Women Pilots
Guest
Posts: n/a
The company I work for automatically interviews any female applicants (obviously they meet the minimum criteria). I know this because I asked the person who is responsible. Just a statement of fact, not an opinion, read into it what you will.
In order to get a job one has to stand out from the crowd, by being female in a male dominated industry you do so by default. FYI I used to work in the recruitment department of a large blue chip company. Selection is often not very scientific!
[This message has been edited by Harry Wragg (edited 18 March 2001).]
In order to get a job one has to stand out from the crowd, by being female in a male dominated industry you do so by default. FYI I used to work in the recruitment department of a large blue chip company. Selection is often not very scientific!
[This message has been edited by Harry Wragg (edited 18 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hat n' Sash,
I'm going to get into your personal photographic interpretation. What I will tell you (and that isn't suggest), is that BA will select anybody who is qualified for the job and passes the selection procedure. There is no quota, nor even the merest suggestion that any person from any minority should be taken before anyone else.
Who actually applies for the job is another matter. It has already been suggested that white males are more likely to apply to BA and I wouldn't disagree with that. In order to keep the field level all groups of people should be aware that they could apply to join if they wanted to. That is not discriminatory, it just lets everyone know they all have the same opportunities (it is for this reason that BA advertised some time ago in Asian papers and womens magazines). Some people in the company got a little upset by this and suggested that this was positive discrimination. When it was pointed out that the advertisment had also been run in Flight etc they calmed down a little, but it doesn't take a lot for people to go too far off track.
As I said before, the only way to go about this sort of stuff is to make sure that evryone knows they have the opportunity and to select only on merit and suitability for the job. This is true in all walks of life, but I can guarantee that is how BA operates...take it from one who knows
Toodle oo,
Pontius
------------------
You Ain't Seen Me - Right !!
I'm going to get into your personal photographic interpretation. What I will tell you (and that isn't suggest), is that BA will select anybody who is qualified for the job and passes the selection procedure. There is no quota, nor even the merest suggestion that any person from any minority should be taken before anyone else.
Who actually applies for the job is another matter. It has already been suggested that white males are more likely to apply to BA and I wouldn't disagree with that. In order to keep the field level all groups of people should be aware that they could apply to join if they wanted to. That is not discriminatory, it just lets everyone know they all have the same opportunities (it is for this reason that BA advertised some time ago in Asian papers and womens magazines). Some people in the company got a little upset by this and suggested that this was positive discrimination. When it was pointed out that the advertisment had also been run in Flight etc they calmed down a little, but it doesn't take a lot for people to go too far off track.
As I said before, the only way to go about this sort of stuff is to make sure that evryone knows they have the opportunity and to select only on merit and suitability for the job. This is true in all walks of life, but I can guarantee that is how BA operates...take it from one who knows
Toodle oo,
Pontius
------------------
You Ain't Seen Me - Right !!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Interesting to note through all this thread is that, while there are obviously postings from both sides of the Atlantic, no one has commented on the differences in hiring policies for women between the U.S. and Europe.
Having now worked as a commercial pilot in California and the UK, I can honestly say that it easier to get an interview if you are female in the U.S. (note I say interview, not job). I presume this is because of the affirmative action laws in the US. And all the talk of 'my career would be much further along now if I had tits' made for a thoroughly unpleasant work environment.
In my experience of 3 UK airlines, I have come up against some negative discrimination in one previous job. It's always hard to know why you don't get an interview, but I do believe discrimination was a factor with one UK airline which I think is the same one eluded to earlier in this thread.
Having said that, if I compare my career with that of my (male and female) colleagues, I'm behind some and ahead of others - probably about right. My current employer has always treated me fairly and equally as a professional pilot, no more, no less. And that's as it should be.
Having now worked as a commercial pilot in California and the UK, I can honestly say that it easier to get an interview if you are female in the U.S. (note I say interview, not job). I presume this is because of the affirmative action laws in the US. And all the talk of 'my career would be much further along now if I had tits' made for a thoroughly unpleasant work environment.
In my experience of 3 UK airlines, I have come up against some negative discrimination in one previous job. It's always hard to know why you don't get an interview, but I do believe discrimination was a factor with one UK airline which I think is the same one eluded to earlier in this thread.
Having said that, if I compare my career with that of my (male and female) colleagues, I'm behind some and ahead of others - probably about right. My current employer has always treated me fairly and equally as a professional pilot, no more, no less. And that's as it should be.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Many years ago now, I was involved in the training of some of the first women pilots and navigators in the RAF. The RAF is an organisation that has to occasionally adjust its selection standards to reflect the realities of its current attractiveness in the employment market. In the late '80s, it was (as it is now) getting very difficult to recruit sufficient aircrew, so some recruiting standards were lowered (although it was never presented as such), and it was decided to allow women to apply.
