For someone who can't even decide if they're absolutely alive, you seem to be pretty sure about what's "very dangerous."


Are you absolutely sure about that?




.

anyway moving forward..

You'll see that a majority are against any affirmative action, even in terms of financial assistance (which I honestly don't understand why); but at least a good bit of votes went to that. Then there are some who believe that race is an issue, and I can see how arguments can be made either for or against, due to the fact that some people are going to be racist no matter how the rest of us are... finally it seems like of some 70 votes, nobody things a woman should get preferential treatment..

Odd since the majority of the recipients of AA are white women from middle and upper middle classes, just look at your Fire and Police depts to see how that works.

As tempted as I am to post the text of a Private Message here, I absolutely believe in ethics, so I won't.



A320fumes has informed me via Private Message that he has chosen to not answer my question because it is, in his words, "stupid."


He also seems to have a bit of a problem with folks that flew "135's". Now he sees. :rolleyes:


Read my Signature Line, A320fumes.

:)




.

TonyC, while I agree with you on this (I think), I don't think we need to get personal... From what I've read on A320Fumes posts in this thread, he's only trying to make sense of this.. and much of what he said is true.. Politicians do divide us.. many of us have to choose:

a) Republican

b) Democrat

But the fact is many of us (myself included) are with one party on somethings, and the other on others.. In my case (and sure, I'll let it all out here)..


Pro-Gun ownership
Pro-Union
Pro-Faith based initiatives
Pro-Veterans Affairs
Pro-Limited AA (based solely on financial situation)
Pro-Environment (with in reason)
Pro-Small Business (no to be confused with SBA)
Pro-War On Terror and Afghanistan/Taliban
Pro-Flat Tax (exempting below $45K/yr family of 4)
Pro-Mimimum wage hike even if SBA is against it!

Anti-Big Oil / Big business lobby (this is a big one for me)
Anti-Gay Marriage
Anti-Abortion (except to save mother)
Anti-Iraq war (it's intent, and it's execution)
Anti-Eminent domain
Anti-prayer in public schools
Anti-Foreign Aid to Israel and other nations
Anti-NAFTA and Free trade with China/Vietnam

I probably fit closest in with Pat Buchanan, who's no friend of the political establishment as you all surely must know.

I doubt anyone here agrees with me down the line, or even mostly.. but the fact is I know a lot of people that don't fall into either party, and don't see it as "Black and White" when they vote for one over the other. It's only my strong faith in God and my Church that keeps me from voting for a lot of otherwise good candidates due to certain stands on life issues in my case, but at the same time it's frustrating to throw my vote away on a party that's more interested in union breaking, and shipping jobs to China than it is in the welfare of the "average" American..

So you see, in the end it's not always black or white, even if on certain things like Abortion is clearly is.


well, now that I've gone way off topic.. let's see if anyone here can get us back on.. ;)

CE750:

I would say it depends on whether that test is an appropriate measure of the candidates performance in the particular job. Even then, it could be prejudiced against what would otherwise be a superior candidate. Should a woman be required to lift the same weight as a man for example? Well if it was for a position as a weightlifter, I guess so! Most jobs are too dynamic to be reduced to a single parameter. I went to a High School that required a special test to enter. I passed and as a result was accepted into the school. Entering as a freshman, I met a girl that had failed the test, but was allowed to take a special summer program and still enter. Well she graduated near the top of the class, much highter than me.

In a nutshell, these tests are usually not an indicator of performance. Affirmative action requires first of all that the applicant is qualified. Granted, the devil is probably in the details of the meaing of "qualified".

I'm confused now days. Use to be the Republicans helping us farmers out. Now it's shifting to the Dems.

Nor do I, and that's why I decided to refrain from engaging him in a PM exchange. He's the one that attempted to impugn me because of 135 experience. That's not only personal, it's petty and irrelevant.


OK, well let's review. (Condensed for ease of reading)

A320Fumes has equated Affirmative Action to just another "topic" whose sole purpose is to get people re-elected. Flag-burning is just another "topic" whose purpose is to get people re-elected. Abortion is just another "topic" whose purpose is to get people re-elected?

These people who refuse to acknowledge the existance of a wrong and a right make me nauseous. Flag-burning was not a "topic" invented to get people re-elected. Flag-burning is either wrong or right, it's not in between. You and I might disagree on which it is, but it's not both. Abortion is not a topic that was invented to get someone re-elected. It's either right to vacuum a mass of tissue from a woman's uterus, or it's wrong to extact an unborn fetus from a mother's womb. It's either right for two persons of the same gender to marry, or it's wrong.


