Qantas’ search for female pilots has led to more workplace harassment - Quartz
This is available already. It’s called a “Carer’s Line”. The unfortunate side effect of this is the non-carers line holders do a lot of the less palatable trips have more frequent reserve periods and generally worse rosters as a result.
Don’t get me wrong. There are pilots of all sexes who genuinely need a carer’s line but the flow-on effects for other (particularly the junior) pilots is a poorer lifestyle overall. They too have families and loved ones but by default spend more weekends away and have more disrupted rosters as a result of Carer’s lines.
I qualify for one (CL) but they're not available due resources... So my kids are worth less than others and I do all the **** trips they don't want and extra blank lines.
Thanks a lot
for how long do people qualify? When the kids are in their 20s? Oops better retire before paying back all those BLs...
But that's not really what this thread is about
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is available already. It’s called a “Carer’s Line”. The unfortunate side effect of this is the non-carers line holders do a lot of the less palatable trips have more frequent reserve periods and generally worse rosters as a result.
Don’t get me wrong. There are pilots of all sexes who genuinely need a carer’s line but the flow-on effects for other (particularly the junior) pilots is a poorer lifestyle overall. They too have families and loved ones but by default spend more weekends away and have more disrupted rosters as a result of Carer’s lines.
Are these "carer's lines" granted on a 50% gender equal basis?
I’d just like to point out that when I become King, female pilots will be welcome and anyone who wants a carer’s line can have one.
But if anyone comes out with this ‘The [insert decade] called and wants their [insert whatever] back’ nonsense (and God knows, they will), they’ll be set fire to. The same will apply to anyone who tells the one about the dog in the cockpit.
Thank you. Carry on.
But if anyone comes out with this ‘The [insert decade] called and wants their [insert whatever] back’ nonsense (and God knows, they will), they’ll be set fire to. The same will apply to anyone who tells the one about the dog in the cockpit.
Thank you. Carry on.
My comment was in relation to a post claiming that “women don’t really want be working a job in which they miss birthdays, Xmas, holidays, weekends etc” even though there’s probably hundreds of thousands of them in this country that do just that. Maybe I should’ve said the “2010’s want that comment back”, because in 2019 there’s plenty of pilots continuing with that line of thought.
My comment was in relation to a post claiming that “women don’t really want be working a job in which they miss birthdays, Xmas, holidays, weekends etc” even though there’s probably hundreds of thousands of them in this country that do just that. Maybe I should’ve said the “2010’s want that comment back”, because in 2019 there’s plenty of pilots continuing with that line of thought.
Thank you 73qanda, that one’s on the list too, along with ‘You forgot the coffee luv!’ and ‘I said I was f*#@n cold, not f*#@n stupid’.
and after almost 2 decades of non stop female and minority hiring they have 3% more females than the average. Sorry but I have never seen a UAL class picture where more than 20% were female & minority combined. Yes, it was absolutely easier to get a job at UAL in those years as a female/minority than it was 20 years before. One big reason: in 1960 ,as a female you would not get hired as a pilot. If you are worried about getting a job be better than the other white guy, because he is still your main competition.
so we’ve answered the original question, even when an airline commits to hiring more minorities and women, for decades, the overall percentages are still very low, Why? As other posters have said, there are a myriad of reasons and a decree from upper management imposing a feel good quota will probably not achieve the desired effect and inevitably force the hiring of inexperienced and under qualified applicants if the pool of said applicants is shallow. It’s not that Women are being discriminated against, it’s just there aren’t enough of them in the career field to increase the percentages appreciably.
and after almost 2 decades of non stop female and minority hiring they have 3% more females than the average. Sorry but I have never seen a UAL class picture where more than 20% were female & minority combined. Yes, it was absolutely easier to get a job at UAL in those years as a female/minority than it was 20 years before. One big reason: in 1960 ,as a female you would not get hired as a pilot. If you are worried about getting a job be better than the other white guy, because he is still your main competition.
so we’ve answered the original question, even when an airline commits to hiring more minorities and women, for decades, the overall percentages are still very low, Why? As other posters have said, there are a myriad of reasons and a decree from upper management imposing a feel good quota will probably not achieve the desired effect and inevitably force the hiring of inexperienced and under qualified applicants if the pool of said applicants is very shallow. It’s not that Women are being discriminated against, it’s just there aren’t enough of them in the career field to increase the percentages appreciably. It reminds me of some current politicians who want to tax billionaires in order to pay for feel good programs, It sounds good, but in reality, there aren’t enough billionaires to tax in order to pay for all these feel good schemes.
An interesting debate going on here, I follow with interest and as always an argument such as this actually teaches alternative points of view previously unconsidered.
However, I STRONGLY suggest people just drop the gender gap portion of the argument as it is taken grossly out of context, is generally misunderstood and is simply derailing an otherwise informative debate.
I have never worked for Qantas but I highly doubt their industrial motivation includes cheapening the workforce by paying women pilots less than their male counterpart.
However, I STRONGLY suggest people just drop the gender gap portion of the argument as it is taken grossly out of context, is generally misunderstood and is simply derailing an otherwise informative debate.
I have never worked for Qantas but I highly doubt their industrial motivation includes cheapening the workforce by paying women pilots less than their male counterpart.
What's next? Soon you'll be demanding quotas for bricklayers, plumbers and garbos.
And if not, why not?
And if not, why not?
It is the same reason Qantas aren’t “targeting” females for LAMEs or males for check-in.
Because it’s all about the publicity.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It might also move a few gym memberships and car insurance...
Qantas is nothing but a hollowed out shell of its former self, with an inadequate emperor enamored with his own image. His day spent busily scrap booking every image of himself...
Virtue signalling, manufacturing crisis and narcissism is much easier than actually bettering an airline.
Hans Brinker,
so we’ve answered the original question, even when an airline commits to hiring more minorities and women, for decades, the overall percentages are still very low, Why? As other posters have said, there are a myriad of reasons and a decree from upper management imposing a feel good quota will probably not achieve the desired effect and inevitably force the hiring of inexperienced and under qualified applicants if the pool of said applicants is shallow. It’s not that Women are being discriminated against, it’s just there aren’t enough of them in the career field to increase the percentages appreciably.
so we’ve answered the original question, even when an airline commits to hiring more minorities and women, for decades, the overall percentages are still very low, Why? As other posters have said, there are a myriad of reasons and a decree from upper management imposing a feel good quota will probably not achieve the desired effect and inevitably force the hiring of inexperienced and under qualified applicants if the pool of said applicants is shallow. It’s not that Women are being discriminated against, it’s just there aren’t enough of them in the career field to increase the percentages appreciably.
edit:All my old post were deleted, from my post count, and I show up as "I am new here", so testing if I can edit an old post, and trying to get in touch with the mods to see what happened....
Last edited by hans brinker; 16th Nov 2019 at 17:55. Reason: test
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Candid Camera Classic: First Female Pilot. 1963.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMuZ...ature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMuZ...ature=youtu.be
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With a reduced IMPS. I'm all for increasing the pool of brilliant candidates for RAAF aircrew or RAAC tank troop leaders or RAN maritime warfare officers or whatever. But reduced IMPS on the basis of the member's gender? Not sure that's kosher.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