This policy shift was extremely high-profile, so the pressure was then on to produce the first wings-qualified women. In order to fast-track the system, the very first girls came from within the RAF, as their personal qualities were already a known quantity. Many failed, and could perhaps have a case if they suggested that they were more harshly judged than their male colleagues. Misogeny? Maybe, but there was a real desire to produce female pilots and navs of the highest quality, whose qualification to wear the wings could not be doubted.
Once the high-profile first students had passed through the system, the real problems began to appear. The major one was that all the training staff were very male, no more than 35 years old, and as macho a group of blokes as you could expect to meet. Without any suggestion from above, it pretty soon became obvious (on the shop floor) that some women were getting preferential treatment. It was therefore no surprise that the better looking, and more extrovert, women seemed to have a better chance of passing the various courses. Has that had any ramifications in later service? You bet! We got some pretty, poor pilots in some highly dangerous positions. (Take that how you like!) So it's equally no surprise that there is a certain amount of scepticism when the subject of women aircrew comes up. I must stress that this is not a result of RAF policy, just a natural (and predictable) result of human relationships.
In the civilian world, there has also been a corporate desire to be seen to be 'doing the right thing', and so there may well be a greater chance for a woman to get an interview than a man, all else being equal. As more interview and training staff are female these days, however, there is less (but not no) chance that favouritism will be shown. It will happen sometimes, that's life.
At the end of the day, though, the best pilots will come from those with a willingness to learn, and a receptive attitude. Look at yourselves, and ask yourselves whether women or men best embody those characteristics?
This policy shift was extremely high-profile, so the pressure was then on to produce the first wings-qualified women. In order to fast-track the system, the very first girls came from within the RAF, as their personal qualities were already a known quantity. Many failed, and could perhaps have a case if they suggested that they were more harshly judged than their male colleagues. Misogeny? Maybe, but there was a real desire to produce female pilots and navs of the highest quality, whose qualification to wear the wings could not be doubted.
Once the high-profile first students had passed through the system, the real problems began to appear. The major one was that all the training staff were very male, no more than 35 years old, and as macho a group of blokes as you could expect to meet. Without any suggestion from above, it pretty soon became obvious (on the shop floor) that some women were getting preferential treatment. It was therefore no surprise that the better looking, and more extrovert, women seemed to have a better chance of passing the various courses. Has that had any ramifications in later service? You bet! We got some pretty, poor pilots in some highly dangerous positions. (Take that how you like!) So it's equally no surprise that there is a certain amount of scepticism when the subject of women aircrew comes up. I must stress that this is not a result of RAF policy, just a natural (and predictable) result of human relationships.
In the civilian world, there has also been a corporate desire to be seen to be 'doing the right thing', and so there may well be a greater chance for a woman to get an interview than a man, all else being equal. As more interview and training staff are female these days, however, there is less (but not no) chance that favouritism will be shown. It will happen sometimes, that's life.
At the end of the day, though, the best pilots will come from those with a willingness to learn, and a receptive attitude. Look at yourselves, and ask yourselves whether women or men best embody those characteristics?
Guest
Posts: n/a
I've brushed through the thread and so far I don't recall anyone mentioning aptitude. I've heard mention that according to the RAF methods of measuring pilot aptitude the average male candidate has a better chance of meeting the required standard than the average female. Is this true?
Being an airline pilot is obviously a different matter as providing one has the capacity to understand aerad plates, maps and r/t that's enough. You could train a monkey to fly an ILS!
I have only flown/ known a few female trainee pilots and in general what they may have lacked in ability they made up with hard graft. I would have no qualms about flying a civil aircraft with any of them. However, I have experienced first hand the extra allowances that get made and the extra tuition that is always forthcoming, so called lumpy-jumper syndrome. As someone said previously it requires a certain type of man to not allow his judgement to be clouded when a good looking woman is involved (I would hope I could, but I doubt it). In the aviation fraternity there are many astute people including other women that hold the opinion that there are women pilots that are not worthy of their post. Equality and fairness and the even application of standards will only be improved when the ratios are better balanced. In this respect women are standing in their own way due to the lack of applicants that are women. Why is this? Those that succeed are those, Male or Female, that strive to meet the required standards. We should praise everyone that does and expose all that don't meet those standards.
As an aside I was told by a RAF recruitment officer at a debrief at Cranwell "If you were asian it would be different". I was fourth on the waiting list for a sixth form scholarship. Also there were two asians and three women on my BA course of eighteen (all of whom proved that they could meet the required standards). Do these ratios reflect the proportions of initial applicants? I wonder why not? I am lucky that I have been able to study with an increased gender/ race diversity than if the application ratios had prevailed through the selection procedure. I pity the applicants that were "less unusual" that have fallen by the wayside to allow them in.
