No one can say that it will, since it hasn’t happened yet. One can only draw parallels to similar initiatives where race and ethnicity was used as a qualifier and objective performance measures were lowered to achieve greater diversity. I previously cited the Princeton studies that showed minorities accepted had a great advantage (performance-wise) on admission to elite undergraduate schools, with average SAT scores several hundred points lower for minorities than their majority counterparts. I also pointed out that the same was true for medical school matriculants based on the public data that AAMC publishes each year on medical school applicants and matriculants. Minority matriculants scored several deciles lower on the MCAT and had significantly lower GPAs on average than their majority and Asian counterparts.

For a more direct comparison, RAND published a study in 2015 researching why minority and female USAF pilot trainees washed out at higher rates than their white male counterparts.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/ran...AND_RR1936.pdf

One of the findings from this study is that nearly all of the failures between male-female and 72 percent of the failures between white-black students could be correlated to pilot aptitude tests predicting their failure. This study did not include USAFA graduates, who did not take the TBAS test.

Ignoring that a lower standard to achieve such a lofty goal is a probability, ignores decades of data.

Because, Monarchy

At least his ride was sweet.

If United were accepting training candidates who did poorly on pilot aptitude tests, or other standardized indicators, I would have a HUGE problem with that. But that’s not what’s being discussed.

The Aviate program will only train 5,000 pilots over the next 10 years. In all likelihood, there will be far more QUALIFIED candidates than there will be available positions. You may disagree with how United chooses to select from among these QUALIFIED candidates, but the fact is, they will need to say yes to some and no to others. They have chosen to prioritize diversity in their selection process. Meaning 2,500 of those QUALIFIED candidates who get the yes will be women & minorities. (The verbiage on every official statement I’ve seen from UAL is VERY loose, and does not bind them to meet this metric if not enough qualified people apply.) Again, opinions on whether diversity should be their priority aside, the question is can they find among their many applicants 2,500 women & minorities who are equally qualified as their white male counterparts? I don’t see any reason why they wouldn’t be able to.

If I’m wrong, and these candidates do wash out at a higher rate, as in the study you’ve cited, then they wash out. The program is then proven inefficient; but not reckless or dangerous.

That is the part i don’t understand. While he married into the royal bloodline shouldn’t he be a king?

Which standardized tests and metrics are they using?

That's not actually a fact. That's a supposition based on an illusion which was based on a possible premonition.

No one should be prioritizing "diversity" in a competitive landscape for any career, and in particular one that involves safety.

When you lift up "diversity" over other more direct qualifiers, and then you focus on making your diversity candidate "qualified" you end up lowering the standards. You don't see it because you are not a professional pilot. Also, you've never had to fail someone on a stage check, check ride. Likely you've never had to take the airplane from someone in a critical phase of flight.

All, and I mean (ALL) retired check airman and retired captains I have spoken to are very negative towards this approach. They have the experience and the judgment that is of a higher value than some HR persons. Many current instructors and check airman are just being quiet and aren't saying much. Gee I wonder why? The ones you know and know well and the ones you won't dare quote in front of someone else are less than enthusiastic.

This stuff won't work. Waste of my profit sharing. Yours too.

Yes it is, but it’s like we’re living in different realities. If you stacked all of the candidates ordinally based on objective criteria, and then said we have 50 slots and anyone below this line is cut, you would not achieve a 50 percent minority acceptance goal historically. It’s only when performance is a secondary factor of the equation that you would achieve that.

Your argument seems to imply that accepting the best into Aviate is secondary to race and gender.

Click Here for Video.
Most likely one of United’s newest hires. Haha

Thats not relevant.

What IS relevant is wether or not the Dutchess is Sussex will be going into AVIATE?

So who is running checking/training standards at the flight school? Surely there will be a CCS message fishing for a director of training and standards for TK-Aviate division?

Maybe we can harvest some talent from the throngs of ex 787 training managers.