged, you have failed entirely to provide evidence otherwise.

This is why I call people muppets.

http://i.imgur.com/YdEJJB1.jpg

[Fly4Business]

What about hiring the Indigenous Female? That ticks 2 boxes and they can get on with the job..
Even better if she sits in a wheelchair, makes a tick at the disabled quota as well ...
When does this BS come to an end?
Pushing every selection to a "gender problem" does not help anything.

Had a fight with my female boss a while ago and was blamed to not accept her as superior because of her gender. I give a damn on it, leadership incapability is leadership incapability and has nothing to do with gender (except for those who got their job only due to quota not talent).

[Orange future]

Das Uber,

Kinda pointless going around in circles with your argument based largely on paranoia and siege mentality.

Best of luck, let me know if you find any reds under the bed.

[psycho joe]

If you click on the SMH link on the article in the opening post, then it becomes apparent that either a cash strapped Fairfax media has found a lot of money for a production company or that more likely this piece is a paid advertorial, which means that it was signed off by Jetstar management. Which brings me to the following points.

Firstly, the article specifically mentions quotas wrt increasing female participation and;
Secondly, that Jetstar are happy to exploit their female staff for advertising.

It's also interesting (well no it's not but I couldn't be bothered with a segue) that "orange future" is a handle made up entirely to use obfuscation to keep up banter in order to keep this thread at the top of the page. (As we've seen, when no one responds to orange future, then they respond to themselves in order to goad people into a response). We know that orange isn't a Pilot and they have very little knowledge of the industry. Make up your own minds about orange future's motivation here, but the good news is that you can kill off orange future by not responding to someone who's trying to keep an advertorial alive.

[das Uber Soldat]

Das Uber,

Kinda pointless going around in circles with your argument based largely on paranoia and siege mentality.

Best of luck, let me know if you find any reds under the bed.
A predictable and weak cop out.

I've posted evidence, I've invited you to do the same. If you're unable, that's on you. Nobody here is 'out to get you', but if you think everyone here is simply going to 'take your word for it' without a shred of supporting evidence, you're in the wrong forum.

Good bye.

[titan uranus]

I think this whole thread and its representative tension just reaffirms one thing; a dopey short term corporate trendy "philosophy" executed with traditional JQ hopelessness. It will fail and cause more damage than gain along the way.

[Orange future]

“Firstly, the article specifically mentions quotas wrt increasing female participation”

You are referring to:

"Incentives and quotas have helped reverse this situation,"

Yes, in the past, they have, although they have not been used in the airline industry in Australia to modify the gender makeup of cockpits. Can you name an airline where quotas were used to ensure more women were employed as pilots? More importantly, the article DOES NOT suggest that JQ are planning on introducing them.

You folk really are threatened by alternative points of view. Becoming aggressive simply highlights the lack of conviction you have in your arguments.

Lets come back to this debate in a year or so or maybe 3 and see how many female pilots JQ have fast tracked into the cockpit and how many men were sidelined based solely on gender.

[Pakehaboy]

Quote..."You folk really are threatened by alternative points of view. Becoming aggressive simply highlights the lack of conviction you have in your arguments."

Not at all,you just seem to have a view that most don't agree with,how is that" being threatened",Pot calling the kettle black I think

[Orange future]

".....you just seem to have a view that most don't agree with...."

But many people think the same as you? Based upon a tiny snapshot of the wider population from this thread?

Can you say group think?

[Pakehaboy]

I would lament the many comments (to you)made in this thread,....no one is "threatened" as you would like to put it.Im just trying to understand the picture here,and see both sides,no group thinking at all.You seem "testy" when presented with what I see as plausible retorts to yr view and points.

[Orange future]

Revealed: the $65,000 gender pay gap at the top of politics and public service (http://www.theage.com.au/national/public-service/revealed-the-65000-gender-pay-gap-at-the-top-of-politics-and-public-service-20160613-gphm21.html)

[iPahlot]

Revealed: the $65,000 gender pay gap at the top of politics and public service

And this has what to do with aviation exactly? As pointed out ad nauseum there is no pay gap in aviation!

[CurtainTwitcher]

And this has what to do with aviation exactly?
I think you may misunderstand the intention of Orange Futures post. The reason for posting seemingly unrelated information is to keep this thread from dying a natural death, that it ordinarily would. This is a well known forum Public Relations technique, to keep a clearly ideological agenda visible.

