Aviate question.
 

Has it been stated how many they plan to take per hiring cycle when candidates start reaching minimums?

Priority is to take most NH out of Aviate. The problem is the staffing at the said regionals. 40-70 guys are transitioning a month, new amended agreement says United is supposed to offer dates within 60-90days of reaching requirements


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m not sure anybody realized that with everyone hiring regional CAs there would soon not be enough CAs or upgrade eligible FOs to staff the regional.

It will be an interesting summer.

Thanks if there are 20 openings per month and 20 Aviate people are ready to move to United they would get priority? I’m nowhere close ti even being at a regional and not even in Aviate, but curious how this will compare to AA WO flow.

That’s the goal yes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Historically, one of the variables associated with “ab initio” programs is that flow through can be limited when your services are needed at a lower level. Many of us were hired and given hire dates that were later adjusted by retirement calculations and seniority list arbitrator’s because we were “neeeded” in the regional ranks…
Hopefully history will not repeat itself.

Sounds as if lucky enough to get accepted Into Aviate then it’s a lot faster path than through a AA WO for a right seat at a major, but then again who knows.

Historically it’s been like that guys are hitting requirements and Coming over it’s great


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for the answers. I hope I get a chance to interview for Aviate after getting my instrument as United truly does seem like a great place to be.

Well unless you a minority or a woman I wouldn't bother...just read the most racist flight opps update of my life. 80% are minority and women right now in training...united has only 6% black pilots and about the same representation of women...I believe American population is only 11% black so 6% is a bit low but not that crazy. If someone doesn't sue the company over this I'll be amazed ​​​​​​​Actually just looked at the population numbers there's 250 million whites and 44 million blacks in America so doing the math I would say we are very well represented by all races, colors and creeds... ​​​​​​​Women are under represented but then again you can't ba a pilot if you don't apply... I think the numbers are very low that don't get hired so their numbers probably represent Women in aviation pretty well. I know my daughter has no interest in aviation. ​​​​​​​ ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Maybe because it's black history month they think it's appropriate to discriminate against the most qualified regardless of race because what I read was a disgrace to all humans that achieve the status to even apply at a major. This only encourages animosity towards one group or the other...humans are ruthless and will always be regardless of any CORE policies. ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​I say let the best man or woman win there shouldn't even be a name on a job application anymore you should be chosen by your accomplishments not color of skin or gender...the company shouldn't even have any inclination of who's showing up till they meet in person...​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ ​​​​​​​with that said congratulations to the ones that did make it...​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Spot on.
They need to drop the vaccine requirement as well. There is enough "Science" now that proves the vaccine is a farce.

Lol United’s not dropping the vaccine requirement after firing 300 employees.

laura? Is that you? Or is it sherry?

Maybe that's who is most qualified. Maybe United looked at all the apps and picked the top X number, and 80% just happened to be women and minorities. They can't just dig through the stack bypassing white males looking for women and minorities. That would be illegal. United wouldn't do that. When you eliminate all possibilities, what remains, no matter how improbable, must be true.

They do that every single day at a college administration office near you. United management was very deliberate this program was created to target minorities, so why is anyone surprised by the shady numbers?

There's a thing called sales puffery and it isn't required to be 100% honest. Saying you plan to preference based on race/gender for PR points isn't illegal. Actually discriminating against a protected class as you allege could get the company, and the employees involved, in a lot of trouble. I'm sure they didn't bypass any white males to arrive at an 80% woman/minority number. They simply picked the most qualified and that's what was there.

And maybe the tooth fairy is going to bring you a unicorn for your birthday.

And once again, the fallacy of the “most qualified candidate” pops up among a bunch of white guys who are sure the system is rigged against them. Sure, if you could accurately rank 10,000 applicants from 1-10,000 you’d always do best to take however many you need straight off the top of the stack. That isn’t even remotely possible. The standard for ranking airline pilot aptitude to that degree of accuracy simply doesn’t exist.

The reality is there are usually a handful of standouts at the top, and an under-qualified group at the bottom. Once you give preference to the former & discard the latter, what you're left with is a big group in the middle that all look essentially equal on paper. To put it another way, there’s a big difference between #1 & #2,000. But no discernible difference between #2,000 & #7,000.

Essentially, any of us who had to make the final decisions on selection would have to rely on some arbitrary metrics to do so. I’m not saying UAL’s diversity initiative is perfect in its conception or application, but if you see intrinsic value to your company in a well diversified labor force, there’s no reason you shouldn’t build that into your metrics for sorting equally qualified candidates- as long as you’re not promoting discernibly under-qualified candidates. Anyone who feels that diverse demographics in hiring necessarily means that more qualified white males have been passed over should probably examine why they feel that way.

