Jetstar Aiming for 50% Gender Spilt in Interview Candidates
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: shivering in the cold dark shadow of my own magnificence.
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: aus
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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?
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?
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
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.
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
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.
Last edited by Compylot; 29th Apr 2016 at 01:55.
"....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?
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?
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: shivering in the cold dark shadow of my own magnificence.
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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".
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".
Last edited by psycho joe; 30th Apr 2016 at 02:04. Reason: Spealling?
Thread Starter
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"
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.
Last edited by neville_nobody; 30th Apr 2016 at 03:33.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wish to neatly side-step the central issue of "fairness" for another more subtle issue, posited by orange future:
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.
Originally Posted by orange future
No one has suggested bypassing a certain demographic at all. Increasing womens participation is simply broadening the applicant base giving the airline greater access to "the best person for the job".
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.
"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.
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.
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.
“….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.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Orange future
Your theory suggests that the industry should not broaden the applicant numbers to help mitigate the effects of pilot shortages in the future because the increase in competition for roles will scare away males applicants?????
Interesting, so your implication therefore is that males only become involved in aviation because the lack of participation by women results in a lower level of competition for sought after jobs. It makes it easier for men to become pilots because women, by not participating, are creating an artificial shortage.
Are you really comfortable with that argument or would you like to . . . . evolve it a little?
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?
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.
“….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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: shivering in the cold dark shadow of my own magnificence.
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by psycho joe; 1st May 2016 at 10:59.
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.
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.
Nunc est bibendum
There are barriers to women in aviation.......
No evidence has been provided.
Oh, and you've misquoted the Bible as well.