Now, you and I may disagree on which is which, or under what certain conditions one is right and the other is wrong, but we won't languish in some morally bankrupt ooze of uncertainty, vacillating (my tribute to President Carter for adding the word to our vocabulary) between one this hour, and the other the next hour. A320Fumes can't even decide if he's really alive or dead, so it doesn't surprise me that he can't take a stand on the more complex issues.



If we're talking about politicians, it's unlikely we'll ever find one that shares each and every view that we personally hold. We'll always have to pick the one that affords the better match. But we weren't talking about politicians, we were talking about issues, specifically the issue of Affirmative Action.

(See there, we're back on topic.)

You took a black or white stand on 18 issues without even batting an eye. A320Fumes implied that all those issues are invented to re-elect politicians, and we are wrong to take a black or white stance on any of them. He said it's very dangerous for you to think you have a handle on that truth.

Do you agree with that?





Stand for something, or you'll fall for anything.








.

Well TonyC:

I didn't take A320fumes comments to say that. I understood it to mean that politicians use these issues to get votes. As to the validity of the issues...well that's unimportant to them. As to how they actually feel about these issues who knows. But for many of them, taking a side; walking the party line; or bringing division among the peope is all a means to an end. Power!

I don't believe that this is the case will all politicians, but certainly too many.

Onfinal

Point very well made, and accepted... Was just trying to keep things civil as we're engaged in a decent discussion on a topic that brings the worse out of people.


>carry on.

valid points made, however consider that in seleciton of pilots in the military, or more relevantly, Fire Depratment or Police Dept., there are always far more "qualified" applicants than slots... and in the end, if we're to be objective in picking who gets in... and we're to use phsyical fitness/strenght as factors, then a 100% score should be the same for man or women, correct? But the reality is that it's impossible for a women to score the same as a man, so they "gender norm" these tests...

I say that this is unfair at best, and unsafe at worse.

What a horrible opinion :(. Are you honestly suggesting that every woman and minority pilot out there today is only flying because of AA? What an insult to them! I'm sure they wouldn't appreciate you demeaning their hard work and dedication.

How about this guys? We hire pilots based on their ability, integrity, and professionalism. Not racial status, or gender.

I'll give that an amen!

Sure, I'll amen it too, if I can make believe that for the first 80 year history of aviation in the US, we hired people based on qualifications, and not on race or gender. But it's just the opposite. We were hostile to those of certain races, or genders and we basically shut the door on them and told them they're not invited. When Black veterans returned to the US after world War II, we told them that we wouldn't give them mortgages to move into all the new homes in the suburbs that were being built for the returning veterans. Heck, we've been flying airplanes longer than women have had the right to vote! The present system may be imperfect, but the neo-con system that you're saying amen too, only perpetuates an old system of injustice and exclusion. Why, because we all know that in this industry, as most, if you have the right connections you cans sidestep the rigours of the process. We should all be willing to listen and consider new ideas, but please don't over-simplify the issue for your own convenience.

I don't think he's suggesting that at all! I think that what he's saying is that woman and minority pilots that are qualified would be shut out of the system. History bares him out to be correct on this one!

There's already a soft racism prevalent in our industry that makes the assumption that minorities and women were given a "break" in order to get on the flight deck. All I can say is that the two black captains I've flown with far exceeded the job requirements at their time of hire. One has all is ratings (by this I mean helicopter, A&P, in addition to the fixed wing ratings) the other built his time flying Lear 35s before coming to the company. Meanwhile most of the non-minoirty pilots entered after being CFI's in C-172s and seminoles.

Finally, if all this AA is giving advantages to minorities and women, why is it that I've only flown with two black captains, 2 hispanic captains, and 2 female captains in the past year? How often do you see two white guys sitting in the cockpit?

WHAT?!?!


First, how is hiring based on ability, intergrity, and professionalism "neo-con"?

Second, how does such a scheme perpetuate injustice or exclusion?






.

You will find the answer to your question when you look at the make-up of military pilots.

How many blacks, Hispanics, or women do you see as compared to the numbers of whites?

Not that many.

Right?

So is this the result of discrimination in the military?

Yes or no answer, please.

First. Dude take the time to read and re-read the posts. It seemed like you responded before I even hit the SUBMIT button. I thought I was clear enough but nonetheless...

