That is because 95% of the people who desire to learn to fly happen to be male. Why give special treatment to the remaining 5% who happen to be female just because they are perceived to be a minority.

It's already been done. Watch if you want to englighten yourself as to why certain genders gravitate towards certain roles, even in a gender equal utopia such as norway where they have tried very hard to get a 50/50 split.

Sorry mate but I don't follow;

The interview stage of the recruitment process isn't stage 1. Candidates have already often gone through multiple levels of selection to get there. Initially the CV is assessed for experience and qualifications, then there may be psychometric testing and personality testing.

If you stipulate that 50% of interviewees must be female, then you absolutely are affecting the selection process, discarding people who may be more qualified.

But don't take my word for it, lets ask Uncle Math!

Assume 30% of applicants are female and we want to interview 50 people.

We get 100 applications. 70 men, 30 women. Lets assume (rightly of course), than women are just as capable as men. So experience, testing results are consistent across the groups.

Of the 100 applications, we select 50 for an interview. If taken in the correct ratio, representing the top results from both groups, that would give you 35 men, and 15 women.

But wait a minute, that doesn't meet our targeted ratio! What do we do? The only thing we can do. Discard the bottom 10 men who scored above standard, and include 10 women who scored below it. Now we have 25 male and 25 female candidates. Success right?!

Do you understand now how this policy reduces the overall quality of applicants and discriminates by gender? And 30% is a very generous figure for female applicants. The real number is more like 10%.

But you know, math is hard.

Speaking of, clue me in on how men hold 95% of the jobs in the world? Do you have a source for this statistic?

And 95% of the people who desire to fly are male, because 95% of people who fly are male, therefore children see it as a men's only job Little girls are discouraged by adults and their peers for their entire lives from wanting to be a pilot. It is not genetic programming that dictates which gender becomes a pilot - it is entirely environmental. The job is just as suited to men as to women.

The problem is the societal pressure (and it is significant, noticeable if you are a woman, perhaps not so much if you are a man).

Women need to be encouraged to fly as much as men are...but when they are girls - much as boys are subtly encouraged and grooomed throughout their childhood (as opposed to women, who are subtly groomed by relatives and teachers to be good wives). Yes it needs to be done at a much earlier stage than interviews...positive discrimination only invites claims that women, despite the evidence, are only in the position because of their gender.

You may not want to acknowledge it, but the women who have made it into aviation currently have faced a much harder battle against societal norms than boys ever did - and they deserve to be congratulated for persisting in chasing their dream. Women in aviation should be encouraged - anyone who thinks that it is a job more suited to men is mildly delusional and does not properly ackowledge that women are just as capable and competent as men. Liking tractors or dolls has entirely no relevance.

Agreed, but they shouldn't be given a free ride when it comes to interviews and even scholarships for flying training.

They can be encouraged by marketing at the flying school stage but to actually have a quota to meet when it comes to selecting candidates is outright discrimination.

Perhaps it simply balances the negative discrimination that they experience their whole lives, being channeled away from aviation because it is a "boys job"? Just playing the devils' advocate. I do not, in any way, think that people should get a pilot job simply because of gender.

Unfortunately quotas are not new.
Pre- 2000 I was instructed by senior management to find females (jet jobs), as the company didn't have any applications from females on file.
I phoned around and found a few. They were not required to attend an interview, they were invited to have a quick phone conversation outlining the companies training program. They had jobs because of their genda, nothing else.

I haven't personally met all the ladies involved however anecdotally some of them were consider to be quite good.

Were they better pilots than the male candidates out there? Who knows.

The system sucks and I'm glad to be getting closer to leaving the industry. Unfortunately it's not only the way we employ females, it goes further to training, checking and all levels of management. The best people rarely are offered positions as they threaten the incumbents. The modern HR created the mess and they are incapable of understanding the problems.

I recall as a chief pilot in GA a young female pilot coming in for an interview at her request. ( we had no jobs available) she didn't wear a bra and had her shirt only buttoned up to about 3 buttons from the top. She consistently leant over my desk ensuring I could see all that was on offer and I'm pretty sure it was. There was still no job available at the end of the interview. She's probably an A380 captain today?

I have two daughters and I hope to god they have no interest in this industry!

I have encountered some excellent female pilots and am all for working with them up the front if they have achieved the position the same way their males peers have had to.
Unfortunately, I have also seen many handed jobs purely because the chief pilot thought he had a chance, and who knows what went on behind closed doors. Genuinely, the ones handed jobs were more trouble than they were worth, and some just outright dangerous.
One special case was asked to leave more GA jobs than you can poke a stick at, and now she is flying a jet apparently.

Das Uber,

Do you understand that:

“If that cannot be achieved in the event nobody from a specific gender applied OR MET CRITICAL TECHNICAL OR SAFETY QUALIFICATIONS, an explanation must be provided.”

“Speaking of, clue me in on how men hold 95% of the jobs in the world”

Badly written by myself. 95% of airline jobs in a world where half the people are women. Here in the US its actually 5.4%, probably higher than in Australia.

“Why give special treatment to the remaining 5% who happen to be female just because they are perceived to be a minority.”

Prior to the D.W case against AN, it was a given that airlines in Australia did not employ women. Would you consider that this was “special treatment” for men?

“Unfortunately, I have also seen many handed jobs purely because the chief pilot thought he had a chance…..”

Yes, and I have seen MANY men handed jobs in aviation for reasons unrelated to skills or qualifications too. Aviation is FULL OF jobs for mates, handed out for dubious reasons.

