Legality of Amy Johnson Initiative - Equality Act 2010
 

I know this has been posted on here before, but I cannot believe EZY are still chipping away at it.

As a disclaimer, I have nothing against female pilots, and I too want to see more women in aviation.

What I do have a problem with though, is what easyJet is doing by underwriting training loans, in excess of £100k, for female candidates and not for their equally, or perhaps even more, well-qualified and merited male counterparts.

I know for a fact I'm not the first person to say this, and I won't be the last but pilots should be selected on merit alone, regardless of your age, shape, race or what you have (or don't) between your legs.

I put it to easyJet that they may be in breach the Equality Act 2010 - which was adapted in 2011 to allow 'positive action' - making it legal to promote and recruit those who are under-represented in the employer's workforce, but ONLY if they are equally qualified. Further, positive action involves an employer taking positive 'proportionate' steps to help remove the hurdles faced by those sections of the community that are under-represented in its workforce.

How does easyJet ensure that their special six female recruits who are lucky enough to get the £100k loan backing are selected, and how it is ensured that they are equally qualified? Also, how is it that female candidates face any more financial hurdles than male candidates? It would be understandable if the loan was backed for candidates from poorer backgrounds who had nothing to secure a loan against, but this is not necessarily the case here.

There are plenty of under-represented backgrounds in aviation, and it is of course up to easyJet to choose which of these they 'reasonably think' are disadvantaged or under-represented, but why not choose a group, like those from poorer backgrounds, who are not only under-represented but also disadvantaged. While female candidates are under-represented, they are not all disadvantaged.

Aside from this, on the easyJet website, female candidates are requested to apply for the Amy Johnson Flying Initiative under 'Co-Pilots', a role that is not open to male candidates, and meanwhile the equivalent male role - an MPL scheme - is not listed or available for application on the website. How then, can easyJet ensure that the females who apply are as qualified as males who cannot?

https://careers.easyjet.com/pilots/f...opportunities/

https://easyjet.taleo.net/careersect...033.1506699895

As a suggestion of how easyJet should improve the scheme, they should means test their loan backing, to ensure it is only awarded to those from disadvantaged backgrounds, and to not offer the loan based on gender, or any under-represented group in particular other than to those who simply cannot secure a loan anywhere else.

Interesting, have you spoken to the UK Equality and Human rights commission? The wording in the adverts are pretty clever, there is no discriminatory language in the application form or in the job requirements. So technically a man can apply, won't be called for an interview tho...

Gender has been a major trending topic in the last 3 years or so, they are simply following that trend, not because they care but because its a great marketing tool I think.

I might be wrong, but minorities are severely under represented in the flight deck, in the USA black pilots for example, account to only 2% of pilots, much less than women.

As a foreigner in the UK, I feel that the issue people often don't like to talk about is how classist the country is. If you don't fit that "box" of privately educated, middle/high class, the climb is much steeper for you.

The scheme should change to a bursary or scholarship for those who are outstanding candidates, but weren't privileged enough to get the financial support for training, independent of gender or race, or social class. I'd applaud them, but as it is now, I think it's propaganda. Anyone who has worked in recruitment knows that there is discrimination, dirty secret you're not allowed to talk about it tho.

easyJet probably balance this by saying that 'exceptional' candidates have a chance of having their loan underwritten - therefore any candidate with high degree of merit have a chance of getting this... Although, what bothers me is the secrecy around this process, whereas the Initiative seems pretty clear even stating the amount of candidates who will have the opportunity of getting their loan underwritten.

Couldn’t have put it any better myself. A typical of the culture we live in today.

Airways Aviation have got a similar scheme going with the BWPA, £35k worth of training up for grabs but you can only apply if you're a woman. Not good at all.

It's all identity politics, taking a overall high-level culture and dividing it into various competing groups centered around birth characteristics, all vying for attention. There is a growing backlash against it, which we have seen most recently in the US. It hasn't done much for workers' rights in general really because the left have taken their eyes off T&Cs across employment as a whole in order to promote identity stuff.

In my current trade/profession, also male dominated, a union tried to get a company to do the same thing though the company in question told them to get stuffed. I was rather annoyed when I found my subs were funding the effort.

Back to Easyjet, haven't a clue about the legality of it but I did hear the first round of the programme did not go down particularly well with quite a few of the line pilots. Will be interesting to see if a change of CEO brings a change (or indeed end) to this particular programme. I also noticed that they are advertising at Pilot Careers Live this year too, I wonder if they have anyhing to announce.

