Airline gender pay gap

[RAT 5]

I do know of one CEO whose personal opinion was against female recruits of certain ages. This was many years ago, and after the EU had introduced very generous maternity leave allowances. There were many more applicants than vacancies, so he could hide his feelings. To him it was quite simple, and this was before all the cadet & P2F stuff: you hire a mid-late 20's experienced female and within a couple of years she's on the baby train. The amount of time off required, on full pay, caused rostering problems and unwanted headaches. (no pun). Once that was over, a few months later it repeated itself. Put 6-10 of these in the mix and it was something he wanted to avoid.
Now, up steps an experienced captain, or one ready for command, late 30 early 40 lady with kids already in tow, and no problem. In she came.

One can understand his pure business thinking. To him was sad but true.

[Trossie]

Positive discrimination is illegal in the EU, positive action is not.

But to take 'positive action' you need to discriminate against those who don't fit into the group that are benefiting from that 'positive action'.

[vascodegama]

Originally Posted by Trossie

But to take 'positive action' you need to discriminate against those who don't fit into the group that are benefiting from that 'positive action'.

That is exactly the mistake my local police force made-they tried to exclude white males from a recruiting drive. In doing so they fell foul of the legislation.

[vascodegama]

Originally Posted by Council Van

The BBC seem to get away with it, they have adverts which clearly say White people may not apply.

Ultimately of course only a court could rule on this-I haven’t seen said adverts but did anyone challenge them? Certainly my local police force ended up in the dock so to speak.

[iggy]

Originally Posted by de fumo in flammam

...knowing their safety is in the hands of people who may have had an easier ride to get to the hot-seat...

If pax don't care about PTF I fail to see why they would care in such case.

[Trossie]

iggy is totally correct. Pax care nowt about who's 'up front' as long as the flight is cheap.

But it is the other person in those front two seats who might be wondering if the other person next to them got that position due to competence or to fill a 'quota' for publicity purposes?

[Future Rodney King]

The ultimate arbiter of whether this "affirmative action" is wise, is the frisson of unease an informed passenger may now feel when they hear on the PA that they have an all female flight crew, knowing their safety is in the hands of people who may have had an easier ride to get to the hot-seat, compared to male equivalents - which in the end is doing a huge disservice to the 99% of the minorities it is supposed to help.

However most pax are less than informed; "tell the captain there is fuel dripping from underneath the plane", views condensation, drip drip drip; "the engines are making a clanking sound" hears sound of fan turning in the wind. Travelling as pax I am more than informed and never feel a 'frisson of unease' when welcomed on board by a female voice. Everyone has heard the oafish quips directed at female pilots, not cool and played out years ago. Flown with plenty of females in both seats and can honestly say the majority were as good if not better than their downtrodden white male counterparts, respect. I find that the girls are far more determined to make a successful contribution to the profession than the (sometimes mostly) privileged little boys who's mummies and daddies have remortgaged their house for/given bundles of cash to after 3 years wasted at uni to go and fly big shiny jets. Even today little girls are made to feel that such a profession is not for them, its a boys job. So I fully welcome the 'positive discrimination' as some of you put it (even though it isn't)! More females should be encouraged to fly our aircraft, so what if companies want to promote that idea?

[Heathrow09L]

For goodness sake, every application I have seen by airlines have been available and open to applicants who meet the requirements at that time, in no way has it ever said “Females cannot apply”.

Male and female have all been eligible, so I really don’t see the song and dance about women, they are not hard done by, they can apply just like everyone else, nobody is more special than the other.

[schweizer2]

Originally Posted by Future Rodney King

However most pax are less than informed; "tell the captain there is fuel dripping from underneath the plane", views condensation, drip drip drip; "the engines are making a clanking sound" hears sound of fan turning in the wind. Travelling as pax I am more than informed and never feel a 'frisson of unease' when welcomed on board by a female voice. Everyone has heard the oafish quips directed at female pilots, not cool and played out years ago. Flown with plenty of females in both seats and can honestly say the majority were as good if not better than their downtrodden white male counterparts, respect. I find that the girls are far more determined to make a successful contribution to the profession than the (sometimes mostly) privileged little boys who's mummies and daddies have remortgaged their house for/given bundles of cash to after 3 years wasted at uni to go and fly big shiny jets. Even today little girls are made to feel that such a profession is not for them, its a boys job. So I fully welcome the 'positive discrimination' as some of you put it (even though it isn't)! More females should be encouraged to fly our aircraft, so what if companies want to promote that idea?

So you implying that only little boys will have mummies and daddies who remortgage a house for training? Is this why giving 30,000 euro to a female is acceptable and not to a male?

I for one worked my little boys bum off to get to where I am, god how I would have loved to be handed 30 grand for training!

You must have a very strange definition of discrimination if you don't think this is it.

[Trossie]

Originally Posted by Heathrow09L

For goodness sake, every application I have seen by airlines have been available and open to applicants who meet the requirements at that time, in no way has it ever said “Females cannot apply”.

Male and female have all been eligible, so I really don’t see the song and dance about women, they are not hard done by, they can apply just like everyone else, nobody is more special than the other.

This one

The scholarship is open for female applicants to be trained at FTEJerez as part of the Thomas Cook Airlines Mentored Cadet Pilot Training Programme. Each year for the next five years, one scholarship of 30,000 euros will be awarded to a successful applicant to be applied towards her training costs at FTEJerez.

... quite clearly implies that "Males cannot apply"!