I can see good points being made by both sides of the argument here.
I like the idea that names and genders are removed from the stack of cv's prior to selecting pilots for interviews. It not only removes gender bias but many others as well, ie ethnicity.
I was on a panel that trailed through cv's for pilots to interview a while back. We definitely gave two girls a shot that had well below the standard for total time and one had no command time at all apart from that required for a licence. At that time no bloke without some good command time would have got an interview that is for sure. I have no idea how they worked out as I left the outfit shortly after.

I do. Explain to me how in the example I provided, this criteria isn't satisfied?

Selecting those for interview is about competition with their peers. Its quite possible that all 100 applicants passed minimum technical and safety qualifications. We just selected the top 50 most competitive. Yet to satisfy this stupid requirement, we discarded more competitive men for less competitive women.

If you're suggesting that an airline would never do that, and that they will only ever select the 50 most competitive people regardless of gender, then why have this pointless program or objective in the first place? The only way it could ever be achieved is if they had an equal number of applicants! Considering by your own information, only 5% of applicants are female, its an impossible goal and one bound for failure.

Considering also statements such as; "Incentives and quotas have helped reverse this situation", where its openly acknowledged that quotas are good, it seems clear to me that the intent is to take action to artificially increase the number of women to be interviewed and short listed.

You appear to be attempting to whitewash this program by putting forward a scenario where HR picks the 50 most competitive people and when inevitably 50% aren't women, are happy to just write an email to management "missed out again! maybe next time!" with that being the end of it. To suggest thats the real goal of the program I believe is to be intentionally disingenuous.

Ok, but so what? 97.7% of primary and kindergarten teachers are women. 92% of registered nurses. The list goes on.

That a field is heavily dominated by one sex isn't reason to start up a program of discrimination. Action should be taken to ensure that every field is AVAILABLE to anyone who wants to pursue it. But this is an issue of culture and doesn't have a lot to do with the actions of an airline. Seeking to correct discrimination with, drumroll, more discrimination is absurd.

If I were a minority (sex, ethnic or other), I would want to see an airline engaging in a meritocracy. That would give me the motivation and belief to make myself as good as I can be, and win the job on merit. What I wouldn't want to see was an airline engaging in discrimination that this week at least, was in my favor.

Got a source for that one Das? Cause this makes it seem unlikely, although granted it's not quite the same descriptions as yours.

Click here for actual source that isn't made up BS gut feeling

I was using older data from the US, as thats where the poster appears to be from.

I actually cant find the original source I used, which is the same data a few years before. This data from 2012 however mirrors it;

Women's Bureau (WB) Occupations - 20 Leading Occupations for Employed Women, 2012 (text version)

Hopefully the US department of Labor qualifies as an 'actual source' and not 'BS gut feeling'. Though I did appreciate your flippant comment.

:rolleyes:

Now beyond bickering about a couple of % points, do you actually have a point?

Regardless of the gender argument raging here this is a bigger problem in this industry. Average people elevated beyond their level of competence who spend more time being 'politicians' then managing their areas of responsibility, as they need to knife all threats in the back as soon as possible. :ugh:

I hope my comments aren't read as a "gender argument" and I'm sure 99% of the others feel like me. I am not against females becoming pilots, I'm against unfair practices that give them (or any group, males included) an advantage when they may not be the best person for the job.
If they are equally qualified, (experienced) equally talented no problems. A quota system is not a fair system.

The pool of applicants for apprenticeships in Aviation would usually be 99% male and 1% female. I know females who had knocked back an apprenticeship offer then begged by the HR people to reconsider....


Gender should have no bearing on recruitment decisions.

If airlines want so called genda equality, why not make the job attractive to women rather than give them a free ride.

Truth be known though, this idea has come from some insecure female HR manager with a point to prove, and guess what kind of pilots she is going to employ.

This is blatant discrimination.
Female pilots are just like male pilots - there's good and there's bad, just like any industry. Accepting applications, or preferencing for interviews based on anything other than ability and qualifications is illegal - and a text book definition of discrimination.

Perhaps many years ago, the management who instigated this scheme were once subject to discrimination for being female - and have an axe to grind. You'd have thought they wouldn't be so ignorant as to be unable to realise they're now doing the exact same thing to male applicants.

I've flown with some crap female pilots and many really good ones. Just like males.

The last few posters make a good point, too. Jetstar already has one pathetic little cretin who used her furry logbook to get to where she is today.

I say they hire the best people for the job based on qualifications and ability and experience - and be done with their little crusade.

Oicur has a point that the intuitive that JQ is talking about here is simply reporting back why there wasn't equal representation. IE only 20% of applicants were female so that's why only 20% of those being interviewed are female.

i wonder though whether this is still a subtle pressure on the recruiting system. You know the boss is after more female recruits so a politically motivated recruiting system can make a name for itself by saying there were 20% female applicants but they make up 30% of interview candidates and 40% of recruits.

Sadly it does nothing for gender equality at all.

The plenty of really competent women I know who have made it without the fanfare & chest beating, cringe at this kind of corporate nonsense.

Promote interest for both gender's in the industry at the grass roots level and let competence do the rest. If someone actively discriminates (I know of no-one who has/would), then that's a different scenario.
This silliness just invokes distrust and harms the very women they think they're supporting.

Remember, this as always, has absolutely nothing to do with notions of "the greater good". It's part of the narcissistic nature of a couple of individuals perpetually trying to raise their own "brand" profile....