How about mildly irritated? And I am a 53 year old white guy, which makes me old enough to have worked for operators that did not hire women, blacks or Jews.

The EEOC determines minimum hiring qualifications in discrimination cases by going back through the records. So if you have a 500 hour female hired at XYZ airlines is because they had a track record of discrimination AND at some point hired a 499 hour nephew of a board member or son of a Chief Pilot. You guys complain about women and minorities, but I never hear anyone complaining about those who use the advantages of birth.

And for the record, the discrimination case that really got the ball rolling in the airline industry was age, not race or gender.

 

Exactly. To add to nepotism, I never hear complaints (from myself included) about people being hired with the help of friendships, golf buddies, squadron buddies etc.. I am willing to bet that there is more preferential interviewing/hiring based on these factors than there is with affirmative action.

If the minimum qualifications are met, then what's the problem? If an airline wants to hire what one or a few people say is the less experienced candidate, they can. Do you have to like it? No. However, ultimately, no one is owed a job.

 

Bbbbbbut, how would we play the blame game? I mean, if I can't get hired at a major, then it's not my fault. There just has to be some major rigging of the system to keep me out. It's just not fair.

 

Totally different to hire on the recommendation of friends, coworkers, or golf buddies. Someone is recommending you who can testify to your work ethic or in the case of coworkers your actual skill flying the aircraft. In the case of affirmative action you are getting hired because of the color of your skin or your sex etc...Nothing to do with anything you had any control over or any proof you would be a good candidate.

 

I hear lots of complaints about nepotism, gender, and race.

Not so much about buddies and connections though. And I think it makes sense. The above 3 are something you're born with and have no control over. You're getting an unfair advantage because of who you randomly were when you were brought into this word.

For connections... knowing the right people and getting help... well, as long as its not because of nepotism (all your dad's buddies), OBAP (everyone you met at the conference), etc... you know these people because you have done well for yourself, have a good personality, a good reputation, etc. People who are idiots who can't fly and aren't fun to be around rarely have people batting for them to get a job somewhere.

 

I agree that there is a difference. However, I don't agree that there is enough of a difference to negate the point. Recommendations from friends does not necessarily mean that work ethic, flying skills etc. are on par. Admittedly, that is probably the exception rather than the rule. Nevertheless, the fact remains that internal recs doesn't necessarily put "the most qualified" in the seats.....which is the gripe from those against affirmative action.

 

Totally different issue, with different arguments.

The "advantage of birth" is really the "advantage of hard work and success" that puts one in a position to provide good things to your children. Not much different than hiring your kids to work in the family business, or leaving them an inheritance.

Helping your kids out is as American as apple pie.

Affirmative action is the GOVERNMENT telling you who to hire, supposedly to right wrongs committed hundreds of years ago by dead people (in the case of women, we're going back to long before recorded history )

Now there IS a reasonable argument that because of the high safety sensitivity in the airline industry that pilot hiring should be done on merit only without any outside factors considered. But the only practical way to do that would be to nationalize the 121 pilot force and make us all federal employees...the airlines would then rent us from the fed at a consistent rate, effectively taking pilot compensation out of the competitive equation. There's a lot of merit to this...given the adverse safety impact of pilot career instability and poverty, this would let the pilots worry about flying and being safe and let managers worry about competition and cost -cutting. We would have to give up the very top of the pay scale...no $200K+ pax pilots, but you would more than make up for that by getting paid a reasonable rate early in your career.

Disclaimer: I have no family connections in the airlines.

 

Maybe in a regulatory environment that MIGHT have been something that our government may have mandated but not in a free enterprise environment.

Of course until our President feels that Air Travel is a right then there might be Obama..air. But I digress.

 

Affirmative action really messed up the hiring process. It is still alive but not in a way that keeps qualified people getting hired. At least not on the airline level any more.

As for qualified people, that is a fluid number. I have experienced often that there have been people with far less experience that are much better pilots than some who are much more experienced but their attitude does not make them a good pilot and or employee. As the saying goes, you can teach someone how to fly but you can't change their attitude. Over my career I have found this to be very true.

 

Correct, not going to happen unless there are catastrophic safety issues, or too many of us just walk off the job and out of aviation.