PPRuNe Forums


Interviews, jobs & sponsorship The forum where interviews, job offers and selection criteria can be discussed and exchanged.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12th Oct 2017, 17:14   #21 (permalink)


Probationary PPRuNer
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4
A lot of interesting contributions coming to light so far. Thanks for your inputs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by redsnail View Post
I sincerely hope you've written to Carolyn McCall advising her of her folly. Let's see if her replacement scraps the scheme....
Actually, I have. Funnily enough, no response.

I am also writing to the Equalities Commission and the Equalities minister, The Rt Hon Nick Gibb MP, to seek their opinions in this instance and try to better educate myself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pizzacake View Post
1. EasyJet employ lawyers. Presumably very good ones. If they have felt this is legal, I would put very good money on it that your questionable legal ramblings are wide of the actual legal mark.
2. You keep saying about equally qualified, if they meet the minimum criteria, then they are equally qualified, and guess who sets the criteria? EasyJet. ! You may think that flight hours, or a better degree or a rampaging sense of entitlement make you better qualified, but if easyJet( again backed up by employment law specialists) say they don't see that as a relevant advantage then you are wasting your time.
Maybe spending more time brushing up on interview and people skills to make yourself stand out at interviews rather than raising tenuous questions online might just help this become a non issue for you by making you an exceptional candidate.
Pizza Cake, I would like to address your post in particular since it is more along the 'legality' lines I was pitching my original post at.

I am not a lawyer, no. Yes, I am rambling, but am I not allowed to, or am I far off the actual legal mark there, too?

I am in a free, parliamentary democracy where we - the society - vote for a government to represent us and our values. I may be misinformed, but I am trying to educate myself by writing to the above democratically elected postholders.

You'll also notice that I have been quite careful with my words. At no point have I said easyJet has broken the law. Instead, I've simply asked the question and remarked that I'm unconvinced that they are operating within the law. I may be ignorant, yes, but at least I'm inquisitive and willing to learn. It would be arrogant not to. The day we stop doing that - learning - as human beings, and especially pilots, is the day we stop progressing, growing and ultimately living.

On your second point, I have to agree with you - but this is exactly the problem. It's not clear what defines an 'exceptional candidate' or makes someone 'equally qualified', and that's where there's room to wiggle for subjective hiring techniques - and is also what makes such a fool out of the likes of 'equal opportunities'.

Edit: I would also add that I have been good so far, at not letting emotions creep into my answers. I'm not speculating for example what current easyJet pilots might think or hearsay of instances where this scheme hasn't worked well. I am simply keeping to the question of legality. The rest is all opinion and emotion. At the end of the day, easyJet can do what it likes, moral or not - but it cannot operate outside the law.

Last edited by sleezjet; 12th Oct 2017 at 20:53.
sleezjet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Oct 2017, 20:32   #22 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Bird Land
Posts: 451
Sleezejet if you ever get an interview at EasyJet I dare you to discuss your views on this during the interview.

Its EasyJets train set, if you want them to let you play then just accept their rules.

Then again if you have written to EasyJet asking about the legality or morality of this scheme then I suspect you will not ever have to worry about an interview with them.
Council Van is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Oct 2017, 21:00   #23 (permalink)


Probationary PPRuNer
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Council Van View Post

Its EasyJets train set, if you want them to let you play then just accept their rules.

That's pretty much the same as saying 'if you want to live in my house, you have to live by my rules'. And, that's fine - except those rules do have to be legal.
sleezjet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Oct 2017, 08:41   #24 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,818
Quote:
And, that's fine - except those rules do have to be legal.
And, as mentioned previously, do you honestly believe that easyJet's legal department would not have scrutinised this scheme before releasing it?
Groundloop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Oct 2017, 15:32   #25 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Uk
Posts: 30
The reality of the situation is that easyJet can not recruit a woman over a man because she is a woman. She must be equally qualified and as discussed that definition is laid down by easyJet.
How the scheme most likely works is that from a recruitment perspective, the female pilots that apply are measured by the same yardstick as the male and then the top 6 who have applied through the initiative get it. That way the actual recruitment remains entirely on merit and ability it's the subsequent financing of training that is addressed.
Financing is a major barrier to all applicants and if easyJet have been able to make a case that removing this barrier will help with equality, then really they should be in the clear.
Now I would concede that money is not a gender based bias, but by opening the field a little more to females and getting more in the cockpit that will hopefully over time lead to a less male dominated work place and encourage more to apply.


Somewhere, in easyJet's equality section in HR there will be a business case scrutinised by lawyers, possibly drafted after speaking to the equality commission of how the initiative aims to address the underrepresentation of females in the cockpit.
I can get why you might be frustrated at it, I just think you're wasting your time on this one as easyJet ain't your local pub, they don't just do this kinda stuff on a wing and a prayer.

