United Release on Diversity in the Cockpit
 

".....Our flight deck should reflect the diverse group of people on board our planes every day. That’s why we plan for 50% of the 5,000 pilots we train in the next decade to be women or people of color. Learn more and apply now: https://t.co/VbOFvFOksB pic.twitter.com/r0ScH6MQAJ
I wonder what is meant by "....women or people of color...."
Furthermore, who are the other 50%?
Are they mutually exclusive?

White men are 31% of the American population and, according to your link, about 80% of the pilots at United

Draw your own conclusion.

I thought they were supposed to learn something from the Atlas accident and that a flight deck should reflect safety, competencies and professionalism instead. Whatever.

By the way, the last time I checked white was still a colour:hmm:

And here I thought discriminating on color, any color - even white - was racist and discriminating on sex, any sex - even male - was sexist and that it's in everybody's interest to simply get the best person for the job.

PS: I want to see the same policy for garbage men. Sorry, garbage women.

A close reading indicates the possibility that training would be given preferentially to people from non-traditional backgrounds. It does not indicate that trained pilot recruitment would involve the same bias. It may not even be this, it may be just trying to encourage people who have not seen flying as a career possibility, to get involved.
I once has a conversation with someone involved in the selection process looking for an addition to a department, which at that point had only male staff, one woman having recently been secunded elsewhere. They had 120 candidates, for two positions, only twenty of which were women. The problem was that women were not even applying, because they assumed from the existing set up that they had no chance of getting the job.
So United may be just trying to get the numbers applying up, without any intention to get involved in preferential recruitment practices.

DrCuffe Come on! I'm all for the positive spin, but what they are saying is there are too many white males in the flight deck.....I've been involved at hiring at a major Cargo Carrier and was told...point blank.....that we could only interview Blacks; preferably Black Females! Being the "company man" that I am, I stated: "Wow, maybe we can find one that's also disabled". The HR person was oblivious to the sarcasm and got very excited!
The IOE will undoubtedly be scrutinized and determined to be unfair......

That's why UAL sucks!

Sure we could use more lady pilots but the people who harp on about this sort of thing tend to conveniently ignore the wildly "unfair" proportion of female garbage collectors, coal miners, etc...

I'm certain that being male and pale will still get you a job at United providing meeting the minimum requirements and no failed checkrides, DUIs and MAGA (and the sort) social media posts in the past.

As a matter of interest what proportion of pilots are recruited from the military? And what the gender and ethnic split of military pilots?

With 40% of the U.S. population non-white the 50% combined target for women & non-white groups may well be reasonable. Where I am more dubious is Joyce at Qantas suggesting he wants 50% of cadets to be female. I don't know about Oz but here in the UK the majority (55% - 60%) of entrants to medical doctors and lawyers are female (as indeed are the entrants to university and good for women for being ambitious). You have to accept that as a result of personal preferences not every profession will be split 50/50 between men & women - there is only one male teacher out of over 20 at a primary school near me. Isn't the point about diversity that people are different?

Its good to see a cadet scheme, hitherto lacking amongst US airlines (except recently JetBlue) and everyone of ability regardless of colour, gender or social background should be given an equal chance to participte.

DDG-37 My personal opinion is that hiring based on skin color is just wrong. So I'm with you there. It also puts an unfair onus on the hired, who have to prove that they were the best candidate for the job, apart from skin color, all over again to their fellow pilots after they have been hired.
United were saying that they have too many white males, and to remedy this, they are proposing to provide a route for minority, and female pilots into the profession with them.
A non industry related source:

There are all sorts of reasons why the best pilot for the job may not get hired, none of them good. I'm clearly not in the industry, but I suspect that if as a White male, you challenged a decision not to hire you, on the basis that the airline was trying to get a more balanced workforce, getting evidence would be difficult, and your name might be shared, in a way that names were possibly not shared in the Atlas incident.

At least we seem to be moving forward. My forefathers behaved very badly in British India and I turned out looking like the Headwaiter in the Balti. One Far East airline rejected me, in 1978 because they thought I was Indian. Decades on, pre pandemic, they were actively recruiting in India.

I don't see that as discrimination against white male (for the record I'm one myself) But something to adjust chances of success in life regardless of your gender or colour. So far it leans too much towards white male.

This issue of gender and ethnics need to be tackled right at the beginning by governments, not by HR people.
Somewhere when kids are kids so they can get proper education and all. Then you will be able to select who you want according to real competencies not just gender or colours who are (and we all agree with) Not competencies.

If the united workforce is anything like they said then this initiative could be nothing but a good thing. Having some diversity in the cockpit makes for a much better place to work. All those white males crying foul are probably just scared because if they were any good at their jobs they would not be feeling so threatened.

From the 50% quota it appears it targets equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunities. That's bad.