rustypigeon

I agree.

I was referencing the pilot group as a whole industry, not any particular niche subset... hence my use of "on a large scale" above.

Thank you for your comment. It's interesting to see the difference in comments from those who can provide facts, and the those who can do nothing more than make those who disagree with them appear to be bigots. Ironically, the hiring practices they support are racist and sexist by definition.

You can have equal opportunity or you can have equal outcome. You can't have both. They can't exist at the same time.

I'll take equal opportunity every time.

“It’s amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites.” ~Thomas Sowell~

dmeg13021

No, because you’re using a different definition of “standard” than the industry uses. What you are trying to say is that you cannot increase the pool size without lowering the average qualification (experience) level, which is neither lowering minimums nor lowering performance standards. As hiring levels fluctuate, so naturally does the experience of the applicant pool.

Broadening the applicant pool regardless of motivation does not in anyway necessitate a corresponding reduction in required performance in training nor a decrease in safety.

Grumble

Herein lies the crux of the problem, we don’t get rid of people for performance based issues… period. I DGAF how/who/what you identify with, are you capable of taking my family safely from A to B?

NotTHATJoker

Your first sentence is assuredly true AF!

That said, l have learned in my (perhaps limited) experience, racial prejudice more often is hand-in-glove with lower intellect. And publicly showcasing one's bigotry in America just screams "I'm not very bright!"

As your first sentence posits, generalizations are not absolute. But most of use reading this - who won't post - will draw the obvious conclusion from bigotry.

CX500T

Here is my issue with DEI (Wasn't called that then)

The person who caused the mishap that resulted in life altering injuries for me (can't have kids, can't touch toes, in pain a lot) was given at least 3x the normal maximum of failures in flight school (military) because "she would eventually meet standards".

Because they (congress, and senior leadership who are basically politicians) desired that someone with her demographics (female, minority) make it if at all possible.. Whereas a man of the same ethnicity wouldn't be given half the chances she got.

Which then leads to issue two.

You have people like my friend J, who was one of the best helicopter pilots I have ever flown with, and probably one of the smartest people I have ever met, and people then look at her (female minority) and wonder "is she here because she's good, or because she filled a quota". Which is a disservice to her.

My wife deals with this being in a male dominated field, and probably was the only woman in her position in the male dominated (but technically co-ed) sport she loves (as a worker/fan, not a competitior), but because I grew up around the sport and have been friends with a dozen pro racers (or more often now, their dads) since we were kids, it was an uphill battle to be accepted that she was good, and after years of it, that people appreciate that besides sounding like Fran Drescher's angry sister, she is actually very good at what she does.

Nordhavn

Keep telling yourself that brother.

Nordhavn

Rachel Maddow is much better right honey?

Elevation

Here's an article about a United father-son family. I don't know either of them, and I assume both are fine pilots and people. I'm citing this article in reference to potential nepotism, but I want to be clear that I'm referencing general hiring practices and not the specific people mentioned in this article. Please look at general practices, not individuals. With that said, here goes:

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/travel...s/70322536007/

I share this article because almost nobody was throwing a fit about a father being able to call his own son for a job at United. Few threw a fit when parents flew with their sons and daughters as first officers at Delta and elsewhere. Clearly some factors beyond ability and merit may have been at play. So if we are going to measure outrage, it seems we are more outraged about DEI than we are about nepotism.

There are potentially many reasons for this disparity which don't include racism. Many of us want to help our family members out, and our families look like us. But maybe we should all get a grip? If we aren't going to discuss merit when we hire our kids, we can't suddenly pretend to be chanpions of meritocracy when it comes to other people's kids.

We even have similar stuff happening where I work in the ACMI world. Let's dial back the rage. We've all quietly tolerated a background level of corruption for years. That's the real issue here.

ThumbsUp

Nepotism hiring is such a small proportion of a 17,000 person seniority list that it is negligible. I can count on one hand the number of people with whom I have flown with children followed in their footsteps career-wise. This seems to be some kind of rumor that people say about others who couldn't get hired at their destination carrier to make themselves feel better.

JurgenKlopp

One hand!?! GM a F B. Nepotism is massive at the legacies and you're fooling yourself if you believe otherwise. Not saying those that benefit don't belong here, but go peruse the list to see who is going to be senior for a long time. Hint hint guess what Daddy did for a living...

Actually I need multiple hands to count the captains I've flown with that have moaned about DEI hiring while later complaining that their kid as a regional FO hasn't gotten an interview call yet.