Neo-con, because it is the cry of the neo-conservatives, that all AA, EEOC, MBE, WBE, DBE, programs be eliminated. Yet these programs attempt to correct a system that today is warped and stacked against certain groups as a result of the past artificial manipulation of the workforce and artificial barriers to entrepreneurship.

Second.
1) It perpetuates injustice and exclusion because it makes believe that past injustices did not occur, they had no economic, social impact on those perpetuated against and their posterity.

2) ...it assumes that there was no social or economic benefit for those who perpetuated these injustices and their posterity. It then goes further, to put complete control of current hiring practices entirely into the hands of the very people, and their posterity, who have benefited from the past injustices.

This was clearly all born out in the first 25 or so years after the passage of the civil right amendment.

I believe (but not sure) it was Lyndon Johnson who said. "You can't keep stacking the deck of cards against someone for 300 years, and then say one day. Okay, Let's all be equal and play fair"

Onfinal

I'm not 100% sure what you're talking about?

1) Historically, discrimination for the coveted flying slots in the US military was rampant.

2) Most of the civilian pilots are coming out of civilian flight schools or colleges, the military makes up such a small part of the current pilots it's impact is negligible.

So I guess the answer to your question is no, it's not the result of discrimination in the military.

Please let me know, what do you think it is.

Onfinal

First, a neo-con is not the same as a "conservative", and the label fits more of the pro-Israel, Pro-war in Iraq, pro-Rumsfeldian foreign policy world view than anything to do with AA, or other social conservative issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc.. The two are not at all related.. and for the most part, I feel the republican party especially is over run with neo-cons' now who couldn't care less about AA or any of the social conservative issues..

So let's get that straight before we continue..

Now, for you to have flown with 2 black and two Hispanic pilots in one year is pretty good if you ask me, I've not been so fortunate in my entire career (although there are a lot of hispanic sounding names that are white as anyone, but I'm not seeing the dark skin variety at all)

When you consider the applicant pool of said races is rather small in comparison to that of the white pool, you can argue that this representation is fair. The problem lies in that we need to get more Blacks and Hispanics from poorer and underexposed backgrounds into the right kind of schools and exposed to the opportunities that will give them the impetus to get into flying. But the problem lies in the early formative years of these people as they're not exposed in many cases to the idea that this is a profession they can attain if they work hard. Schools must address it at the grass roots level. But that doesn't mean we hire under-qualified or lower experienced people into safety critical jobs just to attain instant fairness.

The treatment that the Tuskegee Airman received after WWII is disgraceful, and they've since been recognized and we've move forward form this dark time. The thing to do now is to focus on fairness in hiring, at the same time nurture the poor inner city youth and 1st generation Mexican American young man to see piloting as a profession that can attain with hard work.

Moving onto the women (and if this poll doesn't tell you something, I don't know what will).. they are indeed a difference case than racial minorities as there are indeed real differences in the sexes, unlike races, where pigment is the only difference. Women as a whole (my wife, mother, sister and daughter all prove this to me without a doubt) are not as interested in male dominated professions as a group.. Sure, you have the statistical outlier and the woman who's more man-line in her interests (and not always a lesbian, but sometimes this is the case). These women, if qualified, and able to pass basic tests (spacial awareness, instrument flying skills, etc..) should be given the same treatment as their male counterparts in the hiring and training. I've not seen this to always be the case however, as women consistently get breaks that their male counterparts are not given. Whether it's for physical differences (i.e. in the case or an ATR captain candidate I knew that couldn't past her final type ride in the aircraft (the Sim was ok) as she couldn't demonstrate to the FAA or our training dept. that she could taxi the aircraft safely due to the stiffness of the tiler on the actual aircraft); or in the case of the F14 female in the Navy some 10 years back that was given pass, after pass, even though she wasn't equipped to handle an F14. The powers that be, demanded that she be passed, and the result was 2 dead people, and a 25 Million dollar plane at the bottom of the Atlantic. This type of social engineering is dangerous, and has no place in our profession.

If a woman can stand on her own merits, then by all means, if not then show her the door. Same goes to any man that doesn't pass these basic standards; except rarely is a man pulled thru for political expediency.

I agree. CE750

Affirmative Nashmd11

CE750

First of all, thank you for the lesson on the use of the term neo-conservative. I will research it further, and modify my use accordingly.

As I stated before reference AA policies. The first requirement is and should be that an individual is qualified! However, it is likely that many qualified applicants are availalbe for a position. I have no problem with a HR department making a decision to hire people so as to reflect the american population. The problem and what we are trying to correct now is because historically this wasn't done.