Every response (including mine), keeps the meme in people mind in an attempt to persuade and recruit support. Controversy is even better, as it keeps the thread bubbling to the top. Each time you visit the forum, there's the thread at the top and in your field of view. Each and every response, including this one, suits their purposes & agenda. I'm reluctant to post knowing this, and I have only done it to hopefully give some background to the process of forum hijacking the Orange Future has clearly demonstrated. I've only posted it because it has been forced back to the top by OF.

Orange Future will no doubt deny and rebutt this, even argue with itself if required in an effort to keep a zombie thread alive. Responses play right into their hands.

[Orange future]

So its over a year since our last discussion.

Im interested to know how many female pilots have been awarded cockpit jobs with Jetstar following the quota system they apparently were going to introduce?

[mattyj]

No no you misread..it's 50% at interviews

HR takes care of that..they're mostly all women

[Derfred]

They aren't the only ones.

Air Force Camps for young women - Royal Australian Air Force (http://www.airforce.gov.au/Our-People/Women-in-the-Air-Force/AF-Camps-for-Girls/?RAAF-HVTgNd3pT7d2RboXb7e2s2WwaG9PF0zO)

[Horatio Leafblower]

I would suggest that a certain predictable percentage of women will be deemed suitable it probably won't be the same percentage as suitable men - it might be more, might be less.
It won't be 50%.
I have hired 4 women and 6 men in the last 3 years, higher proportion of women hired than in the general pilot population. The women I have hired have been the best candidate on the day and I have never had cause to regret the decision or change my mind about the women I have hired.
...I have had some regrets about a small proportion of the males hired and let one of them go.
Without exception, the women I have hired have worked harder and been unrelentingly professional and dilligent compared to the blokes. They have been more loyal (averaging more than 2 years each) and less inclined to bugger off at the first whiff of something better.
They have all moved on with our blessings and the gratitude of our family business for working so hard for us.
Those blokes sitting back and whinging that the chicks are "taking all the jobs" or "getting all the promotions" probably need to worry less about what's between everyone's legs, and more about their own work ethic and professionalism.

[CurtainTwitcher]

Here is an article about an internal document that's floating around at Google on diversity in the tech industry criticising its ideological echo chamber. Although it extensively references software development, it could readily fit any technical or high stress field.

Exclusive: Here's The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google [Updated] (http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320/amp)

[Sunfish]

Female "Quotas" and talk of "gender equity" in any business in my experience means that the Board of the company are under pressure from the feminist lobby - an entity I call "The Old Girls Club" which is at least as powerful as the old boys network and can work publicly due to the current political correctness climate.

By that I mean, these people are treated as saintly campaigners for equality instead of the power hungry **** they really are.

Anyway "quotas" means that any female that applies and is remotely qualified will be appointed. It also usually means that any promotion of a male must be accompanied by a written explanation of why a female didn't get the job.

Unfortunately I've had direct experience of all of the above, including seeing two worthless individuals receive OA's.

[pilotchute]

When I was in the Australian Defence Force on the 90's and 00's we had a big gender push into many "men only" jobs.

I remember when submarine service opened to women. Flood of applicants initially as expected but then it pretty much dried up. The "hundreds" of women submariners never materialised.

I think aviation is the same. There just aren't the numbers of women interested to make it a 50/50 split. Nothing to do with ability, they probably just want a different career.

[josephfeatherweight]

I think aviation is the same. There just aren't the numbers of women interested to make it a 50/50 split. Nothing to do with ability, they probably just want a different career.
This. Why is it so hard to comprehend??

[neville_nobody]

This. Why is it so hard to comprehend

Because it doesn't fit the Feminazi agenda.

[Flyboy1987]

Because it doesn't fit the Feminazi agenda.

Absolutely. They want power positions. I don't see them fighting for a 50% gender split in the plumbing sector.

[titan uranus]

The Feminazi days are numbered as the experiment is, and was always going to be, a failure.
Poorly thought out and executed, a not uncommon trait, it suffered at the hands of its own bullyingly belligerent incompetence. Normalcy will ultimately return, as unavoidably (albeit sadly for the "culture & diversity" team - yes, there is one..), there's actually an airline to run in there somewhere...

[pilotchute]

On AM radio talk back this evening the subject of male teachers came up. Many schools said they would love more male teachers but when a position is advertised you get 100+ applications. Maybe 5% will be men. When 95% of the applicants are women then usually the top applicant is a women.

"As much as we would love more male teachers we have to hire the best applicants. If the best applicants aren't men then there isn't really much we can do".

So that is pretty solid proof that having a quota would mean that not the best applicants are getting hired.

[IsDon]

There's one place I'd like to see gender equality. HR.

