![]() |
Originally Posted by JurgenKlopp
(Post 3221700)
I bet you still find it a bit odd that your FO's always say they have plans with friends at each layover...
|
Odd that ALPA seems to be totally cool with the company plan.
Was this what Bebe envisioned for the Aviate program? Or, is this why she got forced out? They should publish all of their quotas in all of their departments. Just publish the numbers that way the white males will know where they stand. Which actual "line pilot" (pseudo-management pilot) is taking public charge of this? Other than Kirby and HR it all seems like smoke and mirrors with no publicly accountable line pilot that fellow line pilots can interact with and discuss or "mentor." |
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 3221268)
I don't buy this. I'm a minority immigrant to this country
|
Originally Posted by SonicCarhop
(Post 3218057)
Do you believe that men are inherently better pilots than women? I'm guessing (and would agree) the answer is no.
So why are there 10 male pilots at United for every 1 female? Because the pool of candidates to work at a major airline currently only allows for that. The announcement by United isn't a quota to hire a certain number of female mainline pilots. It's a goal to have a certain percentage of female/minority candidates into their Aviate pipeline p 2. The pool of candidates are those that felt "called" to "compete." You can only make it into a "pool" if you compete every step of the way. it's a giant funnel. Not everyone who gets into the funnel makes it out. 3. Many females do not pursue this as a career because they want to do other things. Doctors, Lawyers, teachers, nurses. Those careers allow for ladies to raise a family. Not a lot of ladies like to go out on 4 (4 day trips a month) while trying to balance family. 4. This may sound "sexist" but, lots of women don't enjoy this lifestyle. 5. Anyone and everyone that wishes to "compete" for a pilot position is free to do so. If the aviate program did not exist, United would still hire as many females and minorities as they could. The company doesn't need a program or a flight school to institutionalize their preferred hiring quotas. |
If our line pilots thought this was such a great idea why do they seem so against it?
Why hasn't any other US airline done this? My thought is that if Southwest isn't doing it they probably have a few good reasons. The public at large is in love with SWA and JB. They can do no wrong in the eyes of the traveling public. Those two airlines don't seem to need to pander to the public for diversity or anything else. United is 7.04% and SWA is 4%. |
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 3221268)
I don't buy this. I'm a minority immigrant to this country
Originally Posted by biggun
(Post 3221768)
That should pretty well sum it up.
|
Originally Posted by Stan446
(Post 3221743)
Surely UA's board of directors will follow suit.
[emoji6]sure they will Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Excellent post, ShyGuy. I think the most important thing is negative limitations from family members and neighbors.
You have overcome some barriers. Most everyone has to some degree or another. If you think you can or you think you can’t, you’re right. |
Way back in 1988, UAL lost a law suit for minority hiring, EEOC mandate. For a very long time we were required to hire minorities and women in larger proportions than in the past. Somewhere in the mid 90's that went by the wayside. I think part of it going away was UAL pointed to the hiring statistics and said the minorities and women weren't available to hire. That is why we now have a higher percentage than the other airlines. Not because of UAL's proactive hiring practices.
As for today, you can say you are going to do "A" all you want. The proof is in the pudding so to speak. What actually happens is what counts. My guess is they will try, but there won't be the qualified candidates. UAL will continue to hire a higher percentage wise, but fail to reach the goal, again. What remains to be seen, and is a dangerous gamble, is if a lower qualified candidate causes an issue, and how bad the fallout will be for the company vs. the traditional new hire with higher numbers. |
Originally Posted by Dave Fitzgerald
(Post 3221966)
Way back in 1988, UAL lost a law suit for minority hiring. For a very long time we were mandated to hire minorities and women in larger proportions than in the past. Somewhere in the mid 90's that went by the wayside. I think part of it going away was UAL pointed to the hiring statistics and said the minorities and women weren't available to hire. That is why we now have a higher percentage than the other airlines. Not because of UAL's proactive hiring practices.
As for today, you can say you are going to do "A" all you want. The proof is in the pudding so to speak. What actually happens is what counts. My guess is they will try, but there won't be the qualified candidates. UAL will continue to hire a higher percentage wise, but fail to reach the goal, again. What remains to be seen, and is a dangerous gamble, is if a lower qualified candidate causes an issue, and how bad the fallout will be for the company vs. the traditional new hire with higher numbers. All of that said I was grateful to get hired when I did and had a great 29 year run at Untied. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:03 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands