Ladies in the sky

[Skippy69]

From a hiring point of view- do females get greater preference, I see some ladies getting positions that I would have thought that other colleagues where more suited for? Please leave sexism and misogyny out. Fairness is great, but sometimes I feel that at times it's too fair- if that makes sense.

[dr dre]

This topic again?

I see some ladies getting positions that I would have thought that other colleagues where more suited for?

I've never flown with a woman who I thought only got her job because of her gender. However I've lost count of the amount of males I've flown with and thought - "You're really only here because you're mates with the Chief Pilot or Recruiting staff" or somehow slipped through the cracks of the system.

[Skippy69]

That is a statement that I concur and resonate with, thanks for your perspective, I hadn't thought of it like that exactly. I do remember once reading many years ago that some Aus airlines where going for a 50/ 50 split of male and female pilots. My opinion at the time was that it would ultimately not be fair as I believe there's a large discrepancy between guys and girls in the air, perhaps 80/20??

[John Citizen]

If only about 5% of pilots are women, and only about 5% of the applicants are women, then one should only fairly expect about 5% of the employees to be female. Quotas should accurately represent the proportion of females actually applying. Isn't this fair?

Yes good and bad in both genders. I have seen quite a few incompetent male pilots get a job just because they were good drinking buddies with someone. But also a few women also got ahead in aviation just for being female. Good and bad on both sides.

[Ascend Charlie]

Look at the government now, a couple of senior ministers, including Defence, are gone, and the screeching call is to put women in the job. Not the best person, just a woman. Gotta have 50/50 they say. Horsefeathers.

[wheels_down]

A previous female instructor I flew with actually acknowledged this and said she might as well ride the wave while it was available to her. (Mind you she was very good regardless of free passes and is now a senior tre).

Trying to even up the ratios in higher end positions, thinking Jetstar Chief Pilot, when they are possibly not ready, never ends well.

[dr dre]

Every single pilot has at least one identity attribute that others can point at and say “you only got your job because of that”.

Gender or ethnicity, or maybe they went to an exclusive private school, or a flying school which was well connected. May have gotten help through their ex military mates or the guys they flew with in GA, might have been a cadet, might have had family connections. Might have been right place right time. Might have been the first one to submit an application, may have a surname starting with “A” and was the first one called. May have been drinking beer with the Chief Pilot at the time.

Trouble is when major carriers recruit the number of applicants usually vastly exceeds the number of positions available. Most people who apply are good people and would make a good fit. So recruiting staff sometimes have to be a bit brutal when they cut numbers down, and unfortunately some people who would’ve made fantastic pilots miss out for what they may perceive to be petty reasons. And sometimes they believe they were victims of others pushing an agenda.


From what I’ve heard (anecdotally) from those involved in airline recruitment (a few years ago when there was recruitment) is % of females who applied roughly matches the percentage of females who were offered a job.

[dr dre]

Look at the government now, a couple of senior ministers, including Defence, are gone, and the screeching call is to put women in the job. Not the best person, just a woman. Gotta have 50/50 they say. Horsefeathers.

Considering how those ministers have been performing on the job recently I can confidently say there was no way they got their jobs on merit or being the “best person for the job”.....

[PoppaJo]

Fairness? Females?

It’s a drop in the ocean compared to the fairness dished out of the old boys clubs, mates looking after mates culture which I have had the pleasure of working alongside my entire career. Some people should not be in the left seat, some people should have long retired. FOs should not carrying people in the left seat.

CPs need to pickup the game. The next generation of CPs will be interesting as we cycle out this old generation. I reckon standards will actually improve. Mates Clubs will vanish. They will be different cultures inside. Sadly I won’t be apart of it .

[dr dre]

Fairness? Females?

It’s a drop in the ocean compared to the fairness dished out of the old boys clubs, mates looking after mates culture which I have had the pleasure of working alongside my entire career. Some people should not be in the left seat, some people should have long retired. FOs should not carrying people in the left seat.

CPs need to pickup the game. The next generation of CPs will be interesting as we cycle out this old generation. I reckon standards will actually improve. Mates Clubs will vanish. They will be different cultures inside. Sadly I won’t be apart of it .

100%. There's more than a few (mostly older but not always) pilots who only keep flying due to being mates with management or training pilots or sim instructors. I've had the pleasure of sitting in a sim next to guys whom even the instructor knows shouldn't be in there but they can't do anything because of who his mates are. Pathetic.

On the contrary I've flown with women who've told me they feel they need to study extra hard for sims, be extra dedicated at work, be on the ball all the time to not make errors because if they do the "you only got your job because of your gender" comments start.

[Lambswool]

If only about 5% of pilots are women, and only about 5% of the applicants are women, then one should only fairly expect about 5% of the employees to be female. Quotas should accurately represent the proportion of females actually applying. Isn't this fair?


I know it is not the way you intended it. But this is part of the problem as 5% of applicants should certainly not equal 5% of employees. In order to reach the unrealistic 50/50 quota applicant suitability may have a gender bias over suitability based on merit and experience.

Quotas should accurately reflect the porportion of "suitable" pilots not just applicants.

[morno]

Fairness? Females?

It’s a drop in the ocean compared to the fairness dished out of the old boys clubs, mates looking after mates culture which I have had the pleasure of working alongside my entire career. Some people should not be in the left seat, some people should have long retired. FOs should not carrying people in the left seat.

CPs need to pickup the game. The next generation of CPs will be interesting as we cycle out this old generation. I reckon standards will actually improve. Mates Clubs will vanish. They will be different cultures inside. Sadly I won’t be apart of it .

Ahh yes, the old “Ansett Club”. What’s that? You want to join our company but you’ll be down the bottom of the seniority list as an FO for 10 years? No problem, we’ll just create a new position within flight ops management for you and you’ll be a captain.

Make, female, whatever happened to just being a human and getting on with the job irrespective of what sex (or persuasion) you are? Honestly, if I were in charge of recruiting, I wouldn’t give 2 ***** if you’re male or female, capability is where it should be.

[PoppaJo]

Ahh yes, the old “Ansett Club”. What’s that? You want to join our company but you’ll be down the bottom of the seniority list as an FO for 10 years? No problem, we’ll just create a new position within flight ops management for you and you’ll be a captain.

Make, female, whatever happened to just being a human and getting on with the job irrespective of what sex (or persuasion) you are? Honestly, if I were in charge of recruiting, I wouldn’t give 2 ***** if you’re male or female, capability is where it should be.

Trust me it’s no joke. Being part of recruitment at a previous operator, I rejected one and said yes to another. The rejection had a sook to my boss who he knew from waaaay back as he told me multiple times in the interview, and ended up getting a free pass in. I wasn’t impressed and they understood that and they never rostered me on with that person. I’m ex AN but over that culture.

I hired on ability and attitude. I couldn’t give a rats who you knew in the place. Most successful with myself were all just humans and sat in the 30-40 year bracket.

[krismiler]

With male applicants vastly outnumbering female ones for pilot jobs, it is much more likely that a suitable female will find herself employed as the company can easily knock back 90% of male applicants but cannot knock back female ones at the same rate or they wouldn't have any women pilots.

An operator with a 100% male pilot group which had female pilots apply but had rejected them could face accusations of discrimination, and they know this, hence the acceptance rate for female applicants will be much higher than for males as they need to be represented in the workforce.

A company might be willing to accept an applicant who is 80% of what they consider ideal, but in an employers market might easily be able to fill vacancies with candidates who are 90%. It is quite possible that a lower scoring female would get preference over a higher scoring male as long as she was above the minimum acceptable level, in order to ensure an adequate level of representation.

If 50% of applicants were female and of the same standard as the male applicants, then the rejection rate could be the same and 50% of the workforce would be female. When something you need is in short supply, you can't afford to be too fussy.

[tolip1]

Women have to work doubly hard to push through this nonsense. Any of them that get to the flight deck is more than good enough.

You are part of the problem OP.

[Lookleft]

Ahh yes, the old “Ansett Club”. What’s that? You want to join our company but you’ll be down the bottom of the seniority list as an FO for 10 years? No problem, we’ll just create a new position within flight ops management for you and you’ll be a captain.

Then there was the new entrant who benefited from the demise of Ansett but actively descriminated against any former Ansett pilot considered "suspect". The funny thing was they still ended up with an ex-Ansett pilot as CP.

[Icarus2001]

The ladies I fly with are all indistinguishable from their male colleagues as far as flying goes.
More importantly ALL of them are against a quota for women in ANY field.