I'd love to know if the OP has a recent rejection letter from easyJet in their posession. ?
Pizzacake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Oct 2017, 01:13   #26 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 149
Don’t just assume because they’re a large corporate entity, that everything they do is right or legal.

If anything, the larger the operation, the bigger the bully they can be; with their dubious practices often being conducted in plain sight.
Everyone just assuming it must be okay, as it’s “such a big company”... which is exactly how they manage to get away with these things.

I fly for a firm that dwarfs Easyjet and we’ve been in the news for a lot of the wrong reasons in the last decade and we have an army of lawyers, HR bods, finance etc.
Poose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Oct 2017, 04:51   #27 (permalink)
Gender Faculty Specialist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Stop being so stupid, it's my turn
Posts: 1,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleezjet View Post
That's pretty much the same as saying 'if you want to live in my house, you have to live by my rules'. And, that's fine - except those rules do have to be legal.
Perhaps moral and legal?
Chesty Morgan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Oct 2017, 09:02   #28 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Bird Land
Posts: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleezjet View Post
That's pretty much the same as saying 'if you want to live in my house, you have to live by my rules'. And, that's fine - except those rules do have to be legal.
No doubt Easyjets lawyers will have a better understanding of the the law than you do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pizzacake View Post

I'd love to know if the OP has a recent rejection letter from easyJet in their possession.



If he hasn't he will receive one if he applies to easyJet in the future.


I guess that the OP wants to become a commercial pilot, if so I would advise you to divert your efforts towards improving your own chances of employment rather than waisting time writing to Carolyn McCall, the Equalities Commission and the Equalities minister, The Rt Hon Nick Gibb MP.

You come across as some one who has a chip on your shoulder

Last edited by Council Van; 14th Oct 2017 at 09:18.
Council Van is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Oct 2017, 09:11   #29 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Scotland
Posts: 20
I think you've very much mistaken what this Initiative is about. It's a very male dominated industry and there are many of them around. This initiative is about encouraging woman to apply for the role and encouraging them to engage with easyJet about how to reach the role of pilot. Woman will still have to reach the same standard as male applicants when going through the process.

I work somewhere that had a similar scheme to encourage woman to apply for a male dominated industry. Previously female applicants were few and far between - a recent recruitment drive saw a huge number of female applicants and a large number of them are now in training for the role.

There are only 6 opportunities for loan underwriting under this initiative, and I would assume there are a further 6 not related to this initiative. There is no unfair advantage, it's merely a campaign to encourage woman to apply who might not have otherwise applied.

The likelihood of easyJet underwriting your training loan is slim to almost non-existent. I haven't read a single post here about anyone having gotten this underwriting. (Edit: Actually to correct myself I saw one post but they only offered to do this after the candidate had applied themselves for funding and then easyJet stepped in - if that was true then it appears easyJet want to be sure you pass lenders criteria before they offer support)

It's far more likely that loan underwriting is only done to candidates who already work for easyJet. I have friends who work there who have said if you work there easyJet will support you in the process. You must have worked there for at least 18 months to qualify for the support (and when they mention support I assume they are talking about loan underwriting).

This thread does seem a bit like sour grapes.
31Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th Oct 2017, 00:19   #30 (permalink)


Probationary PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: UK
Posts: 3
I donít believe people are getting OPs message

I commend OP by the way he has conducted his inquiry. Different mix of people on this thread and it is interesting to hear differing view points. Each of which have, to some degree, a vested interest in this matter. Making it quite hard to look at it objectively, OP in my opinion is the only one who has a measured and rational approach to the issue.

Having said that, many valid points have been brought up.

I take the argument there arenít as many women in the industry... and this needs to be addressed. However giving aspiring female pilots the financial opportunity and not male aspiring pilots the same opportunity is surely in some way discriminatory.

Contrary to popular belief the main obstacle to anyone getting into the industry is your ability to pay, not your gender. I know many female pilots and male pilots from various airlines, all very capable. But all quite well off and able to pay. I equally know some men and women who are even more capable but could not afford it and now fly in the military... arguably even more selective.

Social mobility regarding gender isnít as prominent an issue now for current generations as it traditionally has been. Though I am not saying bias doesnít still exist. But change happens gradually, and it is possible now for men to be discrimated against (there do exist occupations that are primarily female, and there are cases of child custody being granted in favour of the mothers rather than fathers [random example soz]) as well as women. Thatís equality for you!