Any influence in this field should be by parents encouraging their offspring of both genders that they should aim for what they want. From then on they are on equal footing and that is genuine 'gender equality'. Airlines do not limit pilot recruiting to one gender. If there are less woman pilots then it must be a sign that less women want to be pilots. No 'social tinkering' can alter that. But now in the name of some bollocks 'political correctness' you are getting airlines handing out a 30.000 euro 'bung' to a woman solely because she is a woman.

[Start Fore]

The world has gone bananas. Thanks lefties.

[Rated De]

The repetition of a statement which is patently untrue is propaganda.

'Gender pay gap' is simply the median wage of men in full time work, compared to median wage of women in full time work. There is a gap, but why it exists is never discussed.

What it hides is that:

1. What people do for a job
2. The concentration in particular industries of a particular gender
3. Education levels and field of study.

Thus it is disingenuous that all they mention is the 'gap' as it suits a particular agenda.


Is it not surprising that some industries are dominated by one gender? If that work is highly skilled, specialist and even sometimes risky, does that usually attract remuneration differences?
Think of drilling on an oil rig or child care. Would there be a difference is gender presence and remuneration?


This is conveniently ignored.

[Training Risky]

Originally Posted by Future Rodney King

... Even today little girls are made to feel that such a profession is not for them, its a boys job....

You are quite obviously talking hoop. EVERY advert for EVERY job in the UK, whether on the tube, the TV or on billboards has a picture of a smiling strong confident woman, sometimes an ethnic woman, sometimes also with an ethnic man in tow.

Girls are constantly told by teachers that there is nothing they can't do. My sons' headmaster recently appointed TWO head girls for the academic year and quite brazenly told the parents he couldn't find a suitable Year 13 boy so didn't see why he should appoint a head boy. (Try doing the same with two head boys and see how long you last in post...!)

[olster]

It’s amazing how one can spout sexist and racist drivel and it remains uncensored as long as it attacks white males. Pathetic beyond belief. The many females that I have flown with have neither been better or worse than their male counterparts. Also the colour of their skin is completely irrelevant. The majority of pilots regardless of dna have worked hard to achieve their seat at the sharp end. I could not care less except that they do their job proficiently. And I don’t think that my views are unusual. I am sick and tired of this irresponsible pc bollox.

[Rated De]

The question many young pilots of a certain gender (pick one) are considering is, having obtained a Commercial Licence do I:

1. Tackle an Instrument Rating
2. Tackle an Instructor's Rating
3. Gender reassign, after all apparently is fluid now!

A tricky proposition where choices costing dollars and progression are concerned

[Trossie]

Originally Posted by Rated De

Think of drilling on an oil rig or child care. Would there be a difference is gender presence and remuneration?

Would there be a difference in life-style, especially home life? Why, oh why, is that always ignored and money, money, money put at the fore in any comparisons? Maybe women are often brighter in choosing careers/jobs that give them a better lifestyle and that just happens to be at the expense of pay. But everybody only fixates on pay. If less women are airline pilots them maybe the cr@p lifestyle has more influence on their choices than anything else?

[Rated De]

If less women are airline pilots them maybe the cr@p lifestyle has more influence on their choices than anything else?

Exactly.

Ignoring the element of choice is what the system intends. Money does one little good when in the graveyard. Money was compensation for risk and loss (be it mining risk or being away from kin)
Supply of pilots was a function of demography; more supply than demand and down went terms and conditions.

Adversarial IR/HR models are all predicated on endless supply, which no longer holds.

Many have worked out the job offers little 'compensation' for the loss and perhaps one gender worked that out a lot earlier than the other!

[Stocious]

Interestingly BA have just published their gender pay gap stats. Apparently 10% male favoured overall, but if you take the pilots out of the equation (94% male) then the pay difference favours women by 1%.

[Krautwald]

I get that girls are less encouraged in daily life (not media campaigns), but on the other hand IF they make it to flight training and manage to be not catastrophic, the deal is almost set. Just my impression. Very high reward for those who show up.

I go modular, see different ATOs, instructors, career advisors and sometimes airline pilots. Females seem to struggle with similar things than men but one thing very rarely: permanent unemployment.

Men have to make the top whatever percentage applicable to the number of positions hired for. Women have to pass the standard requirements and are very close already.

I will take corrections from more experienced contributers, especially airline insiders, but my impression is that regardless of a womans age, background, ATO or what have you: once licensed and up to basic standard, women have to try hard to get it wrong.

[JPFTEJerez]

It’s time companies stop amounting to pressure from the growing number of Social Justice Warriors we are seeing in society these days.

The route to the the right hand seat of an airline has nothing to do with your gender. Aptitude is genderless, EASA exams are genderless and flying is, you guessed it, genderless. There is simply no barrier for woman getting into the industry. In fact, right now you’re at a huge advantage if you are a female.

Airlines offering sponsored or subsidised training for females because there’s not as many in the industry is ridiculous, and not to mention, sexist. It’s not positive discrimination; it’s just discrimination. The fact of the matter is that there’s not as many woman interested in aviation. So why are we punishing the males?

As for the “gender pay gap.” Any economist worth their salt will tell you that it is a myth. It does not exist. It’s illegal to pay woman less, otherwise every company would only employ woman. The pay gap is taken from a comparison across all jobs in society and so does not represent a job for job “pay gap.” It’s about time these people got over themselves and started promoting real equality instead of superiority.