Re: Anunaki's point, I think there is sometimes can be an alumni network at play though I don't think the privately educated etc. are necessarily employed by virtue of where they are educated. Rather, they tend to have good grades but also the friendly assertiveness that a lot of companies crave these days. If you're at a boarding school, you have to learn to make friends without much support and this in itself is probably a good prep for the workplace.

This is something that has bothered me since the schemes inception. I believe most of the key points have been mentioned. I am all for diversity in the work place, but I believe in all organisations it’s should be those who are most qualified who should get the responsibility. If I am soundly beaten to a position by very capable peers then so be it, irrespective of gender, age or ethnic background.

But I do believe that it has got to the point where it is almost a selling point and marketing ploy by EJ. Having said that I believe this positive discrimination happens within most airlines who offer these schemes.

I genuinely feel discriminated against when schemes like this are put in place.

I read these posts with amusement. 6 positions. Just 6 positions out of how many that easyJet hire per year? easyJet is underwriting the loan, not paying for it. I sincerely hope you've written to Carolyn McCall advising her of her folly. Let's see if her replacement scraps the scheme...

Discriminated against? Don't make me laugh. 5% of the world's airline pilots are women. I'm sure you can do the maths. That means 95% are men. They are your competition. Not the paltry number of women. The number of female captains world wide can fit in 1 B747. Hardly massive numbers...

When I can walk through the terminal in my uniform and no one bats an eye, when I am recognised as the captain, not the FA when I am speaking to the pax, the refueller, the handling agent, the hotel check-in staff, the taxi driver... I think you get my point. Then and only then will these schemes and initiatives be superfluous.

I sure you'll scream "it's not fair". Guess what? It's not. Life is not fair. It just isn't. If you are going to get upset before you're hired, then I had better warn you that you'll be getting upset regularly throughout your career. Someone will get "your" base. Someone will get a command before you. Someone will get a fleet change before you. Someone will be able to bid summer leave... It never stops.

You can either just shrug your shoulders and focus on with your life & career or you can whinge on a bulletin board.
Your choice.

A few interesting points made so far.

Firstly, I think it's very important to separate '(positive) discrimination', which is plainly illegal, and is not what easyJet are doing here, and 'positive action' which has been made legal, with some caveats, and is how easyJet are trying to operate this scheme.

My initial post was aimed at conjuring up some discussion and thoughts, yes, but I wasn't necessarily asking how people felt or why easyJet have pushed this initiative, which is quite obvious. The real question is: is what easyJet is doing completely legal? I'm not convinced it is.

What is it about females that makes them, specifically, have any more of a financial hurdle than anyone else? How can easyJet prove that the females selected for this scheme as equally as qualified as the males - who, let's remember, can't even apply for it!?

To reiterate, this is not about whether the scheme is fair or not, it's whether it's legal. Hence the title of the thread.

Oh the irony.

Maybe so *shrugs*

You sound rather angry and letting you're emotions get in the way on here.

I think the point is that as far as employment goes - the best should get the job. If that best person is male or female - who cares. Are females stopped from applying to all the other airline programmes? No. Are they discriminated against when they apply to them? No. So why the need to make a route specially for them? Actually I think if I was a female I would find it rather patronising. It's almost as if easyjet are saying females are less capable of doing it and so we'll give them that boost in the form of this scheme. Again, they are free to enter a level playing field (and do) in all the other schemes. So why the need for this?

The initiative here is to offer financial help to females and females only, so what about the males who can't afford it either?

The issue with women is not financial in all cases, it's the about social constructs regarding the role of women in our society, and some argue biological pre dispositions. Meaning, young girls aren't told they can, instead it's seen as a man's job. And girls in general prefer social sciences when studying. We risk getting into a modern feminism Vs second wave feminism debate, and that gets messy.
I feel that infantilises women, and as Officer kite pointed out, it's patronising. But if you are a man and you point out the hypocrisies, you are quickly shot down and told you are mansplaining, so this sort of thing goes unchallenged. When I finished my training, the girls in my school were the very first to be hired and all are captains now, I'm still looking for my first job. To our surprise, they weren't the top performers either so excuse my cynicism, I don't believe that in 2017 women are stopped from being pilots, its a choice.

One of my friend's girlfriends applied for this scheme. She did the selection and had quite a long wait to see if she'd been chosen for the full loan underwriting. Eventually they said to her "Hard luck, we won't be underwriting your loan, but you can have a place on the MPL scheme if you're willing to pay £126K like the rest...". She refused that offer. It makes me wonder whether they'll actually pay-out to anyone, or they'll just keep offering fully self-sponsored schemes.