P.S. I find anyone who accuses someone of having a chip on their shoulder is usually someone with a chip on their shoulder.
Aplucas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th Oct 2017, 10:44   #31 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Domaine de la Romanee-Conti
Posts: 1,641
What a steaming pile of horse manure. With regard to being "selected on merit", I think you guys fail to understand the reality. It's more like, having screened from the initial several thousand applicants, they have culled probably 90% and ended up with several hundred who they consider to be the most meritorious and likely to succeed. They have a couple dozen positions to fill. At that stage, they might as well pick names out of a hat. If they decide to address what they perceive to be a gender imbalance in their workforce, that is entirely their prerogative.

This is one of the most brutal unfair industries in the world where timing is everything, nobody owes you a damn thing, and years of work can be undone in the blink of an eye if some @sshole examiner decides he doesn't like you on the day. There's bloody nothing you can do about it except be the best you can be, yourself.

You won't last very long if you're the kind of person who frets because you feel that someone else got an easier ride.
Luke SkyToddler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th Oct 2017, 14:38   #32 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 1,409
Quote:
Contrary to popular belief the main obstacle to anyone getting into the industry is your ability to pay, not your gender.
Except gender (and race) is stopping people even thinking they can apply.

The industry is denying itself a vast array of talent due to social factors and with this initiative Easy are going a tiny way to trying to resolve this.
Daysleeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th Oct 2017, 19:49   #33 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daysleeper View Post
Except gender (and race) is stopping people even thinking they can apply.

Couldn't agree more. The problem isn't that we do not have 'enough' females/people of colour in the flight deck. The problem is when somebody thinks they can't apply because of their race/gender.
foliot-pilot is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 15th Oct 2017, 20:42   #34 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Uk
Posts: 30
We get the OPs point, it's just poorly researched and badly thought out

aplucas, the OP, having done what appears to be enough research to know there's law covering this has the then decided to go off writing to those in high office than continuing his research.
This suggests anything but an objective approach. An objective approach involves taking a broad view of the topic and reading multiple sources and assessing them for validity rather than half doing it and shooting off on a forum.

And 30seconds of research will tell you that exceptional canditates of any gender also get considered for financial support which takes the initiative from discrimination to positive action which a further minute googling will inform you, is specifically allowed and encouraged in the law.

I will once again repeat my belief that the OP has been recently rejected and I'll add that with this kind of attitude I'd hazard that's a good thing.

Last edited by Pizzacake; 15th Oct 2017 at 20:43. Reason: Spelling
Pizzacake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th Oct 2017, 21:00   #35 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Bird Land
Posts: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aplucas View Post

P.S. I find anyone who accuses someone of having a chip on their shoulder is usually someone with a chip on their shoulder.
Not me. Got to the last 16 for 4 places sponsorship with British Midland but obviously some of the other candidates were better, oh well it's a competitive industry and did not have a spare £50k floating around to pay for a full time course at Oxford so off to work, make some sacrifices and go without to pay for my own PPL, hours building, BCPL and instructors ticket. Couple of years doing that, got married but not even living with the wife. Time to do the IR so jack the job in, come home from the IR with a bit of a bank loan to have the wife to tell me we are expecting a child, no job and no house. Tough world but life goes on, could sit around with a chip on my shoulder thinking how bad things are but got of my backside and started putting my CV under doors quite literally and Bingo, land a nice turbo prop job.

Did that for nine years, left handset, loved the job happy days but all of a sudden talk of losing the Contract so start looking for other jobs, into the hold pool of a UK based jet operator. Things looking good but mid 2008 and recession has arrived and on the dole I go sat in a non moving hold pool. What to do, I know get work any place so how about Nigeria, bit of a rough tough old Country but it helps pay the bills, chip on my shoulder, no as no one owe me a living. Do that for a while, get layed off again(happy to escape the delights of Africa) back on the dole but still in the hold pool. Just about to take a job in Southern Sudan but eventually get the good news from the UK operator and off to do a shiny jet type rating but the bad news it is a East Germany base.

Still need the money so start commuting , very difficult being away so much with a young family but some one has to pay the bills as you do not very often get something for nothing. Keep applying for jobs back home and eventually get a great opportunity.

Been back for nearly 4 years now, nice number, do not fly to much, home most nights but of course in this industry you are only as good as your last medical, IR or pay check.

Chip on my shoulder? Not me. Life is a battle, a competition, if you want something you have to work for it. Think life is tough or unfair in the UK then go visit sub Saharan Africa and see how tough life really is for the majority of the people on this planet.

I get payed plenty of money to fly shiny jets, happy days, I guess the hard work payed off, for the time being.
Council Van is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th Oct 2017, 21:37   #36 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Scotland
Posts: 20
You only have to read the easyjet page about this to see....

easyJet set a recruitment target of 12% for female pilots under this initiative over 2 years. They managed to recruit 33 in one year which made their 12% target. That would mean 242 recruits were Male that year. They’ve now raised that to 20%.

If they recruit the same number of pilots then 55 would be female and 220 would be Male. Only 6 are getting the underwriting.