It shouldn’t be rigged for or against anyone. How one looks in the mirror has zero impact on how good of a pilot they are, and it should have zero impact on who we hire. This concept of using racism in the name of DEI to combat previous forms of racism must have MLK rolling in his grave. His dream that his children would not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character is still a dream, but using the color of their skin as a desirable feature for acceptance into something like Aviate is just as bad as using it as a disqualification. Here’s an idea….. why don’t we focus on what we all have in common and actually move on as a nation rather than continue this downward spiral by focusing on our differences?

I can’t speak for Dr. King, but it certainly has James Earl Ray spinning in his grave.

That is only true if you set the bar low. It’s the same reason that for other than NCAA mins, there is no bar at all at most colleges.


The “free lunch” effect could have skewed the number of applicants from the norm also, but we’ll never know.

We’re talking about zero time guys being admitted into a flight training program- how high does the bar need to be? Decent high school transcript with general STEM aptitude (most of us are not Rhodes scholars); a “good 4-day trip” personality, & passion for flying. Most of the specific skills & knowledge needed for the job they’ll learn in training.

I’d assume there are far more candidates who meet those criteria than slots available, but you seem to be suggesting that if the bar were raised higher, there would necessarily be more white males selected- why is that, exactly?

If the bar were raised higher and the applicant pool consisted of mostly white males, yes it is the expected outcome that the pool of accepted candidates would also be mostly white males.

But do we know that the applicant pool is mostly white males? And if so (seeing as how they account for only around 30% of the population) doesn’t that alone at least suggest a failure to access the full potential of the total workforce? I don’t claim to know all the answers, but these are the types of questions we (understandably) tend to allow ourselves not to ask when a system is unequal in our favor.

As to hiring standards, is it even wise to set the bar so high that you’re only taking the “cream off the top”? My opinion only, but a good airline pilot needs generally above average intelligence, a particular temperament, and a passion for the job. Yes, you could ratchet up the hiring requirements, but at some point, you’re just picking the flashiest resumes in search of the mythical “best of the best”. You have to ask whether someone is necessarily going to be the greatest front-line employee 20 years from now (not to mention the type of guy you want in your cockpit or flying your family around) because he aced his SATs or was an Ivy League-track student. Again, my opinion, but I don’t want the bar set so high that we get a bunch of uber-linear intellectual types who aren’t particularly invested in the job.

My contention is that there are a lot of guys who can do the job & do it well, so from there it becomes a simple question of whether there is enough value in a diversified workplace to make it a priority. The answer I’m hearing from most guys on these forums is no, it is not; which, if that’s the argument you want to make- fine.

For my part, I’m only pointing out that there is a big difference between prioritizing diversity among generally equally qualified candidates; and actively promoting under-qualified candidates in the name of diversity. I certainly hope the latter is not happening, although admittedly I don’t know for a fact that it’s not. But I do find it telling that so many here take diversified hiring statistics as hard proof that it necessarily is.

Just using this comment as an example... the indignation from some seems to suggest that we ("we" as in the historically typical airline pilot race/gender) are so accustomed to the ~90% white male nature of this industry that we can't look at something much closer to actual demographics without some feeling of injustice. The program has been given more exposure and advertising than anything pilot training related I've ever seen - articles in WSJ and mentions on the major news networks to name a few. It's casting the biggest of nets and doesn't require all of the typical connections to the industry that have historically shown many of us paths to the profession and the opportunity to pursue them.

I'd guess there are going to be various other percentage breakdowns in future classes but as hummingbear mentioned, a straight breakdown of a class in line with the demographics would be 30% white male. That's literally it. 30%. It seems this first class was far closer to that mark than a snapshot of literally every single newhire class ever in the history of US commercial aviation.

But hey, get angry.

No, which is why I said that the free lunch effect may have affected the demographics of what would be expected of the typical applicant pool. Logically, if your chances of admittance are decreased because admittance is based on non-competitive factors such as race or ethnicity, one would assume it would deter people in the majority from applying. Add in the factor of scholarships that you will not receive and I can certainly see that having an effect. And yes, I understand that you can apply for the women, Latino, black and Asian scholarships if you aren't in those groups, but it is a barrier nonetheless.

At the same time, this has not deterred white females as being the largest demographic of applicants to elite colleges and as a result, having the lowest admittance rates. The only reason we even have a sense of that is due to lawsuits over the years. The same would be required to ever get a real sense of how this small program at United is selecting applicants, so it's really just academic. I don't see a very small group of young pilots-to-be banding together to file a class action, so it's more likely we'll never know unless the company sees it in their best interest to showcase that they are selecting the best of the applicants.

Finally! Someone has figured it out and written it down for all to see.

“Free lunch effect”… 🙄

Again, white males make up around 30% of the country’s population, so why should they make up the majority of what you consider to be the “typical” applicant pool?

Far from a shocking revelation- I think the one thing supporters & opponents of the diversity initiative actually agree on is that there is a strong PR component to the company’s plan.

