Qantas Recruitment
Is it not at all concerning for manager's of theses groups (in particular JQ) that all your FOs and some captains want to leave? No matter what stage they are in their career, or what position they are on the JQ seniority ladder, they are signing up to be SO's and for those over 35, probably never have a command. All of this rather than work at JQ? Would management even be aware of how many apply, Doubt it.....but that's a pretty big vote of disapproval for JQ. Yes, the $ is less but time to upgrades are quicker so you would think it wouldn't be that different in the long-run. Can't just be about the $.
Would management even be aware of how many apply, Doubt it.....but that's a pretty big vote of disapproval for JQ.
If you want to receive mainline pay and conditions then apply to mainline. If you don't want to be an F/O or S/O for a long period of time then stay with JQ. Simple choices with long term career ramifications.
Serious question. If there are 1000 applicants , 950 male and 50 female and QF decides to offer 100 positions does that mean all 50 females will get the job?
You know corporate HR equality etc + past observations. Or with a safety specific role does QF now disregard quotas etc and offer the best people the job?
You know corporate HR equality etc + past observations. Or with a safety specific role does QF now disregard quotas etc and offer the best people the job?
I think these posts are just started by men who weren’t up to scratch in the recruitment process but want to find someone to blame other than themselves.
The numbers are all over the shop now with the VR and ER programs taking out a few hundred numbers, plus no promotions and recruitment for a few years, but the next FY allocation should be a decent one, and with a bit of recruitment the numbers should stabilise.
This comes up all the time, and I don’t want to start another “gender quota” thread as it’s been done to the deaths but to debunk this, in the last round of general recruitment (2017-20) the proportion of female applicants was roughly similar to the proportion of female new starts. You’re seeing more women now because more of them are applying/training in aviation compared to 30/40 years ago.
I think these posts are just started by men who weren’t up to scratch in the recruitment process but want to find someone to blame other than themselves.
I think these posts are just started by men who weren’t up to scratch in the recruitment process but want to find someone to blame other than themselves.
We all heard the stories that women were to be prioritised, regardless of ability or number of applicants, when recruiting started up again a few years ago. But every time a new course started, there were around 8 starters, of whom usually one or two were women - suggesting that the stories weren’t true. No doubt a few got picked up when they shouldn’t have been, but that’s always been the case with blokes as well.
In this day and age there are no barriers to females becoming airline pilots. What HR and PC CEO's don't understand is that there are not a lot of females who want to be pilots. If you want to know of an area of aviation that is attractive to females then have a listen to ATC. To paraphrase Bill Clinton "Its the lifestyle stoopid"
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In this day and age there are no barriers to females becoming airline pilots. What HR and PC CEO's don't understand is that there are not a lot of females who want to be pilots. If you want to know of an area of aviation that is attractive to females then have a listen to ATC. To paraphrase Bill Clinton "Its the lifestyle stoopid"
Some barriers to consider - lack of representation, lack of female mentors, unconscious bias within the industry, sexual harassment in the workplace, increased scrutiny with higher expectations than their male peers, the "you only got the job because of your gender", the list goes on.
The 'lifestyle' argument is also nonsense. There are plenty of jobs with similar lifestyles that have better gender ratios.
Diversity is a good thing. We owe it to our female peers to make the industry as open and welcoming as possible.
260 odd is apparently the target for the next training year.
Re female pilots, I've had the pleasure of flying with two outstanding such pilots this week. Both excellent. They just come to work, get the job done, no BS. They frequently add a great dynamic to the aircraft as, in my experience, many cabin crew seem to engage much more openly with them. They're the kind of mentors aspiring young pilots of either gender should be looking to, not those seeking to make a statement every time they go to work.
Re female pilots, I've had the pleasure of flying with two outstanding such pilots this week. Both excellent. They just come to work, get the job done, no BS. They frequently add a great dynamic to the aircraft as, in my experience, many cabin crew seem to engage much more openly with them. They're the kind of mentors aspiring young pilots of either gender should be looking to, not those seeking to make a statement every time they go to work.
What a narrow minded thing to say.
Some barriers to consider - lack of representation, lack of female mentors, unconscious bias within the industry, sexual harassment in the workplace, increased scrutiny with higher expectations than their male peers, the "you only got the job because of your gender", the list goes on.
The 'lifestyle' argument is also nonsense. There are plenty of jobs with similar lifestyles that have better gender ratios.
Diversity is a good thing. We owe it to our female peers to make the industry as open and welcoming as possible.
Some barriers to consider - lack of representation, lack of female mentors, unconscious bias within the industry, sexual harassment in the workplace, increased scrutiny with higher expectations than their male peers, the "you only got the job because of your gender", the list goes on.
The 'lifestyle' argument is also nonsense. There are plenty of jobs with similar lifestyles that have better gender ratios.
Diversity is a good thing. We owe it to our female peers to make the industry as open and welcoming as possible.
What a narrow minded thing to say.
Some barriers to consider - lack of representation, lack of female mentors, unconscious bias within the industry, sexual harassment in the workplace, increased scrutiny with higher expectations than their male peers, the "you only got the job because of your gender", the list goes on.
The 'lifestyle' argument is also nonsense. There are plenty of jobs with similar lifestyles that have better gender ratios.
Diversity is a good thing. We owe it to our female peers to make the industry as open and welcoming as possible.
Some barriers to consider - lack of representation, lack of female mentors, unconscious bias within the industry, sexual harassment in the workplace, increased scrutiny with higher expectations than their male peers, the "you only got the job because of your gender", the list goes on.
The 'lifestyle' argument is also nonsense. There are plenty of jobs with similar lifestyles that have better gender ratios.
Diversity is a good thing. We owe it to our female peers to make the industry as open and welcoming as possible.
The vast majority of pilots I speak too welcome female pilots but all agree,including female pilots, that it must be on merit not gender.
The simple fact is females like some things more than males and vice versa. Nurses is one profession that comes to mind.
At least 22 per month for the whole year then. Not sure the sim space will be available, training might have to be outsourced.
That’s the next can of worms, everyone’s definition of “merit” will be different. With evidence that the proportion of female applicants vs new hires is roughly similar then we can conclude that the system is recruiting on their standards of merit not gender.
What then happens (with a much larger number of applicants to those selected this is inevitable) there’ll be accusations that some were not selected on “merit”, or the criteria is skewed in favour of things women may naturally have an advantage in.
Truth is there have always been a far greater number of applicants than positions available, and most people make good pilots. So recruiters sometimes have to use what seem to be very strict criteria to cut the numbers down, and that may mean some people who would certainly have had a fantastic career in the airline fail to get in. Some may perceive that as women getting a job due to quotas, but it isn’t the case.
What then happens (with a much larger number of applicants to those selected this is inevitable) there’ll be accusations that some were not selected on “merit”, or the criteria is skewed in favour of things women may naturally have an advantage in.
Truth is there have always been a far greater number of applicants than positions available, and most people make good pilots. So recruiters sometimes have to use what seem to be very strict criteria to cut the numbers down, and that may mean some people who would certainly have had a fantastic career in the airline fail to get in. Some may perceive that as women getting a job due to quotas, but it isn’t the case.
The only way to settle this would be if QF group had a policy that only last name was used on applications, no gender box and when you interview you wear a hood whilst speaking through a darth vador voice synthesizer. When it comes to the sim component you also wear a hood. All gender favoritism will then be removed.
The only way to settle this would be if QF group had a policy that only last name was used on applications, no gender box and when you interview you wear a hood whilst speaking through a darth vador voice synthesizer. When it comes to the sim component you also wear a hood. All gender favoritism will then be removed.