Going back to the OP you also mentioned them advertising on their career website, this isn't quite true. It says on it that it's not an application, it's merely an option to register your interest - which I imagine will result in you being directed to L3.

Last edited by 31Pilot; 15th Oct 2017 at 22:09.
31Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th Oct 2017, 21:45   #37 (permalink)
Gender Faculty Specialist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Stop being so stupid, it's my turn
Posts: 1,415
I should imagine the other 49 women might be a bit miffed as well then.
Chesty Morgan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Oct 2017, 22:54   #38 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: France
Posts: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundloop View Post
And, as mentioned previously, do you honestly believe that easyJet's legal department would not have scrutinised this scheme before releasing it?
What a court might interpret as legal or not, and if illegal the severity of the sentence will highly depend on factors like feelings, social status of the people involved, and the news.

For instance, some idiots in France took advantage of the terrorist attacks to pose as victims and profit from the victims fund.
Due to the very sensitive nature of the related events, they got the worst possible sentences. Several years in prison, whereas in other circumstances (like if they had been powerful politicians embezzling money from honest citizens) they could have avoided prison (or even a sentence) altogether.


What I mean is that this programme is very consistent with the general trend of feminism nowadays.
There aren't many women in positions of power ? Let's favour them in reaching those.
There aren't many women in prison or dangerous/exhausting jobs ? No one cares for these men (not even me)

About the flying positions, we should really wonder if it is normal or not that there are so few women in recreational flying (because making a career out of it is a huge commitment, however flying for fun is very attainable if one wants so).
Is it because they feel pressured into not pursuing this interest ? This would be a huge problem.
Is it because there are other reasons, like they just lack interest ? This is totally acceptable.
I don't see the point in wanting to impose equal numbers everywhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aplucas View Post

I take the argument there aren’t as many women in the industry... and this needs to be addressed. However giving aspiring female pilots the financial opportunity and not male aspiring pilots the same opportunity is surely in some way discriminatory.

Contrary to popular belief the main obstacle to anyone getting into the industry is your ability to pay, not your gender. I know many female pilots and male pilots from various airlines, all very capable. But all quite well off and able to pay. I equally know some men and women who are even more capable but could not afford it and now fly in the military... arguably even more selective.

Social mobility regarding gender isn’t as prominent an issue now for current generations as it traditionally has been. Though I am not saying bias doesn’t still exist. But change happens gradually, and it is possible now for men to be discrimated against (there do exist occupations that are primarily female, and there are cases of child custody being granted in favour of the mothers rather than fathers [random example soz]) as well as women. That’s equality for you!
Why would it be a problem if there are few women in flying jobs ? What if they don't want to fly airplanes ? Let them be !
Is it a problem if there aren't many men working as children caretakers ?

Plus, you're entirely right when you say the main obstacle is money, not gender.

The entire debate about class conflict, which is more real now than ever, has been carefully manipulated into a "race conflict" and a "gender conflict".
I couldn't find a very definitive proof until recently. The perfect example was the following:
Our French minister of labour, an old woman, had worked in the private sector and made huge amount of money, presumably because she acted as head of HR while her company fired many people, which allowed the company to increase its profit and its stock (and she had tons of stock).
When a journalist asked her how she could justify making this much money and at the same time asking her fellow citizen to accept worse social conditions (job security, salary, hours, holidays, etc..).. guess what her answer was ?
"Women have the right to make as much money as men"
She completely moved the subject from class conflict (the real subject) to gender conflict.

Last edited by KayPam; 16th Oct 2017 at 23:08.
KayPam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Oct 2017, 23:32   #39 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 29
I believe that Easy jet will be recruiting women under a positive action scheme. To my certain knowledge, in the past, HSBC and the BBC have gone down this route to redress the racial inequalities of their workforces. That is why we see and hear black and minority ethnic groups more and more in the BBC these days. The yardstick used is the number of a particular group in the background population.
We alll know the percentage of women in the population so that 50% or thereabouts will be the position they are aiming for.
Positive action schemes are lawful while positive discrimination is unlawful. Btw, the correct terminology is unlawful not illegal. The former is civil law while the latter is criminal law.
ChocksAwayChaps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th Oct 2017, 12:04   #40 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChocksAwayChaps View Post
We alll know the percentage of women in the population so that 50% or thereabouts will be the position they are aiming for
That's on the assumption that an equal number of men and women actually want to be pilots. IMHO it'll never be anywhere close to 50% for that reason. They can remove any negative stigma/preconceptions that it's a 'man's job', go into schools and let people know it's a career for anyone/everyone but they can't force people to want to do it.
foliot-pilot is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Tags
act, amy, easyjet, equality, johnson

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 17:40.


© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1