I'm not racist but neither do I descriminate against the majority.
FP
FP
Being an airline pilot is obviously a different matter as providing one has the capacity to understand aerad plates, maps and r/t that's enough. You could train a monkey to fly an ILS!
I have only flown/ known a few female trainee pilots and in general what they may have lacked in ability they made up with hard graft. I would have no qualms about flying a civil aircraft with any of them. However, I have experienced first hand the extra allowances that get made and the extra tuition that is always forthcoming, so called lumpy-jumper syndrome. As someone said previously it requires a certain type of man to not allow his judgement to be clouded when a good looking woman is involved (I would hope I could, but I doubt it). In the aviation fraternity there are many astute people including other women that hold the opinion that there are women pilots that are not worthy of their post. Equality and fairness and the even application of standards will only be improved when the ratios are better balanced. In this respect women are standing in their own way due to the lack of applicants that are women. Why is this? Those that succeed are those, Male or Female, that strive to meet the required standards. We should praise everyone that does and expose all that don't meet those standards.
As an aside I was told by a RAF recruitment officer at a debrief at Cranwell "If you were asian it would be different". I was fourth on the waiting list for a sixth form scholarship. Also there were two asians and three women on my BA course of eighteen (all of whom proved that they could meet the required standards). Do these ratios reflect the proportions of initial applicants? I wonder why not? I am lucky that I have been able to study with an increased gender/ race diversity than if the application ratios had prevailed through the selection procedure. I pity the applicants that were "less unusual" that have fallen by the wayside to allow them in.
I'm not racist but neither do I descriminate against the majority.
FP
FP
Guest
Posts: n/a
My Airline employs alot of women, it's US based. The biggest problem I see with Women pilots is not their abilities, its their motivation and goals. I've seen this many times before, in the USAF as well. The girls show up ready and willing to try their best and work hard, then they get married, and soon the kids arrive and soon after that ole "Amelia" is taking long leave of absences or just plain quitting!!! Please don't argue this point, At my Airbase we had 10 female pilots, 8 left the military before their committment was up. The other 2 joined the airlines, 1 flies for United, the other quit United! and started her own store selling aeroma-therapy products!! I'm not saying theres anything wrong, and maybe the female urge to be with the kids and raise them is overpowering to some, but the facts speak for themselves. At my airline we have a disproportionate amount of women who bypass Captain and fly as First Officers instead. I guess if Hubby is bringing in big bucks, theres no need for the added responsibilities of command. So from an employers perspective women pilots are less than a stable workforce that one can rely on and build upon. What are some of your experiences? Like I said, I have no quarrel with women pilots, I enjoy flying with them, and I know they can do the job. So do any of you out in Pprune-land have similar observations?
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have been appalled to hear of the number of alleged cases of women being "let in" to airlines even when not up to standard.
I have yet to meet anyone (male or female) who has made similar comments. The airline I work for (UK) did not used to employ women pilots, but when the airline got taken over a number of women were in the new airline. Since that time the airline has taken a very positive attitude and now actively encourages women to apply. If they had found the women to be of sub standard, or needed lots of extra training I don't think this would be their view. Personally, out of all the women pilots in my company, all have passed their courses in the standard or less time scale.
Finally, I would just like to add that perhaps we should think about something else on this thread. A few pilots have mentioned that women have been employed because of their looks, and male training captains have passed the women because they are good looking, also that women have got their jobs because of their relationship with some male in the airline.
I think this says a hell of a lot more about the men doing the recruiting and training than it does about the women who are accepted for jobs that they are not up to.
Does anyone know if there are any sub standard women pilots being recruited by companies where a female is used in the recruiting process? Perhaps we should have more women pilots doing the recruiting, as they would appear to have certain qualities the men lack....
I have yet to meet anyone (male or female) who has made similar comments. The airline I work for (UK) did not used to employ women pilots, but when the airline got taken over a number of women were in the new airline. Since that time the airline has taken a very positive attitude and now actively encourages women to apply. If they had found the women to be of sub standard, or needed lots of extra training I don't think this would be their view. Personally, out of all the women pilots in my company, all have passed their courses in the standard or less time scale.
Finally, I would just like to add that perhaps we should think about something else on this thread. A few pilots have mentioned that women have been employed because of their looks, and male training captains have passed the women because they are good looking, also that women have got their jobs because of their relationship with some male in the airline.
I think this says a hell of a lot more about the men doing the recruiting and training than it does about the women who are accepted for jobs that they are not up to.
Does anyone know if there are any sub standard women pilots being recruited by companies where a female is used in the recruiting process? Perhaps we should have more women pilots doing the recruiting, as they would appear to have certain qualities the men lack....