As far as disadvantaged youth, I couldn't agree with you more, however I don't think that that is the reason for the limited number of minorities we see in the profession. The Black and Hispanic middle class is much larger than many people think. I think it has more to do with the lack of career guidance, inside assistance, and yes still some racism that makes it difficult to reach the goal. The typical black or hispanic person middle class or poor has no outlet ( no uncle, neighbor, friend of a friend of a friend) to assist them in even beginning to know how to become an airline pilot. And certainly no one to guide them through the pitfalls along the way. I believe that the internet has made it much easier in the last 10 years to have access to the guidance that is needed in the profession, hence websites like this one.

As far as women are concerned. Yes I do believe their situation is a bit different and I believe that they will reach parity with the traditional airline pilot groups much sooner than any of the other groups. Hopefully in the not too distant future there will be no need for any form of AA.

Finally, I was afraid when you started this thread that it would descend into a racial, gender slugfest. Fortunately not! Good dialogue, thanks for starting the discussion.

Onfinal

Neocon advocates the elimination of EEOC?
 

If you can call me dude, can I call you son? I've read your posts. I don't have a problem with reading comprehension. It would have been quite impossible for me to read your post and quote you before you hit the SUBMIT button, but that claim is no less fantastic than some of the others you make here:


Absurd.

Do you not see the difference between Affirmative Action and Equal Employment Opportunity legislation?

Let's look at some EEO legislation, beginning with the Act that established the EEOC.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Did you read that last paragraph carefully?

I'm reading what you write carefully. You're saying that because I advocate the policy that -- let me quote here -- "We hire pilots based on their ability, integrity, and professionalism. Not racial status, or gender." -- I am a neocon, and, therefore, I want to eliminate the above law?

Wrong.

Here's another: The Equal Pay Act of 1963

Eliminate that one? Nope.

How 'bout this one: The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967

Eliminate this one? Nope. Wrong again.

Let's save some time.

Eliminate The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Titles I and V ? Nope.

Eliminate The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Sections 501 and 505 ? Nope.

Eliminate The Civil Rights Act of 1991 ? Nope.


Now, for the rest of your alphabet. If by MBE, WBE, and DBE you mean Minority Business Enterprise, Women's Business Enterprise, and Minority Business Enterprise, then yes, I'd be in favor of their elimination. Why?

Because they directly contradict the EEOC laws. An employer can't discriminate against a minority, a woman, or the disabled, but they CAN discriminate FOR any of them. That doesn't pass the common sense test.




As far as the EEO laws are concerned, they all recognize injustices, and address them directly. There is no "making believe" that injustices do not occur. Go ahead if you don't believe me, click on the links above and read the text of the laws. Congress recognizes that discrimination based on race is not good, Congress recognizes that discrimination based on gender is harmful, Congress recognizes etc., etc., etc. The claim you make here is simply false.



"puts complete control of hiring practices entirely into the hands of" -- nobody. It does NOT put control in ANYBODY's hands. The laws define unlawful hiring practices. Do you think it would be more fair if the law said hiring decisions must now be made only by blacks, hispanics, women, the elderly, and the disabled? 35 year old white males are prohibited from hiring? Have you really thought this out?


I can hardly believe that President Lyndon Johnson would have said such a thing. In the first place, when he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the country was not yet 200 years old, much less 300. In the second place, the Act did in no way stack the deck in favor of or against minorities. It attempted to enforce the EQUAL treatment of ALL. Go back and read it. Such a quote would be totally out of character for him, but it sounds like something Jesse Jackson would say.




.

Thank God for websites like these. I for one have a dad that has told me not to become a pilot because I'm a minority and I will never reach the ranks of a pilot, he says that I should settle for jobs that fit my ethnicity, and that something’s are just impossible.

I come from poor inner city schools and the whole deal, I'm currently in college and hope to one day reach my goals.

In my high school there were about 500 people graduate out of an entering class of 1000, out of those about 150 were going to go to college, and about 30 of us were actually going to go to a four year college. Out of those 30 half were Caucasian’s that somehow had ended up at a high school in which the majority was a minority.
Out of those 15 no one except me wanted to become a pilot. As you can see, it’s hard to expect to see many minority pilots out there.

I know that this was a little off the subject but I feel it backs up some of your previous comments.

Tony, are you sure you don't want to be a lawyer? :) You would make a formidable adversary in court, after you have confounded your law professors! It would be an honor to have someone like you appear before me in any proceeding!

Your honor, may I approach the bench?


Can we continue this in chambers?



:)




.

Although I know it is not a scientific survey the poll results speak volumes.

Shakone:
The number of military pilots has linearly decreased since WWII. I've been a OSO, Officer Selection Officer since the late 90's, and DO NOT attribute this to military discrimination. I was sent to DuPont to take a class on executive recruitment by the National Guard Bureau and have assisted many Guard bases in recruiting minority pilots. I have also worked in hiring pilots at 2 part 121 carriers.
Here's a little secret to all who might be wondering. Because of affirmative action, minority pilots ONLY compete with minority pilots for pilot positions. In a structured selection process, ie all qualifications objective and given numerical and quantitative scores for various criteria, there is almost no difference in the applicants. I've had days when we had 3 excellent minority applicants, but only 2 minority slots. Guess what happens then? One qualified minority goes home. The other instance, 2 minority slots and only 1 excellent applicant, the white guy goes home, but we never hire anyone who doesn't meet minimun requisite qualifications. I'd say the split is 30/70 percent, respectively. The BIG realization we found was that the top applicants careers are usually lack-luster compared to the guy that barely made it. Go figure. The greatest advantage a military minority has is the he'll actually get to know his peers, a great advantage when dealing with racial preconceptions. Truth is, MOST minority pilots actively sought are just not interested in the military when they have the means to avoid having to push through all of the subjective evaluation. Sad because every American should have such an opportunity to realize what a great country we live in and how much we all have in common once you push through the political BS. My personal problem with A/A is that at long as it is present, minorities have to learn to live with the fact that most will think the only reason you got your job was because of your individual demographics. I have an outstanding career and have many black, white, male, female, rich and poor folks who I highly respect and love. I'm going to enjoy this, and though a little juvenile.....I'm still not gonna tell TonyC whether I'm alive or dead:D . I'll let him figure that out while he's counting minorities at the airport.

I used to work for ASA in Atlanta and my wife was a Teacher in a "poor" part of town in a 99% Black school (Riverside Elementary), and I used to come in at her request as a volunanteer on career day in my crappy ASA pilots uniform and hat to give talks (along with the fireman, police, and other professions from dental assistant to Doctor). The saddest things I observed were two things.

- I noticed a dramatic difference between the K-2nd graders and the 3-5th grader in terms of behavior and willingness to learn, listen, and engage in constructive questions... and no! it wasn't the little ones that were hecklers.. sadly it was the older kids who almost all seemed destined for failure with their attitudes.

-Something even more sad was that 99% of those kids didn't even know what my uniform was... they would say Limo driver, or Police man... didn't ever see a pilot or an airplane..

I grew up from infancy to my early teens flying on jets with my family and seeing pilots and wishing I could fly the plane, visiting the cockpit (Back when you could), etc... Yet these kids were TRULY disadvantaged, and by the time they were 8 or 9, were on their way to being at the bottom of the wrung due to a number of factors we will not get into here.

I subsequently began to support OBAP even though I'm not Afro-American because it broke my heart to see these kids with so much potential at their formative years, then turn into borderline thugs and jokers by such a young age as 8.. Most OBAP members I met didn't come from the inner city however, though some likely did; but themselves were usually from middle class families that had instilled the value of school and achievement into them. SO..

I SAY AGAIN; THE PROBLEM LIES IN THE FORMATIVE YEARS... NOT IN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BEING NEEDED. This is my view. AA is more of a re-payment for 80 years of discrimination if you want to accept it's existence, and does nothing to solve the problem for all of those kids "in the pipe line" for the grown up world.


Anyway.. TonyC, good lawyer work... I'm impressed.

CE750

Again I agree with you. And what you said is right on as far as most of the Black and Hispanic Pilots come out of the Black and Hispanic middle class. I think you would also find this true of the White middle class, and similar situation among the white poor. Really there are two different forces at work here. The American poor - White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American or atherwise have one barrier, that is not really addressed by AA. I think that minority middle class have a different situation that although not a perfect solution provides some solution through AA.

Also, I applaud your support of OBAP. With reasonable and thinking people like yourself, hopefully there will not long be a need for any of these types of discussions.

Onfinal

thanks, I'm trying to be reasonable in this is all. The history of AA in our profession (as well as other's like Fire Fighting and Police) has always been contentious I suppose.