If Mr Joyce wants 50% female pilots great. On the same day he brings in that dream I expect to see 50% male cabin crew and 50% female engineers, tug drivers, baggage handlers. Oh and 50% women on the Qantas board and 50% men at check in desks.

If 50% is desirable for parliament and the flight deck then balance it up everywhere!

[George Glass]

“The ladies I fly with are all indistinguishable from their male colleagues as far as flying goes.
More importantly ALL of them are against a quota for women in ANY field.”

Agree.
Where I work being female hasn’t been an issue for a long time.
Two pilot operations are a great leveller. Either you can do it or you cant. You work together. If you cant your reputation precedes you very quickly. Male or female.
But quotas are a mistake.
I have seen preferential selection go pear-shaped about 30 years ago when this whole discussion started. It ended badly for the individuals involved.
Its been done before and we don’t need to repeat the mistake.

[Blueskymine]

Trust me it’s no joke. Being part of recruitment at a previous operator, I rejected one and said yes to another. The rejection had a sook to my boss who he knew from waaaay back as he told me multiple times in the interview, and ended up getting a free pass in. I wasn’t impressed and they understood that and they never rostered me on with that person. I’m ex AN but over that culture.

I hired on ability and attitude. I couldn’t give a rats who you knew in the place. Most successful with myself were all just humans and sat in the 30-40 year bracket.

Wouldn’t be an FO now in cairns would he?

[finestkind]

The quota system is justified by placing an appropriate number, 50%, of women in all position to break the glass ceiling that is strengthened by women not having role models in these areas. So we place women in these areas to provide role models so that more women see these career options as an viable pathway. A couple of problems with this. As indicated women do not see a lot of careers as viable due to “women not being able to do the job”. So women are given a chance to do the job and due to being placed in a position where they are not suited (with better male candidates being passed by) for have a high failure rate which just reinforces the perception that women cannot do the job. The amendment to the system (generally training) that allows a better chance of success for women. Argumentatively a negative as one once had to achieve a certain standard to continue. Also very argumentative that it was time for training systems to be revamped and not rely on what was a WW11 stringent filter.

There is no reason why a women cannot do any job. Worked with plenty that were excellent professional’s. Also worked with many that were there due to gender. As pointed out there are males that question the selection/training/promotion system as well.

[dr dre]

So women are given a chance to do the job and due to being placed in a position where they are not suited (with better male candidates being passed by) for have a high failure rate which just reinforces the perception that women cannot do the job.

What evidence do you have to back up that statement?

[Flyboy1987]

My previous career was in the trades in the mining sector.

I sat in the hiring for apprentices.

We had one young fella who attended, he was perfect. He had tailored all his school subjects to put himself in the best position for an electrical trade, it’s all he wanted to do. His interview was on the mark.
Exactly what we were looking for apart from one thing, he was male.

Instead, HR insisted we hired a female (one applied). She had no real interest but had heard sparkies make good money.

She got the job, lasted 6 months then quit and worked in retail i last heard.

the young fella went onto another mine site and won the state apprentice of the year...twice.
Last I heard he had completed his engineering degree which he studied during his apprenticeship.

So I can tell you right now, big companies do hire based on gendar alone.
It’s nothing new.

[dr dre]

Anecdotes aren’t evidence. The claim was made that women have a “high failure rate” on the job, and since this is an aviation thread I assume that means sim checks, line checks, promotional courses etc. Are there any verified numbers out there to back up that statement?

[havick]

Anecdotes aren’t evidence. The claim was made that women have a “high failure rate” on the job, and since this is an aviation thread I assume that means sim checks, line checks, promotional courses etc. Are there any verified numbers out there to back up that statement?

If chicks were meant to fly the sky would be pink? 🙄

[ruprecht]

I think this misses the point.

The purpose of diversity isn't or certainly should not be to accept inferior candidates from under represented groups.

The purpose is to develop a more diverse pipeline of candidates.

If only 5% of applicants are female, the objective must be to find ways to raise the number of suitable female applicants.

Once they have applied, the usual rules should apply.
Of course, but that is a long term fix that does not fit neatly into an election cycle. :hmm:

[j3pipercub]

Quota systems do not work. Never have, never will.

Give me a meritocracy or give me death.

I have a cousin who is an early childhood teacher. The attitudes she displays toward the quota system in her industry for males is an almost mirror of the attitudes displayed here. Although somewhat darker. Instead of "she just 'knew' the right people", the conversation becomes "why would a grown man want to teach young kids, that's creepy and risky to give them access" and they are not alone in this view. I am sure the same types of conversations are had in the nursing community. I feel these conversations and comments are a direct result of the personal injustice of quota systems.

Instead of quota systems, we need an organic grass roots system that instills in our children that they can be whatever they want to be and can work in whatever career they want. But as ruprecht stated, that takes time.

j3

[Global Aviator]

Here’s a way to solve the problem.

If you have a Willy on your next application circle F. You identify as a female, you are female.

Problem solved. Thank me later...

:D
:ok:

[TinFoilhat2]

What evidence do you have to back up that statement?

The very fact there is a quota system is all the evidence you need. You stated you have flown with sub standard male pilots, well so have I. You also stated earlier all the women you flew with were basically top notch ace pilots, I call BS on that as a statistical improbability.

I also have flown with some great female aviators and some that should not be allowed to operate a toaster let alone a passenger jet. There is nothing misogynistic or sexist in that, it is simply an observable fact that many a TRI/TRE around the world will agree with as they have seen the same thing..

You are clearly some sort of feminist and that's fine but please stop with denying there have been some shocking female pilots because its just not true. I am the father of a daughter and I encourage her to chase her dreams as often as possible but I also am realistic with her, I let her know she is dealing with other peoples lives in things like aviation, medicine, engineering etc. and she has to meet the standards required to be successful in these fields, not to expect a hand out because she is female. I want her knowing when she gets to where she is going she can confidently say she absolutely earned it on her own merits.

I agree it would be great to see a 50% representation of women in all fields including engineering, baggage handling, tug driver, pilot, board members etc. but lets not kid ourselves, positive discrimination or a quota system was designed to discriminate against mainly 'White men' who dominate these industries.

Another point of interest is young men today are paying for the sins of the father and the old AN boys club or Qantas boys club. How fair is that? Why should a 20 year old kid today be punished because of so called past injustices. Dont even try to justify that because there is no good answer for that, merit is the only yard stick that should be used to measure the success of these candidates regardless of what happened in the past.

The fact that there are just not as many women interested in aviation (that is a fact by the way) does not seem to matter to these clowns in charge who will do anything for even representation but also as another poster pointed out, it only seems to apply in the 'Glory Jobs' never plumbers, street sweepers, car mechanics etc.

On top of that if you are also saying that current representation is about 5% and about 5% of applicants are women well then that is a 100% success rate on hiring, again absolute BS to suggest every woman hired as a pilot has 'Met the Grade', I call absolute BS on that one also because I have seen it first hand. There have been some very good ones and some very bad ones.

I just dont believe every woman you have flown with is that good, more like your feminist credentials kicking in here or you have only ever flown with 1 or 2 women. I am all for women in aviation, just drop the quota or positive discrimination nonsense and go for a job and achieve it on merit otherwise do not expect the support and respect of your peers.

[finestkind]

What evidence do you have to back up that statement?
I think that TinFoilhat2 has given a reasonable response.
I appreciate that facts to support such claims of lesser quality people being given jobs over better ones due to gender would be nice but how do you suggest anything besides anecdotal evidence. Do you think someone is going to stand up and say "my superior instructed me to fill these positions with specific gender candidate irrelevant of their ability"? Many applicants are aware of this and are loath to create a stir, but I am surprised someone has not pressed to test which would be difficult without knowing your ranking.
It has been going on for years and is called the quota system.
My Canadian mate told me, must be close to 40 years ago, that one quarter of graduating pilots going to fast jet would be French Canadian and it did not matter if only one on course was FC and came last on course he would go to fast jets.

[dr dre]

The very fact there is a quota system is all the evidence you need.

Is there? So we do know that some of the Academy and cadet classes have a 50/50 gender ratio, but they have only been a small minority of training positions. As far as making it onto a jet I believe in the last wave of recruitment at Australian airlines (up until last year) the percentage of female applicants for positions (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/584827-qantas-recruitment-32.html#post9702574) was roughly the same as job offers. My own personal observation was it was around 10-15%. Industry stats show licences issued in 2010-15 were 8-9% female (http://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/AviationWorkforceSkillsStudy.pdf), increasing each year I think with a lot of commercial aviation like ag flying would be more male dominated so a higher proportion of females would be attracted into airlines. So 10-15% of new hires being female in 2015-20 isn't unexpected or as a result of a quota. It is still a minority of overall recruitment, nowhere near 50/50.

From what I'm also told most of the recruiting process is de-identified, when sorting through interview results, aptitude and sim test results the candidate's details and even name aren't disclosed to ensure process is as fair as possible.

Now what I do believe is airlines have stated they Aim to move recruitment closer to 50/50, but not through a quota. They aim to do this via increasing the pool of females wanting to fly. Whether it be via Advertising, media appearances, careers days, school visits, greater visibility etc. There's nothing wrong with that in of itself and that isn't a quota system. There's lots of historical reasons why women haven't been involved in aviation and some have decided it's time to change that.

This may have worked, I read somewhere in the recent past (can't find it just now) that recent classes at some of the aviation uni degrees have been closer to 20-40% female. So that's young people interested in Aviation careers who are enrolling in a degree of their own free will, not just being "gifted" a position because of a "quota". So more females are now freely choosing flying as a career than even 10 years ago, again, not the result of preferential quotas.

You are clearly some sort of feminist


Hmmm, wouldn't have used that word to describe myself. I just think a lot of the gripes here against females are a bit overblown.

On top of that if you are also saying that current representation is about 5% and about 5% of applicants are women well then that is a 100% success rate on hiring,


Sorry, you may have to look at your maths there. 5% of pilots being female and 5% of applicants being female doesn't mean it's a 100% success rate in recruitment for females.

merit is the only yard stick that should be used to measure the success of these candidates

And this is where it can get a bit complicated. I think most people who aim for a pilot role will make good pilots. However generally the amount of good applicants usually exceeds positions. So take the best on "merit", easy huh? Well, what defines "merit"? A lot of different answers will flow.

I've asked this question to people and have had dozens of answers. "Best pure stick and rudder skills". "Most total hours". "All ex military first of all". "All ex PNG". "Best Maths and Physics scores" "had their CPL the longest". "Didn't train at a sausage factory". "Good blokes who you can sink beers with on overnights". Then the more personality type answers, communications skills, decision making, empathy, judgement, maturity, etc. In reality it is a combination of a lot of things, and I think there's now probably more emphasis on things that women may do slightly better at, especially in late teens early twenty somethings. It has been proven that females generally mature a bit quicker than men. I wonder if that is observed more in recruiting these days? Maybe that's the cause of cadet recruits, who are likelier to be younger, to be more skewed toward women.

I wonder if the resentment toward the so called "HR" method of recruitment is producing pilots who whilst competent don't fit into the traditional mold of what some believe a pilot should be. I remember once hearing about a so called incompetent female pilot, upon flying with her I wondered what the fuss was about, then I realised the criticism was things like "she's too soft", "she's too nice towards cabin crew, they'd walk over her in an emergency", "her hobbies outside of work aren't what real pilots would find interesting". Nonsense like that. But she was fine.

So is it because how airlines have defined what "merit" is that we see more women in flight decks? Perhaps, you can hardly call that a quota system though.

[krismiler]

I find it entirely believable that women would have a higher failure rate. A top employer such as QF can easily reject 95% of male applicants and only take the top percentile however because the number of female applicants is much lower, the number of females with top percentile scores would also be much lower. The females with top percentile scores would be just as good as the males with top percentile scores but far fewer in number therefore lower scoring females need to be taken on to make up the numbers.

On average then, the female cohort would be of a lower standard than the male one as it would be comprised of a mixture of top scorers and lower scores bought in to make up the quota, where as the male one would be composed of only high scorers.

This applies to the hiring of any minority group, if QF was found not to employ enough male pilots with red hair and had to increase their numbers then the ginger tops would have a higher fail rate.

[Tinribs]

I flew for bmi for twenty years then eastern for five.
Mostly the females were better than the males given age and experience.
I only ever flew with one female who was not well up to the job; mostly because she didn't like it or the men she worked with
On one particular event, bust windscreen spitting hot glass fragments, the female with me was perfect
There were a number of males I wished were working with someone else

[Climb150]

I say make all the ladies management. The guys have proven mostly out of their depth at places I have worked at.

At least the Lady management I have worked with admit when they need help. The guys just blunder through making a mess of everything.

[maggot]

Crikey, this thread.

I'd trade every arrogant boomer in my co for ladies in an instant

[Keg]

From what I'm also told most of the recruiting process is de-identified, when sorting through interview results, aptitude and sim test results the candidate's details and even name aren't disclosed to ensure process is as fair as possible.

Nope. Not ‘most’. Normally only the final step where those deciding who gets in don’t see the names/ sex/ etc. The rest of the process is definitely not- why would they bother asking ‘male’ or ‘female’ as part of the recruiting process.

The question you should ask is who puts the de-identified names forward to the decision makers. They most certainly DO know the identities of those they are putting up.

There was also an interesting study done in the Public service a couple of years back where they discovered that when using de-identified applications, less women and people of colour got jobs. IE if there was a bias, it was a bias against white blokes (https://behaviouraleconomics.pmc.gov.au/projects/going-blind-see-more-clearly-unconscious-bias-australian-public-service-aps-shortlisting).

The results showed that overall, de-identifying applications at the shortlisting stage does not appear to assist in promoting diversity within the APS in hiring. Overall, APS officers discriminated in favour of female and minority candidates.

Notice too the language used to describe the study results? Not explicitly stated is that the processes already in use show there is a bias in the normal process towards women and minority candidates, but that the blind methodology does not ‘assist in promoting diversity’.


In reality it is a combination of a lot of things, and I think there's now probably more emphasis on things that women may do slightly better at, especially in late teens early twenty somethings. It has been proven that females generally mature a bit quicker than men. I wonder if that is observed more in recruiting these days? Maybe that's the cause of cadet recruits, who are likelier to be younger, to be more skewed toward women.


This is a fair point. Certainly in larger organisations you should ask who is designing the assessment process? Female representation in HR far exceeds male representation. (Try this link (https://mortenkamp.com/2013/07/15/why-are-there-so-many-women-in-hr/).) Do you think that this could result in a selection process that is also skewed towards traits that females find important? Certainly the lack of technical questioning in certain airlines in recent times seems to devalue the technical expertise in the job. The lines of ‘they’ve got a CPL so they’ve demonstrated their technical skill’ and the follow on of ‘we assess technical competency in the sim’ were particularly eye opening.

I don’t care what sex you are/ were/ want to be, I just want someone competent sitting beside me- and we’re doing ourselves a disservice if we’re not seeking the best person available. There shouldn’t be anything in the selection process that detracts from that outcome.

[krismiler]

The problem with giving jobs to the best candidates is that certain demographics may predominant and there won’t be enough diversity. In the USA for example, Jews are heavily over represented in the field of neurosurgery and basketball teams are almost entirely comprised of tall young black males.

This is being noticed in university admission as well where Asians and Jews score higher on entrance exams and get admitted in a much higher percentage than the percentage they make up of the general population.

[Mach E Avelli]

The problem with giving jobs to the best candidates is that certain demographics may predominant and there won’t be enough diversity. In the USA for example, Jews are heavily over represented in the field of neurosurgery and basketball teams are almost entirely comprised of tall young black males.

This is being noticed in university admission as well where Asians and Jews score higher on entrance exams and get admitted in a much higher percentage than the percentage they make up of the general population.

Are you saying that is a 'problem'? If someone is going to do brain surgery on you, wouldn't you want the best neurosurgeon? If you were bankrolling a basketball team wouldn't you want the best players?
If some demographics happen to often be superior in certain fields, that may be seen by some as 'over representation' but, hey, tough - Charles Darwin did not believe we were all equal either. We are neither destined nor entitled to those things for which we have little aptitude.
Any good, competent chick should make it in aviation without any help from biased recruitment programs. And any bad, incompetent pilot of whatever gender/colour/sexual orientation/religion should be weeded out by the check & training department.
Those of us that do this job are the final line of defence, touchy-feely quotas or not.

[neville_nobody]

The problem with giving jobs to the best candidates is that certain demographics may predominant and there won’t be enough diversity. In the USA for example, Jews are heavily over represented in the field of neurosurgery and basketball teams are almost entirely comprised of tall young black males.

This is being noticed in university admission as well where Asians and Jews score higher on entrance exams and get admitted in a much higher percentage than the percentage they make up of the general population.

Harvard have been taken to court about discriminating against students of Asian heritage to maintain diversity.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-02/harvard-cleared-of-discriminating-against-asian-americans/11566354

Are you saying that is a 'problem'? If someone is going to do brain surgery on you, wouldn't you want the best neurosurgeon? If you were bankrolling a basketball team wouldn't you want the best players?

Exactly. The NBA is racist for a reason.

[krismiler]

The Asian Americans should be suing the NBA for not having enough of them in professional basketball teams. There is covert discrimination in placing the hoops high up on the basketball court, short people can’t reach them. The hoops need to either be lowered or a special hoop installed further down to even things up.

The African Americans can’t complain about this as they benefit from programs such as Affirmative Action and Minority Scoring to help them obtain employment in areas where they are underrepresented.

If Jews are over represented in the field of neurosurgery then it must be because the training and selection process has been set up to favour them. A quota system ensuring that all races and genders are appropriately represented in the professional fields could be introduced. A Jewish student might find that he couldn’t go into medicine but could easily play basketball instead.

Alternatively, it could be ensured that equal opportunity is given to all and selection procedures are scrupulously fair and transparent, the only criteria being ability to do the job. If having the best people in appropriate positions means that certain demographics are over represented in some areas and underrepresented in others then we have to live with that.

[George Glass]

The Asian Americans should be suing the NBA for not having enough of them in professional basketball teams. There is covert discrimination in placing the hoops high up on the basketball court, short people can’t reach them. The hoops need to either be lowered or a special hoop installed further down to even things up.

The African Americans can’t complain about this as they benefit from programs such as Affirmative Action and Minority Scoring to help them obtain employment in areas where they are underrepresented.

If Jews are over represented in the field of neurosurgery then it must be because the training and selection process has been set up to favour them. A quota system ensuring that all races and genders are appropriately represented in the professional fields could be introduced. A Jewish student might find that he couldn’t go into medicine but could easily play basketball instead.

Alternatively, it could be ensured that equal opportunity is given to all and selection procedures are scrupulously fair and transparent, the only criteria being ability to do the job. If having the best people in appropriate positions means that certain demographics are over represented in some areas and underrepresented in others then we have to live with that.

George Orwell would be proud..........

[Ascend Charlie]

The pilot recruits had been filtered and sifted, and the short list was down to 3 - all women. They were taken, one by one, into the boss's office with the HR dude.
The HR specialist asked each one a single question: "What is one and one?"
One of them answered "Two"
One answered "11"
and the last one answered "10". They were ushered out, and the HR dude started analysing their answers.
"The first one said 2, she is a straight shooter, gives the right answer immediately."
"The second one said "11", showing that 1 and 1, side by side, makes 11, she is a lateral thinker and a good problem solver."
"The third one said "10" which is correct in binary maths - this girl will be a whizz on the computing side and will easily handle the complex electronics in the cockpit. Which one do you choose?"
The boss replied "The one with the big tits."

[Krautwald]

There´s always that one guy with a tit joke....although in this case, the joke may indeed be on the hiring dinosaur.

However, the most valuable lesson here is the self image required for a member of group A, to view themselves as legitimate jurors of group B. Most blokes I know hate it and call it -isms when the same kind of scrutiny is applied to group "men", but see no problem in exercising their right to discuss, judge, categorize and grant tolerance to (or not) females, gay people or other "others".

[TinFoilhat2]

I think this misses the point.

The purpose of diversity isn't or certainly should not be to accept inferior candidates from under represented groups.

The purpose is to develop a more diverse pipeline of candidates.

If only 5% of applicants are female, the objective must be to find ways to raise the number of suitable female applicants.

Once they have applied, the usual rules should apply.

Now that's a statement I can agree with 100%, its the best description I have heard on what is meant to happen!

[TinFoilhat2]

The Asian Americans should be suing the NBA for not having enough of them in professional basketball teams. There is covert discrimination in placing the hoops high up on the basketball court, short people can’t reach them. The hoops need to either be lowered or a special hoop installed further down to even things up.

The African Americans can’t complain about this as they benefit from programs such as Affirmative Action and Minority Scoring to help them obtain employment in areas where they are underrepresented.

If Jews are over represented in the field of neurosurgery then it must be because the training and selection process has been set up to favour them. A quota system ensuring that all races and genders are appropriately represented in the professional fields could be introduced. A Jewish student might find that he couldn’t go into medicine but could easily play basketball instead.

Alternatively, it could be ensured that equal opportunity is given to all and selection procedures are scrupulously fair and transparent, the only criteria being ability to do the job. If having the best people in appropriate positions means that certain demographics are over represented in some areas and underrepresented in others then we have to live with that.

Please tell me this tripe is a wind up?

[TinFoilhat2]

The pilot recruits had been filtered and sifted, and the short list was down to 3 - all women. They were taken, one by one, into the boss's office with the HR dude.
The HR specialist asked each one a single question: "What is one and one?"
One of them answered "Two"
One answered "11"
and the last one answered "10". They were ushered out, and the HR dude started analysing their answers.
"The first one said 2, she is a straight shooter, gives the right answer immediately."
"The second one said "11", showing that 1 and 1, side by side, makes 11, she is a lateral thinker and a good problem solver."
"The third one said "10" which is correct in binary maths - this girl will be a whizz on the computing side and will easily handle the complex electronics in the cockpit. Which one do you choose?"
The boss replied "The one with the big tits."

Hhahahahahaha...gave me a good chuckle!!

[TinFoilhat2]

There´s always that one guy with a tit joke....although in this case, the joke may indeed be on the hiring dinosaur.

However, the most valuable lesson here is the self image required for a member of group A, to view themselves as legitimate jurors of group B. Most blokes I know hate it and call it -isms when the same kind of scrutiny is applied to group "men", but see no problem in exercising their right to discuss, judge, categorize and grant tolerance to (or not) females, gay people or other "others".

It must be very tiring being you!!

Are you just perpetually offended and looking to be angry all the time?

[krismiler]

Please tell me this tripe is a wind up?​​​​​​

Of course it's a wind up.

I'm in favour of best person for the job and am more concerned that everyone has equal opportunities. No one should be held back or advanced on the basis of belonging to a minority group. Standards should be the same for everyone with the aim of getting the best people, it's known as meritocracy.

Unfortunately the PC mob don't agree and want to see a certain percentage of minority groups in all areas, and unfortunately this results in a lowering of standards in order to meet quotas.

The Police need to have female officers for reasons such as searching women suspects and dealing with rape victims. Whilst they are not as good in a physical confrontation, women often have better communication skills and can defuse a difficult situation better than a testosterone fuelled male officer out to prove himself. Women are invaluable to the police and it would be difficult for the force to operate effectively without them.

Airlines do not need to have women pilots, however should they choose a flying career then they should have the same opportunities as the men and there should be no favouritism or discrimination shown. The top percentile are just as good and should be hired on merit, it's doing them no favours when the female average is dragged down by the bottom percentile who were employed only to make up the numbers.

Rather than setting targets for women pilots, airlines should be making sure that the playing field is completely level and they simply employ the best applicants for the job regardless of gender, race or sexual orientation. I regularly fly with female F/Os and have no issues with this, our selection procedure is even handed and those who got through did so because they deserved to, not because we need to achieve a certain percentage.

The issue of race and university entrance in the USA is an interesting one, do they simply take the best scoring applicants which results in the intake being comprised largely of Asian and Jewish students, or do they have quotas which would give a diverse intake, enable social mobility and all races the opportunity to advance ?

[Krautwald]

Me? "Perpetually", "all the time", wut? Some conclusion jumper, are you? Maybe time to check your emotional regulation with such an aggressive ad hominem reply with zero relation to actual content. You are actually not coming across as very masculine today (read: sovereign, calm, factual).

[Chronic Snoozer]

The pilot recruits had been filtered and sifted, and the short list was down to 3 - all women. They were taken, one by one, into the boss's office with the HR dude.
The HR specialist asked each one a single question: "What is one and one?"
One of them answered "Two"
One answered "11"
and the last one answered "10". They were ushered out, and the HR dude started analysing their answers.
"The first one said 2, she is a straight shooter, gives the right answer immediately."
"The second one said "11", showing that 1 and 1, side by side, makes 11, she is a lateral thinker and a good problem solver."
"The third one said "10" which is correct in binary maths - this girl will be a whizz on the computing side and will easily handle the complex electronics in the cockpit. Which one do you choose?"
The boss replied "The one with the big tits."

So the boss is a lesbian, so what?

I think we need Jordan Peterson’s thoughts on equality of outcome.

[dr dre]

Whilst they are not as good in a physical confrontation, women often have better communication skills and can defuse a difficult situation better than a testosterone fuelled male officer out to prove himself.

I reckon you could apply that to Aviation as well!

[601]

sexual orientation
How do we know what a person's sexual orientation is?
Is asked on application forms so that the appropriate toilets can be on board any aircraft they may fly?
Does it come up at an interview so that the company can meet some mystic quota?
Is it worn as a badge so that others have to pay respect to a minority?

Never in my 33 years did I have to state or indicate my sexual orientation.
And who cares!!!!!!!!

[TinFoilhat2]

Me? "Perpetually", "all the time", wut? Some conclusion jumper, are you? Maybe time to check your emotional regulation with such an aggressive ad hominem reply with zero relation to actual content. You are actually not coming across as very masculine today (read: sovereign, calm, factual).

Call a mate, go grab a beer, you desperately need one!

[Climb150]

If it looks good politically or on a poster, the govt and business cant wait to announce it. Who cares what the impact is on day to day ops. As long as there is no smoking hole in the ground it's fine.

[krismiler]

How do we know what a person's sexual orientation is?

Appearance, mannerisms and speech will often give a reasonable indication or at least raise a question mark, obviously not accurate all the time but sometimes you just know straight away. These days people can be quite open about it and I’ve had male crew members talking about their boyfriends whilst inflight.

I knew a very competent Captain who was unable to get in with two airlines in the Middle East, simply because he came across as a bit effeminate. He was married with children but first impressions did not indicate straight male behaviour, and that sort of thing does not go down well over there. Saudi Arabia has the death penalty for it.

Certain airlines are gay friendly and deal well with issues such as civil partnerships, staff travel and other matters pertaining to same sex couples. They will not tolerate any form of harassment and are openly supportive.

[PaulH1]

Whist I have no problem at all with female pilots, I can give you a couple of examples where some women cannot do the job as well as men. I am talking about the biz jet world where the crew have to do a lot more in the way of pre and post flight checks than in the airlines.

Example 1: On the HS125 releasing and locking the nose wheel door latch takes a strong grip on some aircraft. I have not met many women able to do this. (the nose wheel doors have to be opened to insert the nose wheel locking pin before the aircraft can be moved)

Example 2: Removing and replacing the front engine covers on a Falcon 2000 requires balancing on the top of a stepladder while unclipping and securing the top strap. In the wind and rain it is not easy. Most female pilots that I have flown with simply refuse to climb the ladder, putting the onus on the other pilot, if male, or paying for the services of an engineer if one is to hand.

Men tend to be taller and physically stronger than women so the above is no criticism but a simple fact.

[Climb150]

Did you all miss the fact that govt and big company PR depts don't care if quotas actually work, just so long as they get great publicity from it.

​​​​​​Stop discussing it here before some SJW tells a news website that all the white male pilots are putting down female pilots on a internet forum.

[flash8]

PPL Instructor (Eva, TPC, Denham) got me through PPL and was one of the best pilots I have ever flown with, she taught me a hell of a lot, CPL Instructor (Anna the Finn, VFC) got me through CPL (and most of the IR) without her I'd be nowhere - I was trained by women! Best instructors I ever had as well.

[Global Aviator]

Example 2: Removing and replacing the front engine covers on a Falcon 2000 requires balancing on the top of a stepladder while unclipping and securing the top strap. In the wind and rain it is not easy. Most female pilots that I have flown with simply refuse to climb the ladder, putting the onus on the other pilot, if male, or paying for the services of an engineer if one is to hand.

Obviously not in Australia. OH & S would not allow this, do you have your working at heights certificate? Is it over 1.5m high? Oh yes need a high lift, do you have your high lift license? Oh it’s raining must down tools........

[Sprite]

Whist I have no problem at all with female pilots, I can give you a couple of examples where some women cannot do the job as well as men. I am talking about the biz jet world where the crew have to do a lot more in the way of pre and post flight checks than in the airlines.

Example 1: On the HS125 releasing and locking the nose wheel door latch takes a strong grip on some aircraft. I have not met many women able to do this. (the nose wheel doors have to be opened to insert the nose wheel locking pin before the aircraft can be moved)

Example 2: Removing and replacing the front engine covers on a Falcon 2000 requires balancing on the top of a stepladder while unclipping and securing the top strap. In the wind and rain it is not easy. Most female pilots that I have flown with simply refuse to climb the ladder, putting the onus on the other pilot, if male, or paying for the services of an engineer if one is to hand.

Men tend to be taller and physically stronger than women so the above is no criticism but a simple fact.

Example 1: most female pilots weigh less than the average male pilot, so they are able to carry more pax, freight or fuel on a typical GA flight (instructing or charter)

Example of systemic discrimination: most if not all aircraft are built for the average male. Rudder pedals, seat height etc are built for a male body. Women face a hurdle from their first flight in a training aircraft...those who make it make all sorts of accommodations for the fact that the aircraft they’re flying are built without any consideration for them.

We all have our strengths, but women have to overcome more hurdles to learn to fly.

[Derfred]

Example 1: most female pilots weigh less than the average male pilot, so they are able to carry more pax, freight or fuel on a typical GA flight (instructing or charter)

Example of systemic discrimination: most if not all aircraft are built for the average male. Rudder pedals, seat height etc are built for a male body. Women face a hurdle from their first flight in a training aircraft...those who make it make all sorts of accommodations for the fact that the aircraft they’re flying are built without any consideration for them.

We all have our strengths, but women have to overcome more hurdles to learn to fly.

Nicely put.

I like to think about it from this point of view:

If my daughter wanted to become a pilot like Dad, what obstacles stand in her way?

The previous poster mentioned grip-strength for nose-wheel doors on an HS-125, and ladder climbing on a Falcon 2000. That’s a pretty big generalisation... I have a female friend who is a kickboxer in her spare time. Not only is she taller than me, I’d say her grip strength probably exceeds mine.

Regardless, I’d have to be a pretty bad father to tell my daughter that’s why she can’t be a pilot. If that really mattered, then a small tool for the nose-wheel doors and a slightly taller step ladder should solve the problem. Next?

I would tell her that nose-wheel doors and ladders wouldn’t be her problem, it would be that she would have to deal with people who would assume she can’t do the job. For example, she would attend an interview with an HS-125 operator who would prefer a male. Or not even get an interview.

She would just have to deal with that.

It would be nice if, one day, she didn’t have to deal with that.

But before I go, I mentioned a hypothetical daughter, who might want to be a pilot, like Dad.

Anecdotally, many female pilots I have come across have had a pilot father, relative or friend. That has given them the initiative and drive to go for it, with the available help and mentoring.

I like to think of the average young girl, who’s mother might be a receptionist, or stay-home mum, and who’s dad might be a tradie, or not even in the family picture. What are her chances of even thinking of becoming a pilot, let alone working out how to achieve the goal?

You probably know such a girl... would she consider becoming a pilot? If she did, would her parents immediately dismiss her for even considering such an absurd life goal?

Is this a problem we need to solve? Is this even a problem?

I think this a more interesting discussion than so-called quotas.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Example of systemic discrimination: most if not all aircraft are built for the average male. Rudder pedals, seat height etc are built for a male body. Women face a hurdle from their first flight in a training aircraft...those who make it make all sorts of accommodations for the fact that the aircraft they’re flying are built without any consideration for them.

The JPATS T-6 and PC-21 military trainer cockpits were specifically designed to accommodate a large percentile of male and female trainees. In time this will happen with all trainers, though it's a practical impossibility with aircraft designed in the 60s.

[redsnail]

Example 1: On the HS125 releasing and locking the nose wheel door latch takes a strong grip on some aircraft. I have not met many women able to do this. (the nose wheel doors have to be opened to insert the nose wheel locking pin before the aircraft can be moved)

I flew the Hawker 800XP from 2005 to 2016. About 4000 hours. Honestly never had a problem with the nose gear doors. Fun aeroplane to fly.

[PaulH1]

Yes a great aircraft. I have 2000 odd hours on the Hawker 1000 and a few more on the 700, 800 and 900. Several had nose wheel latches that were hard to operate, particularly the 1000 srs. The handling is great, probably a result of its military heritage, as are Falcons.

[redsnail]

Tactical swearing seemed to work with the nose gear. The company I work for no longer have the Hawkers. We operated the H750 and H800XPC.
Now I'm pootling around in the Challenger 350. We don't put the covers on. The Falcons and the Globals don't either.
A risk assessment was done by the company and the risk to falling off the ladder versus what might happen overnight wasn't worth it. If we were parking the aircraft for long periods, then it's possible we'd be putting the covers on.

One time I elected not to put the covers on the Hawker. It was absolutely blowing a gale and I deemed it too risky with the straps flying around. As we were leaving the aircraft for a few days, when the weather calmed down the next day I put them on then. We were parked perpendicular to the breeze.

[PaulH1]

We always put the covers on to prevent FOD blowing into the intakes. In the Summer to prevent birds nesting and icing in the Winter. It is a problem in high winds but we always did our best!

[Mach E Avelli]

We always put the covers on to prevent FOD blowing into the intakes. In the Summer to prevent birds nesting and icing in the Winter. It is a problem in high winds but we always did our best!
All that wind is drifting the thread....Concentrate, children.
Chicks were flying bombers across the North Atlantic during World War II and have been flying those tricky corporate jets all over the world ever since. I recall a slightly built French female crew flying a Falcon to Sumburgh in the Shetlands, where the wind could blow a dog off its chain. They managed to park it overnight just fine. Somehow they must have dealt with the covers.
They weren’t risk averse either. On another occasion they landed in rather nasty conditions after I had two goes in a DC 3 and went back to Aberdeen with my tail between my legs.

[metrodashbrazconkie]

From a hiring point of view- do females get greater preference, I see some ladies getting positions that I would have thought that other colleagues where more suited for? Please leave sexism and misogyny out. Fairness is great, but sometimes I feel that at times it's too fair- if that makes sense.

I am aware of at least one female pilot in the company I work for who was given a definitive NO from the pilot interviewers who were subsequently overridden by the HR manager who cited a need for more women pilots. The result was an unmitigated disaster ending in rather public departure.

Take from that what you like but quotas or hiring preference for women is all bad just like it would be for men in a female dominated career. Merit is the only way to hire people.

[Lookleft]

Wow, you just described how Jetstar got their previous CP!

[krismiler]

Merit is the only way to hire people.​​​​​​

Absolutely correct, the emphasis must be on having a level playing field with a fair and open hiring process which aims to get the best person for the job. If an employer ends up with a certain gender or race group predominating, they should have nothing to worry about if they can point to their selection procedures and show that every applicant was treated equally and fairly, and they simply employed the best ones for the job. If certain demographics are underrepresented there is probably a good reason, i.e. performance not up to scratch.

In the USA, African Americans make up 10% of the population but account for 70% of football players and 80% of basketball players yet no one is suggesting a quota to ensure that other races are more equally represented in professional sports. They got their place on the team because they were the best and can hold their heads high knowing that.

Quotas simply lower the overall standard by forcing hiring based on factors other than suitability for the job, talent goes to waste and underperformance is permitted.

[601]

They will not tolerate any form of harassment and are openly supportive.
Does that also apply to WASHMs

[Pearly White]

Look at the government now, a couple of senior ministers, including Defence, are gone, and the screeching call is to put women in the job. Not the best person, just a woman. Gotta have 50/50 they say. Horsefeathers.As opposed to putting in so-and-so's mate from school/Uni/local branch operative/whatever?

[metrodashbrazconkie]

As opposed to putting in so-and-so's mate from school/Uni/local branch operative/whatever?

Also not merit based.

[neville_nobody]

If an employer ends up with a certain gender or race group predominating, they should have nothing to worry about if they can point to their selection procedures and show that every applicant was treated equally and fairly, and they simply employed the best ones for the job. If certain demographics are underrepresented there is probably a good reason, i.e. performance not up to scratch.

The issue with this is that the woke crowd will argue that there isn't equality of opportunity. If you happened to have a 100% merit system and that resulted in 95% white male/private school/ middle class background you would be hounded by HR about your lack of diversity regardless of how equal the selection process was.

[Derfred]

I’ve never been part of pilot recruitment, but presumably potential applicants are both interviewed by pilot recruiters, and also simulator tested by pilot recruiters. There are also psych tests.

An interesting question is whether these assessments tend to favour males, or particular personality types that are more predominant in males, such as a Type A personality (more aggressive and competitive).

In my airline, a certain level of assertion was certainly a pre-requisite for command upgrades, so was probably also assessed during initial interviews. A certain level of assertion is certainly a desirable trait, but only when balanced with other teamwork and leadership skills. A Type A personality often doesn’t make the best pilot in a multi-pilot cockpit, particularly when the pilot may be lacking in other desirable skills.

A classic example is a famous QF pilot who suffered a serious incident in an A380 and authored a book. He was not well regarded by his peers, even before he wrote the book about how good he was.

In my experience, pilots who lack the required behavioural skills and try to re-invent themselves to stay in the job, often don’t do it well, and can fall apart if the sh1t ever really hits the fan. I can list one female and several males whom I have worked with who fell into that category. Some, however, do train themselves well given the time and the right mentoring and advice.

But, it’s not all about recruitment. The big question is, are there females out there, who would like to be pilots, and would make excellent pilots, that are put off by many reasons such as:

- peer pressure (the whole STEM for females being pushed at school and university is part of this)
- perceived culture (if I become a pilot will I be continuously having to prove myself due to my gender? Or could I be bothered trying to make it in a male dominated profession?)
- family friendliness (many females tend to regard themselves more as primary carers should they wish to have children - this doesn’t always have to be a problem, but it can form part of the decision making process to choose to embark on such a profession)
- an assumption that it is a “man’s game”, only fit for females who identify as “tom-boys” (I know an excellent female pilot who also doesn’t mind getting her hands greasy rebuilding old cars - but you don’t need a half-built E-Type in your garage to be an excellent pilot)

If obstacles such as the above can be minimised, which takes time, the right attitudes by industry, the right advice from career counsellors, the right attitudes by families and society, then maybe more than 5% of females would seek out a career as a pilot.

If all the above is addressed, and still less than 50% of commercial pilot applicants are females, then we could deduce that there is an underlying gender preference in our profession, in the same way that more females than males apply for ballet school, hairdressing school, or nursing.

Until the obstacles are removed, we will never know for sure.

I believe we should continue to strive to remove the obstacles, but gender-over-merit to achieve quotas is not the way to go, and I believe most female pilots agree with that sentiment. So long as the merit is fairly assessed, of course,

[dr dre]

- an assumption that it is a “man’s game”, only fit for females who identify as “tom-boys” (I know an excellent female pilot who also doesn’t mind getting her hands greasy rebuilding old cars - but you don’t need a half-built E-Type in your garage to be an excellent pilot)


One of the best pilots I've ever come across was a real girly girl, into fashion, make up, cute little puppy dogs etc. She operated far better than most "alpha male" try hards, who thought their extreme sports hobbies and big 4WDs made them infallible pilots.

[krismiler]

Changing society's attitude to traditional female roles is beyond the scope of airlines. All that can reasonably expected is a level playing field which aims to select the best person for the job. Most of us who made it into the airlines worked hard enough for it and would feel put out if we had been knocked back just so an inferior candidate could be employed on the basis of gender or race.

There is a film on NETFLIX called "Hidden Figures" which tells the story of a group of African American women working for NASA back in the 1960s. Attitudes back then were different and discrimination was openly practiced. These ladies battled all the way but were eventually played a vital role in the space program, which shows how wrong it was to discriminate based on their race and gender, talent was being suppressed and had the selection process been fair, they would have been promoted to their level of ability much earlier.

Hanna Reitsch was an very talented test pilot for the Germans back in WW2, it's reasonable to assume that it was because of ability not political correctness that she was flying the newest aircraft.

The Captain on the Southwest Airlines flight which had an uncontained engine failure back in 2018 was female, being an ex Navy pilot she would have been employed on ability and been in the top percentile of all pilots, not just female ones.

If I'm flying as a passenger, I'd like to think that those upfront were employed based on ability rather than to meet a quota.

[Derfred]

Changing society's attitude to traditional female roles is beyond the scope of airlines. All that can reasonably expected is a level playing field which aims to select the best person for the job.

My lengthy post was intended to question whether the playing field is actually level when you take into account society’s attitude, airline attitude, culture and numerous other factors.