It's no accident that this positive discrimination BS is coming from HR as they're 90% women.

When I see gender equality in HR demonstrated by HR then I'll give due credence to the concept. Until then I'll view it as the nonsense that it is.

[Left 270]

Don, you win PPRuNe for today.

[sheppey]

It's no accident that this positive discrimination BS is coming from HR as they're 90% women.
Which probably explains why the Jetstar Pilot interview process contains no technical questions but lots of warm and fuzzy stuff on getting on with the captain and resolving differences of opinion on the flight deck.

[ruprecht]

Which probably explains why the Jetstar Pilot interview process contains no technical questions but lots of warm and fuzzy stuff on getting on with the captain and resolving differences of opinion on the flight deck.

Or when they ask military pilots: "When did you exceed your customers expectations?"

"Ummm.... by bombing them twice."

[Orange future]

"The Old Girls Club which is at least as powerful as the old boys network”

Really? Fewer than a dozen CEO’s in Australia of the top 200 companies are women, less than 5% and yet they wield as much power as the old boys network?

“Anyway quotas means that any female that applies and is remotely qualified will be appointed.

You may have missed the point here; the argument is not exactly what constitutes a quota but rather are quotas actually in play. Which is why after 12 months I returned to pose the question: “how many female pilots have been awarded cockpit jobs with Jetstar following the quota system…..”

The answer thus far being precisely zero.

“This. Why is it so hard to comprehend??”

Not difficult to comprehend at all, it’s very much the case that women don’t see airline flying as a viable career of choice. The two questions that arise are firstly why and secondly what can be done about it.

“They want power positions.”

I suspect they want to be able to choose any career path society offers, just like men. Power, maybe, some people are like that. Are you implying that its bad when women seek power but not when men do?

“The Feminazi days are numbered as the experiment is…..”

I am keen to know exactly what this experiment entailed? Can you shed some light on exactly what you think feminism is about?

And more importantly, what exactly is “normalcy”?

“There's one place I'd like to see gender equality. HR.”

Human resources is a people job and such women tend to gravity towards the role more commonly than men. Should the imbalance be addressed? Of course it should, I am all for it.


“When I see gender equality in HR demonstrated by HR then I'll give due credence to the concept”

How would you like to see this inequality addressed?

“Which probably explains why the Jetstar Pilot interview process contains no technical questions but lots of warm and fuzzy stuff on getting on with the captain and resolving differences of opinion on the flight deck.”

Airlines all over the world are moving away from the technical side into more behavioral based questioning. A technical quiz can be easily gamed and is done so regularly. Behavioral, not so much and yet still important.

[neville_nobody]

There's one place I'd like to see gender equality. HR. It's no accident that this positive discrimination BS is coming from HR as they're 90% women.

It's actually worse than that they actively discourage male HR leaders to leave as companies see HR as an easy way of having women in senior leadership. There was a big article in one of the newspapers on this very issue, with men being told unofficially they will never be promoted, so they had to go and reinvent themselves somewhere else.

[CSTGuy]

“ it’s very much the case that women don’t see airline flying as a viable career of choice. The two questions that arise are firstly why and secondly what can be done about it?"

and

Human resources is a people job and such women tend to gravity towards the role more commonly than men. Should the imbalance be addressed? Of course it should, I am all for it.


Orange future (sic), your warped idealogy stands out for all to see. Your questions are not necessary. Nothing needs to be done about airline flying not being a viable career of choice for women. You asked your question like this fact is a negative or a problem in the industry. It is not. Everyone has choices in life, everyone is entitled to attempt any goal or achievement in life but the nature of many many things in society has delevopled to the extent that somethings in our modern world just aren't suited to everyone.

What can be done about YOUR issues? Nothing. We don't need to change an entire industry so mum can work part-time and be home everyday for school pickup and make the family meal. Unless you can design an aircraft that can fly at speeds that will cover the distances that the market dictates so you can be home every night, stop bleating that there exists a "problem" in our industry.

On the contrary, you should applaud all the people who willing chose their airline career and spend endless nights away from home, yet still love their job and don't complain that their job doesn't suit their lifestyle. (And don't demand or expect someone to foot the bill so you can stay at home to have children too!)

Additionally, to address your point about gender imbalance in HR - why does this need to be addressed? To address the bias that female HR delegates have for other females? Why are you "all for it?" To reiterate, we're all very lucky in this country that we have choices for virtually every facet of our lives, so to insinuate that all "inequalities" must be addressed is ludicrous. This is starting to sound like the breakdown of a civilised, structured, educated modern society.