Free lunch effect isn't a pejorative, it's just the effect on advertising a benefit and how it tailors a response to that benefit. I can't answer why if white males comprise only 30% of the population, they are over-represented by interest in aviation. I could throw out a bunch of theories, but my Air Force military experience doesn't lend itself to guess what makes someone want to fly planes vs someone who doesn't. I thought I was going to be something entirely different when I joined, but 30 years later here I am.

i think you’re being constructive here but the “why” seems pretty obvious for this and so many other well paying professions with steep barriers to entry and steeped in tradition.

Also, as a kid in the 80s I was a voracious reader of everything about aviation’s history. Yeager, Boyington, all the boys from the Right Stuff, Doolittle, Lindbergh and Rickenbacker featured prominently. They were all legit trailblazers - I still think they’re all incredible for their aviation accomplishments - but I can’t think of anyone save Earhart who deviated from that typical background.

There’s more than a grain of truth to “you can’t be what you can’t see”

That may have been what was advertised in the beginning, but it's not what is currently happening. The quickest way to a United job is from another airline's regional feed, NOT from one of United's Aviate partners. A good number, maybe even a majority of United's classes are being filled with AA wholly owned regional pilots (both CAs and FO's).

What’s this ‘big change’ coming next week supposedly to Aviate?

Do you own a white sheet with two eyelets cut out by chance?
Set fire to any crosses lately ?
When is the next rally ? I’m sure you know .

Better sit back and relax as it’s not about you.
Its not about slightly overweight angry white guys.
Its about the customer and as Delta says, we have a choice and we appreciate you choosing Delta.
The customer pays your wages Jack.
The customer pays for everything you own, your second house, your 401k, trophy wife #4 and that bass boat you really couldn’t do without.
Customers have an opinion, are finicky and most importantly they have an option which is within $50 of your airline’s fare.
Customers may want to see a little more representation then just the I’m-the-Captain-now male white Christian right wingers.
Thats how market mechanics work.

no…they just want the safest “person” up there whatever gender or race they may be.
Even overnight white guys.

You don’t know that, you’re just projecting your opinion onto the flying public. I would have thought price competition was the leading driver in ticket sales, but the company’s market research suggests brand loyalty is actually a huge player. I think UAL is betting that social conscience is going to be an effective element of their brand. Are they right? Only time will tell, but my sense is that while most people will probably not give much thought to the issue, there will be far fewer people offended by diversity initiatives than appreciative of them.

We all live in our bubbles, but I think it’s possible you may be overestimating how many people see diversity & immediately assume standards must necessarily have been lowered to achieve it.

The standards are a GED, 18, US citizen. I don't think anyone is arguing that people participating in Aviate have met that standard. But to prove that more accomplished candidates have been turned away because they weren't in the target demographic for aviate would take a lawsuit, which will never happen. Aviate isn't UT or Harvard with hundreds of thousands of rejected applicants.

To be frank, the interview conducted for Aviate candidates is comparable to normal regional interview. The difficulty level to receive a phone call for the Aviate program if you meet a certain uncontrollable benchmark is comparable to a normal regional interview.

You pass that Aviate Santa Clause interview, you hold CJO at United airlines.

The standards are set lower, no debate. Now is it intentional? No it’s not, but when you’re interviewing a candidate who just stared swinging the bat, you can’t throw them a professional 97 mph fastball and expect anyone to receive a CJO. Yet United still holds those type of standards for guys and gals already on the line at said regionals/ULCC’s/135. It’s a confusing hiring metric at best IMHO.

And because I know you love to debate specifics, I’ll giver you a specific example.

I still have friends/connections through the University of North Dakota where I attended school and flight instructed. So let me inform you of a incident that was brought up recently in a group chat.

A former instructor at the university fired (not going into the specifics, but it’s “certificates should/could have been surrendered”, bad). Before they received an interview with Aviate they got a TBNT from both SkyWest and Envoy, after the subject of termination was brought up at their recent instruction time at UND.

Turns out they received a CJO with their Aviate interview, and they proceeded to interview with GoJet, currently on the line flying for GoJet.

no…all I see are people making a big deal about the pigmentation of skin or how much progesterone is in your body. All totally ridiculous and all divisive. Let’s just focus on safety and it that “person” is a he/she black/white or whatever then so be it who cares!. Why the big focus on so called diversity. To me it’s just division. Why is it so hard to comprehend that people want the most competent pilot up there whatever they are. I don’t see color or sex and neither do most people I know. I just see if your a nasty person or not. That’s all…but hey it doesn’t fit the cool woke narrative that’s in fashion for the moment.
I see guys on here constantly bashing angry overweight white guys. I guess if that’s what your life’s worry is about then so be it. I think it’s sad….why can’t people just see through color sex and sexual identity? To keep us infighting perhaps?