I am a bit disheartened that this poll is filled with so many who don't think being born into a poor family, and rising up thru that kind of adversity whether in Appalachia or the inner city should get one some kind of benefit. Although I'd rather not see the excesses of 400 hour pilots into the cockpits of any Jet, much less a mainline job ever again in a time where 3000hr pilots are turned away. The kind of help on the hiring side I'd like to see is a system where "all else being equal" the one who came from nothing to get to where he was a "qualified and competitive" applicant should get the nod.

I really wish you wouldn't. The issue is AA and its relevance to the hiring of pilots, not politics.

Since experience is a factor in how we see this question, what has been your career?

I don't think so.

The goal is to hire the best qualified pilot...not to engage in social engineering.

Let's talk about today. Not the past. Do you have any evidence that discrimination exists today as it once did years ago?

In your earlier post, you seemed to be saying that the lack of minorities on the cockpit was proof of discrimination in hiring practices.

I asked you if the same lack in the military was also proof of the same kind of discrimination.

These days, I doubt that discrimination exists in any significant sense...in the civilian or military pilot populations.

The reason you see smaller numbers of non-whites or females in the cockpits is really simple. Fewer numbers of these folks want to be pilots. No grand conspiracy, no evil plots, no nothing of that kind. More white males want to be pilots than do black or Hispanic males, or females.

That's what I was saying, lets return to the discussion of AA. Maybe I need to edit that post for clarity.


4 years in 121 (1 as a CP), and 5 years in 91/135 (4 as a CP). the 121 had 1700 employees at it's height, and the 135 had 120.. I've also spent 2 years as a CFI with 3 difference places.



Again, if I ever said anything else, then please show me where.. I may have addressed training and exposure to the career in the formative years, but never at the hiring board.


I don't have any, but then I'm not black, and without walking in the shoes of someone who is, I can't see how you would know either?

This is in fact true. I think the applicant pool is where the problem lies, at least qualified applicant pool. Furthermore, I think it's compounded by the fact that for whet ever reason (could be racial, could be their sheer numbers as 50% of the total population), that white females get a much better shake in terms of representation and AA programs than all other true "minorities"

This AGAIN, is the elephant in the living room, and why I originally started this poll, and worded it that way I did.

I can say without any uncertainty that the average male (whether he be black, white, purple, or what ever) is far more likely to want to spend their life around airplanes, than the average female.. yet you look around the cockpit these days (especially at the better jobs on the mainline) and you see a lot more females than other minorities..

Why do you think that is shakone?

OK...not a newbie, but not exactly an old head either. You entered aviation in 1995...the anti-discrimination battles had been fought and won by that time. What you have seen in your experience and what some of us older folks have seen are markedly different.

That's easy enough to do.

"The kind of help on the hiring side I'd like to see is a system where "all else being equal" the one who came from nothing to get to where he was a "qualified and competitive" applicant should get the nod."

This is your topic, not mine. You are the one pushing this subject, not me. AA began as an answer to discrimination. You started a topic about AA in reference to pilot hiring. I'm asking you if you think this discrimination still exists.

Do you have any proof that white females benefit more from AA than other 'minorities'?

Really!!

That sounds like you are saying that your objection is that white females get a better break than other minorities. Is this what your real point is?

Beats me...but I'm not buying into your theory that white females get preferential hiring over other minorities.

My guess is that there are just more white females looking for careers in aviation than there are black or Hispanic males.

Well then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I mean really, if you've been in this profession for a few years and you can't see the obvious situation with regards to the white female & affirmative action vs racial minorities and same, then there isn't much I can do to show it to you.

A question for you (again).. do you seriously want us to believe that the vast majority of white female pilots (which vastly outnumbers the racial minority pilots in the system) were all hired fair and square?

btw.. my point is EXACTLY that... the social engineering problem is rooted in the feminist agenda to make 50% of every job that is traditionally male dominated female. YES, that is my elephant.

I did have a life prior to aviation.. 5 years in the Army, with it's own battles with AA, and 4 year at the university with it's battles with same. Newbie is hardly relevant to the debate.



So let me ask you then... ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL why not give the edge to the guy who wasn't born with the silver spoon?

The topic is indeed mine, and my thesis which you clearly either refuse to accept as a result of a pre-held view on race/sex or because you just haven't seen it (which is negated by the fact that you're a veteran airline pilot).. is that.. (in caps for emphasis): WHITE WOMEN GET THE VAST MAJORITY OF AA's BENEFIT, WHILE THE WHINING IS 95% AGAINST RACIAL MINORITIES.. which frankly proves the point that discrimination and racism are alive and well..