[josephfeatherweight]

Not difficult to comprehend at all, it’s very much the case that women don’t see airline flying as a viable career of choice.
Well, respectfully, I disagree. I suggest that, like others have said, women are less inclined to WANT a career in airline flying - why do we need to artificially alter what they are interested in doing?

[pilotchute]

Here is a thought. Is there a quota for female truck drivers? How about female garbage collectors? Female concreters? Of course there isn't because they are blue collar working class jobs. There is an acute shortage of male teachers and nurses but I don't see anyone making a fuss about that.

Pilots, CEO's and politicians. Now they have some standing in the community. They are "high profile" jobs. Better get some quotas in quick to appease all the action groups and grab some quick votes.

[Sunfish]

orange future,, Google has just given the world an excellent example of just how authoritarian the feminist left actually is. Then of course there was the trader who was fired a few months ago for criticising a senior management hire decision that just happened to be a woman - he didn't even mention her gender.


As for the only X people in the top 200 are women, you might like to add government institutions to your survey.

But that is not all. It is legal and regarded as charitable to run mentoring and promotion classes for women and positively discriminate (see Emily's list) for a man to do the same for men would be universally condemned. Thats how PC we are.

[Homebrew1]

Bugger! Got three sons and two want to fly :( Should have had daughters. The worlds gone f***ed.

Oh and my wife just said "they should interview at least 50% to be midwives to be male!" She thinks JetStars policy is pathetic!

[mattyj]

Perhaps the place to start would be ensuring 50% of candidates starting flight school are woman?

[The Green Goblin]

Sorry sir, we can't take your money for flight training as we have a gender quota - said no hungry flying school ever.

[PoppaJo]

Deborah Lawrie from Tiger talks about the gender issue in this clip. Worth watching.

22:40, 40:00 are the parts.

iqmQNFotoeo

[Ascend Charlie]

How about the quota for LGBTPDGW*, for conjoined twins (there is only one pilot seat per side), for atheists, for blind people, and why don't cockpits have wheelchair access?



*the last few letters are for the dunces and gecko-watchers, who all need to be represented in aviation.

[das Uber Soldat]

Thats it. What makes women so special that they have special rules set up for them?

How many left handed people were recruited by Jetstar? How many Asian Jews? The list goes on forever.

One rule. Best person for the job.

The end.

[Icarus2001]

Airlines all over the world are moving away from the technical side into more behavioral based questioning. A technical quiz can be easily gamed and is done so regularly. Behavioral, not so much and yet still important.

I strongly disagree with what you are saying here. My bolding.

It is just as easy to prepare for the "warm & fuzzy" relationship questions as it is the technical.

The evergreen "tell us about a time your disagreed with a supervisor/captain/superior and how you dealt with it" Very easy to have a story ready, true or not, it does not affect the outcome.

There are many HR and consultant companies only too happy to teach you how to "pass" these questions. Some even have question banks for specific airlines.

Also your statement "airlines all over the world..." can you name two with specific examples? Otherwise it is a motherhood statement.

[601]

To reiterate, we're all very lucky in this country that we have choices for virtually every facet of our lives, so to insinuate that all "inequalities" must be addressed is ludicrous.

Hope it does not come to having a barcode imprinted on a newly born baby's forehead to indicate gender (50/50 split) and the occupation the baby shall follow based on the next occupation in the computer generated list.

What could be more PC that that.

[AEROMEDIC]

One rule. Best person for the job.

The end.

Absolutely right!
To drive for gender equality ignores the prime goal of the candidate selection process.
The BEST person for the job, no matter what their gender, should be the successful candidate.
I'd be happy with all female staff if they were the best candidates, and likewise all male.
However, available candidates at a given time will be a mix, and applicants who do not meet the criteria won't be considered.
A more even balance carried out professionally over the coming decades might occur...or might not.
To settle for less than the best does not provide the best outcome.

[Armchairflyer]

Not difficult to comprehend at all, it’s very much the case that women don’t see airline flying as a viable career of choice. The two questions that arise are firstly why and secondly what can be done about it.Why would there be a need to do anything about it in the first place? Pilotchute's statement "There just aren't the numbers of women interested to make it a 50/50 split. Nothing to do with ability, they probably just want a different career" is spot on and well backed by pertinent research (both regarding no noteworthy difference in ability and considerable difference in interest on a population level). For anyone interested in a more detailed overview (following the mentioned Google memo): https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/ (http://preview.tinyurl.com/ya7cmkcc) .

All for removing any barriers for women with sufficient interest and ability and even double-checking before picking a man "out of habit" or because of homophily. But stubbornly negating gender differences and attributing them to pure socialization/discrimination is simply an incorrect premise leading to flawed initiatives.

[CurtainTwitcher]

Good article, with even coverage of both sides of the argument Armchairflyer.
my bold
In conclusion, based on the meta-analyses we reviewed above, Damore seems to be correct that there are “population level differences in distributions” of
traits that are likely to be relevant for understanding gender gaps at Google and other tech firms. The differences are much larger and more consistent for
traits related to interest and enjoyment, rather than ability. This distinction between interest and ability is important because it may address one of the
main fears raised by Damore’s critics: that the memo itself will cause Google employees to assume that women are less qualified, or less “suited” for tech
jobs, and will therefore lead to more bias against women in tech jobs. But the empirical evidence we have reviewed should have the opposite effect.
Population differences in interest may be part of the explanation for why there are fewer women in the applicant pool, but the women who choose to enter the
pool are just as capable as the larger number of men in the pool. This conclusion does not deny that various forms of bias, harassment, and
discouragement exist and contribute to outcome disparities, nor does it imply that the differences in interest are biologically fixed and cannot be changed
in future generations.

When I see "diversity" demands for plumbers, electricians, truck drivers etc I will know we will have reached equality nirvana. Until then, it appears to me to be an agenda to cherry pick only the most desirable occupations and positions.

[parishiltons]

The whole concept is discriminatory in favour of both males and females. What about all those people whose gender falls somewhere in between?

[John Citizen]

What about all those people whose gender falls somewhere in between

They are not human.:p

[Captain Dart]

What about a quota for us &!!##! Tourette's Syndrome victims? I promise I won't swear over the f*#*ing PA.

[IsDon]

I'm not sure there's anyone, apart from HR, (but they live in a parallel universe totally separated from reality) men or women who think it's a good idea.

Obviously the men are clearly discriminated against on the basis of their gender. The women, on the other hand, who are advantaged by this policy, will always be stigmatised as people who only got the job because of their gender. The sad thing is many of these women would have made it in their chosen profession purely on their own merits and abilities. Sadly, they'll be forever tarred with the same brush.

This, and other HR thought bubbles, are a classic example of what happens when academics have free reign. HR parasites spew forth from universities without an iota of real world experience. Everything they know has been taught to them by academics, regurgitated from text books written by other academics. It's a complete farce. Most of them only did HR degrees because they had no drive or ambition to make anything worthwhile of their useless lives anyway. Finished their HSC and their parents told them to get out and get a job or go to uni. HR was the easiest option.

Ever want to see what the end game is? Have a look at the public school system in this country. A system run by hard left fruit cake academic women, pushing their leftist ideology where knowing the name of your local aboriginal tribe is more important than learning how to read. That system is a completely unworkable mess. That, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly what will happen in any industry that doesn't realise what harm HR and their lunatic nonsense is doing.

[dr dre]

Jeez calm down mate.

Before we go off on rants and burst our blood vessels, is there any evidence that women are actually being recruited to airlines in higher percentages than there are female pilots in total? Yes I know there are initiatives to encourage more women into aviation, but is JQ or any other company actually giving jobs preferentially to females? A post earlier on in this thread suggests that they aren't? I reckon the amount of new recruits at my company is roughly in proportion to the amount of females vs males I see at flying schools these days.

[Sunfish]

dr. dre, "the evidence" will be texts, emails and recordings of conversations within HR to the effect that the KPI to be achieved by HR is 50% gender split in recruited pilot numbers. This information MAY be discovered in a lawsuit.

The way this comes about is Board level conversations: "Hey Bro, wouldn't it be good for our market positioning if we were hip, cool and LGBT friendly starting with pilots and cabin crew? And wouldn't that differentiate us from Qantas?". "Yeah man, and that would make us cool with all that diversity **** going down with government as well".

"OK HR Department, take us in that direction"......And shortly you will get a puff piece in the Fairfax press about a couple of girls (Sarah and Julie) piloting a Jetstar B737 with an "incidental" paragraph about their partners (Susan and Elizabeth) and how great everything is. It's called virtue signalling. HR KPI achieved!

If you are male, white and your intended employer is talking about "diversity" then don't bother applying for a job.

To put that another way, its worse. If you are LGBT you are employable in preference to a heterosexual white male.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

is JQ or any other company actually giving jobs preferentially to females?

It's not the airlines, but have a good look at this (particularly the recommendations pp. 11-20): http://www.defence.gov.au/FOI/Docs/Disclosures/138_1617_Documents.pdf