Another morally bankrupt post.

2 wrongs don't make a right. You ought to have learnt that in kindergarten.

I've been in this industry a long time and it is certainly true that women didn't have the same opportunities to get started in flying. Probably the most significant aspect being that the military route was not open too them (think how many current pilots started in the military... remember to include the very many young commercial pilots who started in the UAS system). That disparity was closed in 1985, my second year at university. Anybody under 50 has had the same opportunities.

The reason there are so few women in flying is really simple.

It's a :mad: career, especially for a woman who wants to have children:
It takes a long time to get started and can wipe out a good chunk of the child bearing years.
It required huge investment for possibly no return.

(And no, I don't think companies should discriminate based on the potential for women to have children. However it affects the choices women themselves make. And yes, the following are sweeping generalisations that do not apply in every case)

Men have always had to go out and compete, to be successful and overproduce financially so they can support a family. That makes them accept risky career choices in the hope of a big pay off.

Women on the other hand can afford to be much more pragmatic about their career choices, and commercial flying is a utterly :mad: option. You've REALLY got to want to fly in order for it to make sense.

Speaking as someone involved with training and selection, the simple fact is that the imperatives of identity politics are currently giving women an inside track. Beyond that I cannot say for obvious reasons of confidentiality.

I am opposed to this.

It's really simple; you either believe in equality or you don't. Discrimination is never justified, no matter how it is worded ("Positive action").

Where is the "positive action" to beef up the numbers of men in the teaching or Medical professions?

Where is the "positive action" to beef up the number of women working in dangerous jobs so that we can get a more equal rate of workplace fatalities?

Ain't gonna happen is it?

I hope this is a wind up because if it isn't then you're part of the problem.

Here's a thing, go look in the mirror. You'll see a massively privileged person looking back, why because your a white man. How many of your company training captains are white men ... pretty much all of them? Well done for getting there on merit alone lads. :hmm:

Pop down to the RAeS on an average day conference and count the number of women speaking, a lot of the time you'll be lucky if there is one.

You wonder about initiatives to have more men teachers and "medical professions".

Yet despite there (UK) being more women doctors now, 66% of consultants are men. 88% of surgeons. In Australia 88% of hospital CEO's are men, 70% of medical schools, headed by men.

Think about status and ask yourself again: What is the role model for a school child.

Only because you've made it one. Are only women supposed to want to see their kids?
Doesn't have to be a :mad: job for everyone, if you really are involved in training and selection what have you done to make it a better job?

How do you know he's white?

Out of interest how many white pilots are there in, say, Nigeria? How many training captains?

There are even lesser black pilots worldwide than women, wouldn't say its a good example....

It isn't. That wasn't my point.

For the last of those to run there were two female applicants. Despite attending the initial aptitude tests, neither were present for the subsequent selection stages at Kidlington yet both reappeared at the final interview and commenced training with bursary's. Both previously had relationships with/within the airline. The course was discontinued shortly after 9-11 and sponsored trainees were given the opportunity to continue at their own expense with a promise that they would be considered for employment within the bmi group on completion. Perhaps this was a form of positive action?

It was never a scholarship programme, and they don’t loan you the money either. You still have to apply for funding through a lender like BBVA, easyJet will merely provide security should you fail to make payments.

There are other Amy Johnson schemes out there, not just this one. It’s about encouraging woman into industries like flying who might not have previously thought about flying.

All they’ve said is they’ll underwrite 6 female candidates loans. For all we know that’s 6 of just 12 they planned to underwrite on the entire scheme.

Sounds like Pussy Galore's Flying Circus :)

I doubt many would default. Also it would be insignificant compared to Easy's advertising budget - and Easy probably consider it as good advertising (ignoring some of the people on here, obviously!!)

Out of interest, how many flights do easyjet operate in Nigeria ?

You've missed his point entirely. Very few pilots are female because very few females even attempt to be pilots. Very few pilots in Nigeria are white because very few white people attempt to be pilots in Nigeria. Not sure any of us would expect them to do something about it ... unless it could be determined they were actively not selecting white candidates due to them being white. Now where is the evidence that at home females were never being selected by any of the other airlines or schools due to them being female? ... if there is none, then how is this programme justified? Solving a problem that never existed?

I fear both of you have missed the point of the whole exercise. The majority of Pilots in Nigeria being black would be expected as that would be reflective of society in Nigeria and therefore not warrant consideration of any action. . The uk, is roughly 50/50 male female, the male to female balance in pilots in the uk is no where close to that, hence why it requires action and the point re Nigeria is equally transparent in its attempt to move the goalposts of the debate to something the poster thinks he can win and idiotic in its failure to understand that it actually highlights further why the initiative is required.

I'd actually hazard, that the pilot community in Nigeria is few percentage points whiter than the makeup of Nigerian society.

Nope, you've still missed my point.

We should not be working towards 'targets' here. As long as someone who has the desire to become a pilot (regardless of race, gender, sexuality etc) doesn't face any unfair obstacles/discrimination, that's fine with me.

We should be looking for the best people. Invariably, a proportion of those people will be female. If that number isn't 50%, so be it. As has been stated many times in this thread, a lot of women simply do not want to be pilots.

The biggest barrier for someone wishing to undertake commercial pilot training is finance.

Has it not occurred to anyone that there are so few female pilots in commercial aviation because it's a profession many girls/women just don't want to enter.

By comparison, medicine (my profession) and teaching have a very high ratio of women to men, in fact, in my wife's school, there are no men teachers at all. That's nothing to do with discrimination it's everything to do with the fact that everytime a suitable vacancy arises no men apply.

We live, or should live, in a meritocracy; gender, race, religion has nothing whatsoever to do with the best-qualified person getting the job commensurate with those qualifications

But the point that the bitters in this post keep making is that this scheme won't result in the best person or the person who wants it most getting the job.
Firstly, wanting a job is not reason to get it, that just smacks of misplaced entitlement.
Secondly, to be selected for the initiative you have to first satisfy the recruitment team at easyjet that you are up to the standard required, meaning, very simply, that those selected are selected on merit first and foremost.

Unless they haven't met their quota.

Just like any airline would do for men if they needed bodies fast ?

No! For anyone.