There were rumours at my flight school about the old BA scheme. Allegedly if any male cadets underperformed or failed anything, they were dismissed. The females of course, weren't. So there are a handful of female pilots in the air for BA with numerous failed ATPL theory exams, progress tests, and check rides. The males who got through had to have immaculate training records. An instructor said the only female to get dismissed from the scheme was because she became pregnant during her training (supposedly to another male BA cadet). I'll believe that when I see it! :}

You can't help but despise positive discrimination. It creates so much animosity, especially when people are getting jobs, promotions, schemes, etc, based on their gender or skin colour. Knocking-back better candidates because of something out of their control. I'd back a law outlawing any form of discrimination. Positive or negative. Scheme open to this gender, society open to this race, club open to this colour... Get rid of it all. Everyone should have the same selection, the same chances, and the best should win. I'm all up for more fully-sponsored schemes, but give them to the best candidates, not the best women. That's my penny's worth anyway.

Just as for years, many of these same groups despised the negative discrimination. It takes a long time to redress the balance, and the aim of positive discrimination is to accelerate the process of redress. The more successful that process, the earlier it does become unnecessary. It is easy to proclaim you are “the best” when historically, your particular section of society may have been afforded the lions share of available opportunities at any given level.

Interesting comment Rottweiler, the A321 tailstrike at Glasgow was an ex-FPPer, whilst the AAIB report didn't disclose gender there were quite a few people who thought it wasn't a bloke.

Are you having a giraffe ?
 

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.

The attitudes displayed by a number of posters on this thread are exactly why there are so few female pilots. The creeping whispering and supposition that women get an “easy ride” or their incidents are glossed over is the kind of nasty whispering that is inherent in the overly masculine culture on some flight decks.

The number of cabin crew doing the job tells me it isn’t the lifestyle that’s the issue, it’s the opportunity. If you grew up seeing only middle aged men as pilots, you are not necessarily going to think it is a job available to you. More women on the flight deck can only be a good thing and EZY are to be applauded in their attempts to attract people.

I can show you literally hundreds of accidents from minor tail strikes to hull losses and fatalities with male pilots...what is it about men that makes them so prone to crashing?

Daysleeper, the point I was making wasn't based on how many male/female pilots there are. It was based on the fact that Rottweiler suggested that cadets matching a certain demographic were treated more favourably than others when they didn't meet the required standard during the course. I don't know the detail of how things actually turned out, I wasn't there.

What I was saying is that in my opinion, the AAIB report should have gone into much more detail as to the cadet's training records, especially when the landings were described as "inconsistent" and additional training was provided. Look at the detail the Kos report went into regarding performance during training, after a tailstrike which was preceded by "inconsistent" landing technique. This would certainly help determine the accuracy of what has been suggested.

Personally, with regards to opportunities in aviation, I'm in favour of equality for all, with no special treatment for anyone on the grounds of gender or race.

Nonsense - there were BA selected students of both gender who underperformed but were allowed to continue. I know of one male who despite numerous opportunities to discontinue training, was allowed to progress onto type training only to be chopped early on due to unsuitability. I heard the TRI's asked how he had been allowed to get that far and it has to be said, that's a pretty poor reflection on selection and basic training.

A lot of interesting contributions coming to light so far. Thanks for your inputs.

Actually, I have. Funnily enough, no response. :ugh:

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.

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.

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.

And, as mentioned previously, do you honestly believe that easyJet's legal department would not have scrutinised this scheme before releasing it?

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. ?

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.

Perhaps moral and legal?

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.

I don’t 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 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!

P.S. I find anyone who accuses someone of having a chip on their shoulder is usually someone with a chip on their shoulder.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I should imagine the other 49 women might be a bit miffed as well then.

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.
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.

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.

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.

Out of interest, what were their reasons? (if you don't mind)

What a morally bankrupt post.

The fact that it is impossible to be totally fair about everything is not a cart blanche to not even bother to try.

What we see here is very standard; the view that sexism is JUST FINE as long as women are the beneficiaries.

If I was to offer training at reduced rates or sponsorship, but to male candidates only, how long would it take before a legal :mad: storm ensued?

You mean like the industry essentially did for decades by putting barriers in the way for women and openly discriminating at the very outset ?
Yes it's a bit rough that today's cadets are paying for the sins of their fathers, but while it's a 5/95 split in favour of men that's gonna be positive action not sexism.
And the fact that EZY do provide financial aid to exceptional male recruits means that the opportunity exists for men to benefit too.