yes………….I am

How does that apply to the guy who got hired at 21 with 2000 hours because his father was a check airman?

There has to be at least 3 or 4 of those guys in the system.

Of course, that accident would never have happened if the check airman was a man. Woman makes a mistake, she's under qualified. You make a mistake, then every excuse in the book applies. Again, this thread is a great example of the reason this program is needed. I can only hope that people who think like you are being removed from the hiring process.

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk

This is such a weird thing to say. You literally have never met the person you’re talking to. And yet you have summed them up so completely that you have determined they don’t even deserve the job for which they have been hired by the same hiring department you put so much faith into.

You mean like how so many here have never met any of the thousands of diverse potential UAL pilots whom they’ve judged as being unsafe & unfit, and suggested that they’re going to bend metal & kill passengers? I find it odd, too.

I never said he didn't deserve his job. I said I hope he's not a part of the hiring process. Reading comprehension, please!

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk

I don’t think the argument that she was less qualified relative to other LCAs is debatable. Whether it would have happened to a more experienced LCA under the same conditions… we’ll never know.

that accident would never have happened if they hired the rite person in that position and not filled it with a quota.
Hire the most qualified person (woman or man) or whatever the gender flavor is of the day.
according to many folks/persons that have flown with her….she was under qualified.
Hire the most qualified “person” for the job. It’s that simple.
same thing applies to the atlas crash. We lost a new hire with great potential because of diversity.
I hope people like you are not part of any hiring process, but sadly it seems as though they are.

We did not lose a new hire due to diversity. That is very offensive...

We lost a new hire due to a crappy pilot and a poor training department, backed up by a poor management who failed to remove said pilot from a position where he could hurt others.


Look at his records... If he was hired at United, regardless of his demographics, and failed THAT many events... It would be a massive failure on the part of our management and training department. Whether he was black, white, woman, or man. No one is able to skip a short cycle here because they are a minority... The standards are the standards.

That Newark check airman met the standards. Unless you're telling me she only got hired into that position because she's a woman... Which is offensive to her, to other women who've worked hard to earn their check airman letter, and to the women who are not check airmen and desire to become one.

Since somehow her sex "made" United hire an unqualified pilot as a LCA... Why aren't all women check airmen? Why aren't all check airmen women? It's illogical and offensive, but a pervasive disease that I'm glad is being slowly rooted out.

To recapitulate... Because someone is a minority, does not mean they didn't meet the standards. Because someone has an accident, does not mean they were unqualified. Even if they were a minority. If someone, of any demographic, is hired into a position they didn't earn or deserve (multiple checkride failures, etc), then that is a failure of management and not "diversity."

These notions are prevalent in our profession, and very hurtful to the minorities who bust their butts every day to be the best they can be.

Imagine... Showing up to work knowing that if you make a mistake or have an accident or incident, the same colleagues who "Don't see color" will suddenly have lots to say about whether you deserved to be on your position in the first place.




Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk