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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do the 3 year Aviation degree at Griffith University.

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

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

Mentors provided on course.

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

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

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

This.

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

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

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

Bzbbzbzzbzbzbzb

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

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

Geez mate, where I work the nurses are pretty much a 50-50 split, all the blokes are 'midwives' too! :ok:

May be some openings for social engineers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nope, or a pilot either.

“Mandating 50% female recruitment….”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fly safe.....

(No longer) A320Flyer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Use some reading comprehension skills fellas...
So it is not a 50/50 recruitment split, just interviewed and shortlisted. They can still pick the best candidate for the job regardless of gender.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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