If the best person for the job happens to be a female who chose not to apply because her Dad told her “girls should be nurses”, or her school groomed her for a polite society in which girls don’t get their fingernails dirty, or she simply wasn’t interested in putting up with a misogynistic workplace for the rest of her life, then we didn’t get the best person for the job did we?

Instead, we got her brother who’s Dad bought him model planes since he was 5. His road was easy, and he had a good chance of making it even if his sister would have made the better pilot.

Culture plays a part in getting females to consider the profession. The airlines have a part to play in that, and it’s already started. If they send female pilots around to school career days, which I believe they have started to do, that’s awesome. I’d prefer it if they sent male & female pilots together, because then it wouldn’t look so much like affirmative action.

And I completely agree - as long as we can keep quotas out of the equation, and work on the real factors, then let the numbers fall where they may.

Do I agree with the 50/50 gender quotas that appear to be applied at the QF academy? No.

Do I agree with public statements by Airline CEO’s stating a goal of 50/50? No - because it implies a quota system even if they never implement one, and it pisses everyone off, especially females. But if they are saying it just to encourage females that things are-a-changing, then that’s noble, but not the right way to do it IMHO. Anyone in PR can state a “goal” or a “plan” without ever having to defend it’s subsequent lack of implementation. I prefer it if people speak the truth, even if they are employed in PR.

Having said all that, I might be a bit old school in saying that you will never really excel in this profession unless some part of your brain falls in love with it. It needs to be part of your life, not just your job.

That doesn’t mean you need a half-built RV7 in your garage, but it means you put in a bit more than the minimum required study to pass your next check.

I sometimes fly with pilots, male or female, who are obviously not particularly dedicated to the job. I’ve flown with a female who really didn’t want to be late home because the baby-sitter was only booked until 8 o’clock. That had the potential to interfere with appropriate decision making during the flight. It would have been very easy for me to jump to the conclusion that females with kids make poor pilots. But I’ve also flown with males who have demonstrated complete detachment from the job, and only view it as an income stream to support their other interests. Who would I like to be sitting next to if the sh1t hits the fan? Someone who knows their stuff, and cares a bit more than the bare minimum to maintain their job!

That’s why quotas won’t work. It’s easy for a CEO to state that their quota pilots meet all the required standards set out by the regulator, and have passed their “high standards of in-house training”. When something goes wrong, you need the best person for the job, and that person needs to care enough to train themselves way beyond the standards set out by the regulator.

So promoting the profession to females needs to go a bit beyond just flashy gold wings and epaulettes with big smiling faces saying “you too can fly”... the reality of the required dedication needs to be part of it.

P.S. If you’re reading pprune, then you either already have the dedication, or you are just trying to work out which subsidiary pilots are currently trying to steal your job.

[krismiler]

There is a need for female doctors but I don't remember any campaigns specifically targeting women to become doctors, however in some countries the girls outnumber the boys in medical school.

Prior to COVID, there was a looming pilot shortage and it was necessary to widen the net so that suitable women would apply. By having a greater pool of applicants to choose from, high standards could be maintained.

There is no need to have women on the flight deck, specifically because they are women. There is a need to ensure that they are aware that the career is available to them and that the selection process is fair and non discriminatory. A while ago I was operating a flight and while the pax were disembarking, an Indian man asked if his daughter could have a look at the flight deck, I obliged and a girl of about ten or eleven years old came in and started asking questions. I was happy to point out to her we had two Indian ladies flying for us and that the job was open to all.

She had an interest in flying at an early age and was more likely to have the dedication required than someone who needed to be persuaded to go into aviation and then advanced to make up a quota. I would rather be treated by a doctor who wanted to become one from an early age, rather than one who went into medicine for the money.

[Derfred]

Australia has more females than males in medical school.

https://medicaldeans.org.au/md/2020/08/2020_MDANZ-Student-Statistics-Report.pdf

The country of your namesake, Singapore, actually used to have quotas in favour of male doctors, as there were too many female doctors, and apparently they didn’t work hard enough or long enough. That was abolished in 2003.

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/more-women-studying-medicine-after-lifting-of-quota

But I don’t think you can compare the two professions when it comes to gender bias. Females were doctors before the Wright brothers rode bicycles. I know quite a few female doctors, and they can dictate their hours to fit around their family, and can easily move from one practice to another if it’s not suiting them. Trying doing that as an airline pilot. The medical profession seems to naturally attract females. So far, the pilot profession doesn’t seem too.

I agree with the rest of your post, except that you have limited your “fairness” to the selection process only.

It doesn’t stop there, there is more to it than that.

We must also ensure that the workplace culture is fair.

This is a discussion happening right now in Australian federal politics, because their workplace culture has proven to be very poor.

There is no point having a gender-neutral selection process if the females are poorly treated by their male colleagues (or managers, or trainers and checkers) once they get the job.

[redsnail]

Derfred, if I may I’ve flown with a female who really didn’t want to be late home because the baby-sitter was only booked until 8 o’clock.
You've highlighted an issue here that is a societal one too. Naturally, I don't know your colleague's situation, but for a single parent (assumption), this is a real problem. Airines (and other shift working industries) aren't always parent friendly. Flight attendants would have been affected by the same situation, as too, a male single parent. Imagine if the airline had an affordable creche that was not time restricted and available to all working parents?

I have done a few high school careers days and open days in the past couple of years in the UK. Even today, it is amazing the number of teenage girls who are just not aware that being a pilot is open to them. What is nice is to see their eyes widen when they realise that not only aviation but other industries are available to them. Encouraging girls and boys to explore all options for sport and jobs begins well before school starts.

[krismiler]

Most people end up getting married and having children, and women are the primary care givers of those children. The aviation industry is not family friendly when it come to working hours with aircraft operating 24/7, 365 days a year. Frequent extended periods away from home and call outs at short notice are normal.

An aviation career will usually involve several relocations often to less desirable locations in remote areas. Even if you go airline straight away, you probably won’t get the most desirable city base and upgrading to Captain can involve another move. Just ask Virgin Australia pilots about getting a Brisbane base.

Medicine, aviation and most other professions require the hard yards to be put in but once qualified as a doctor or lawyer you are likely to employed relatively quickly in a well paid job in a location of your choice. Get a CPL and you will be lucky to get any job, are probably going to have to move and will only get paid award wages.

A doctor has many different opportunities available, they can work for the RFDS, work on a cruise ship, enjoy flexible working arrangements at a 24 hour medical centre or major hospital and specialise in an area which interests them just to name a few.

Job security is incomparable without having to worry about annual medicals or base checks. Changing employers at any time isn’t difficult and doesn’t involve joining the bottom of the seniority list. How many doctors have been stood down due to COVID ?

Possibly there are so few women in aviation because they make better career choices.

[Roj approved]

You've highlighted an issue here that is a societal one too. ........ Imagine if the airline had an affordable creche that was not time restricted and available to all working parents?

Many years ago I was in Helsinki doing a rating, chatting to the SIM Training co ordinator about all things, we got onto this. From my memory of the conversation, In Finland, a company of more than 100 employees is required by law to have on premises child care open for the hours the company operates. (I seem to remember her saying it was free, but it was 2007 so I can't be sure.)

So, Finnair has 24 hour, company supplied child care available to every employee. Why is the rest of the "developed" world not doing this?

There were other aspects of "the having family process" that where way ahead of any other country, fully paid maternity leave etc. What a fantastic way to encourage ALL parents to get back to work after having kids. It would certainly reduce the "Get Home Itis" we all feel when running late for School/Childcare Pick up.

P.S. IMHO there are 3 types of pilots, The Good, The Bad and everyone else. GENDER HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

P.P.S. I've also been on flights were the desire to NOT get home and pick up the kids has been the priority! ;-)

[Global Aviator]

Someone mentioned Singapore airlines. If I’m not mistaken they were one of the last airlines to employ female aviators, many years behind the Middle East.

[krismiler]

True, the first cadets were taken on about 5 years ago and with the COVID situation, probably won’t see the left seat for at least another 10 years.

[ZFT]

Someone mentioned Singapore airlines. If I’m not mistaken they were one of the last airlines to employ female aviators, many years behind the Middle East.

Thai Airways is still male only.

[wheels_down]

Yet they had no issue with female pilots in its subsidiary Tiger Singapore from the get go. Strange.

[dr dre]

Yet they had no issue with female pilots in its subsidiary Tiger Singapore from the get go. Strange.

Scoot’s Head of 787 Training was a woman, before SQ mainline even had a single female pilot.

[finestkind]

Call it societal or culture but basically it’s the same and certainly affected by the area you grow up in. If you are bought up in a city/large population with the associated benefits of schooling, sporting , variety of careers you are far better off than a country cousin. Yes it is far better now compared to years ago but we are influenced or more pointedly are a product of our environment. Given the access to the world now, through travel, internet etc. we are more aware of other “environments”. The introduction of STEM to make females more aware of what they can do does not give them a desire to do so. And yes this is due to a lack of role models. We are slowly evolving but to become a career woman once meant giving up the “normal” wife/mother role. It is far better now but still developing and is still stymied by the “product of your environment” with girls copying their mothers and other females. Having daughters allows me to expound this. Back to quota systems as a means of having/allowing females into a male dominated work force. I can see the advantage of doing so. If the choice is a female of equal qualifications or maybe just slightly less being given the nod over a male so be it. But to give the nod to a candidate based basically on gender alone whilst bypassing far better candidates causes more issues than can be addressed. Also as an employer I also have to choose the best candidate for my company. The one that fits the best and a large part of that is work. I have to factor in the additional factors of maternity leave etc. Yes becoming better with paternity leave but still a factor. As Krismiler stated, “aviation is not family friendly” and that is applicable to both genders.

[machtuk]

Oddly enough thru out the ages it's always been "them & us" and will continue to do so till the end of time!
The added challenge to all this in moden times is that there are 26 letters in the alphabet, we still have plenty to 'identify' with yet! -)

[finestkind]

Oddly enough thru out the ages it's always been "them & us" and will continue to do so till the end of time!
The added challenge to all this in moden times is that there are 26 letters in the alphabet, we still have plenty to 'identify' with yet! -)Until we reach utopia, god forbid because all desire, motivation, and competitiveness, will no longer be part of our mentality and we will just stare at sunrises and sunsets, there will always be a competitive basis to life. As such an us and them or a me and you will always be part of humanity (as with any pecking order in the animal kingdom).

[neville_nobody]

So, Finnair has 24 hour, company supplied child care available to every employee. Why is the rest of the "developed" world not doing this?

Because they're not interested in paying 57% income tax and a 24% sales tax. Reality is you need two incomes there just to survive because you are donating half your household income to the government.

[Roj approved]

Because they're not interested in paying 57% income tax and a 24% sales tax. Reality is you need two incomes there just to survive because you are donating half your household income to the government.

Very true, but we pay 42% plus 10% GST plus land tax, Stamp duty etc, so it's still pretty high, and we don't have the world class education system they have amongst other things they do well. It would be a good study to see the relative cost of living Finland v AUS, but maybe that is for a different thread.

[jeepjeep]

From a hiring point of view- do females get greater preference, I see some ladies getting positions that I would have thought that other colleagues where more suited for? Please leave sexism and misogyny out. Fairness is great, but sometimes I feel that at times it's too fair- if that makes sense.

Some people get along better with female personalities than male personalities, and visa-versa. If there is a panel of applicants with similar qualifications, the deciding factor in the selection often boils down to personality preferences of the hiring manager or hiring team. Also, hiring managers may emphasize certain qualifications and warning signals that you do not value or observe in a coworker.

Also, it is not possible to fully assess applicant qualifications in the hiring process (meaning, the hiring manager may miss things). Aside from quota systems that exist in certain circles and are utterly unfair, you may be experiencing a hiring team that gravitates toward females based on selection preferences relating to personality and teamwork traits. Hiring decisions are often quite personal. I see that as being human, but not being wrong.

[Global Aviator]

I think that’s enough, is this discussion Finnished now?

:ok:

[Lookleft]

I have been around aeroplanes too long, was there a fat lady singing somewhere?

[Global Aviator]

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/917x588/9e3feb51_d9eb_4d90_9705_b310573a73a9_33d7283b0ad00fd0c733558 154f10ba7bc377d2a.jpeg
Well there was a flying one.....

[TimmyTee]

Very true, but we pay 42% plus 10% GST plus land tax, Stamp duty etc, so it's still pretty high, and we don't have the world class education system they have amongst other things they do well. It would be a good study to see the relative cost of living Finland v AUS, but maybe that is for a different thread.

The actual percentage of your salary you pay to tax/ML etc isn't anywhere near 42% though is it? At "worst" it must be around 35-36% of your total salary

[Roj approved]

The actual percentage of your salary you pay to tax/ML etc isn't anywhere near 42% though is it? At "worst" it must be around 35-36% of your total salary

Thanks Timmy, do you know if Finland has the same sliding scale of income tax?

The point being, they have high tax rates, we have high tax rates, they have a good system for on premises child care, we pay +$50/day out of our pocket for the same in a off site location.

Things could be done better here in Aus for families

[TinFoilhat2]

Australia has more females than males in medical school.

https://medicaldeans.org.au/md/2020/08/2020_MDANZ-Student-Statistics-Report.pdf

The country of your namesake, Singapore, actually used to have quotas in favour of male doctors, as there were too many female doctors, and apparently they didn’t work hard enough or long enough. That was abolished in 2003.

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/more-women-studying-medicine-after-lifting-of-quota

But I don’t think you can compare the two professions when it comes to gender bias. Females were doctors before the Wright brothers rode bicycles. I know quite a few female doctors, and they can dictate their hours to fit around their family, and can easily move from one practice to another if it’s not suiting them. Trying doing that as an airline pilot. The medical profession seems to naturally attract females. So far, the pilot profession doesn’t seem too.

I agree with the rest of your post, except that you have limited your “fairness” to the selection process only.

It doesn’t stop there, there is more to it than that.

We must also ensure that the workplace culture is fair.

This is a discussion happening right now in Australian federal politics, because their workplace culture has proven to be very poor.

There is no point having a gender-neutral selection process if the females are poorly treated by their male colleagues (or managers, or trainers and checkers) once they get the job.

Who decides on what is poor treatment and what can and cannot be said? That is a very dangerous 'WOKE SLOPE' you are heading down and it never ends well!!

[Bueno Hombre]

Never say anything against our ladies in the sky. My experience in China Airlines taught me that they are above average.

[Bueno Hombre]

Whist I have no problem at all with female pilots, I can give you a couple of examples where some women cannot do the job as well as men. I am talking about the biz jet world where the crew have to do a lot more in the way of pre and post flight checks than in the airlines.

Example 1: On the HS125 releasing and locking the nose wheel door latch takes a strong grip on some aircraft. I have not met many women able to do this. (the nose wheel doors have to be opened to insert the nose wheel locking pin before the aircraft can be moved)

Example 2: Removing and replacing the front engine covers on a Falcon 2000 requires balancing on the top of a stepladder while unclipping and securing the top strap. In the wind and rain it is not easy. Most female pilots that I have flown with simply refuse to climb the ladder, putting the onus on the other pilot, if male, or paying for the services of an engineer if one is to hand.

Men tend to be taller and physically stronger than women so the above is no criticism but a simple fact.
ow was she atv

[Bueno Hombre]

ok,got it, from what you say men better than women for the janitor job.

[Krautwald]

Who decides on what is poor treatment and what can and cannot be said? That is a very dangerous 'WOKE SLOPE' you are heading down and it never ends well!!

That is actually quite easy for anyone prepared to take responsibility for their own impulses: Poor treatment means, is there something in your behaviour that you would not display towards male colleagues whom you consider your equal? It requires a little honest introspection, which can be hard for people who are not used to scrutinize their unconscious reactions. But there is a difference between some funny remarks towards a buddy, and the same remarks with an undertone of "we are not the same". There are things you say or do to bond with people, and there are other things you say or do to distinguish or even exclude - and they can look quite similar on the surface. Many who do this, do not even know and have a deep seated feeling of normalcy about themselves. Also, while you probably cannot change the fact that men and women always will check each other out, maybe we will need a return to some old fashioned professionalism; i.e. knowing that the actual work situation is a.) simply not the time, that b.) someones willingness to be responsive to "me male, you female" communication (or vice versa) does not determine their worth as a colleague, and c.) if enough people started agreeing on a and b, the bad apples (m/f) would just have to adapt over time. Now, some will say that´s how they´ve always done it, but nontheless, there is a widespread laissez-faire in the Western world about this. Funnily enough, I have worked with people from stricter cultures, some of which were blatantly sexist in mind, but still very aware of keeping a polite distance because that´s what they knew. For us in the West, the formula could be simpler: act in a way that your Grandma would have considered as decency?