4 year degree at JetBlue

[skirt]

Skirt, shouldnt you be home fixing your husband's lunch.

No, I'd rather eat yours.

Skirt

 

[Flying Freddie]

Dear Mister Dixieflyer,

Bite me.

 

[jointops]

Freight Hater,

Since I'm an interviewer for JB as well as a captain, I can honestly say you don't know our applicants nor their qualifications.

How does 30 female pilots out of over 800 sound like more doors have been opened for women at JB?

Speaking without knowledge is the first indication of your own lack of intelligence.

Now, happy landings to everyone else

 

[learjetguy]

Empathizing

hey flx,

Ive got 4200 hrs tubojet time ,1700 turobjet PIC, a four year degree, two type ratings, sleep in a Holidayinn express last night and nobody wants to hire me either

Learguy

 

[Flying Freddie]

It is not only hours and education. It is personality. That is what JetBlue is about.

 

[English]

Freight Hater,

Since I'm an interviewer for JB as well as a captain, I can honestly say you don't know our applicants nor their qualifications.

How does 30 female pilots out of over 800 sound like more doors have been opened for women at JB?

Speaking without knowledge is the first indication of your own lack of intelligence.

Now, happy landings to everyone else

Wow, only 30 female pilots out of 800 total? I thought jetBlue was more progressive than that.

 

[flx757]

Re: Empathizing

hey flx,

Ive got 4200 hrs tubojet time ,1700 turobjet PIC, a four year degree, two type ratings, sleep in a Holidayinn express last night and nobody wants to hire me either

Learguy

I was just giving a brief summary of my wife's qualifications. She has a job as a jet captain that she is happy with, and is not really looking. I was just making the point that she worked very hard to get where she is (as did we all), has very good credentials, and is a great person on top of all that...but there were no special "doors" opened for her. All I was doing was pointing out the ignorance of a certain poster's comments. But, I guess the smart thing to do is just ignore it and let it go.

 

[Blue Dude]

Wow, only 30 female pilots out of 800 total? I thought jetBlue was more progressive than that.

"Progressive" is code for "pushing a social agenda." No such thing at JetBlue. They look for two things: experience and attitude. Do well on both, and you'll be hired. Do poorly on either and you won't. There's no room in there for affirmative action quotas or feel-good token minority group hiring, and for that I'm most grateful.

 

[English]

No, progressive doesn't mean "pushing a social agenda". It means, I thought more women would want to work there. If more women wanted to work there, more would have applied, and more would have been hired.

Why are you assuming that if a woman is being hired, it must be because of affirmative action quotas, or that a woman would be a token minority, as you call it?

 

[ChinaClipper]

English, the assumption that....

women get hired because of "affirmitive action" is so prevelent is because a good many were hired in this way. For instance, USAir had a hiring influx in the late 1990's that included the practice of asking female/minority interviewees if the knew of any other female/monority pilots that might be interested in flying there. If so, they were given a special fax number to get fast access to the interview process. As for UAL's practices,well.... I can assure you that Nancy Stuke was well intentioned, but to say that a few under qualifed pilots were hired because of her "diversification" programs, would be an understatement. One quote of hers was asking why women make up 51% of the overall population, but less than 15% of UAL new hires. At the time UAL's competitive stats included, along with lots of flying time, an ATP, a certificate less than 3% of female pilots had at the time. That 3% number included females who already were at a major airline making the potential female ATP's hiring less likely. What followed were numerous "special" categories of hirees getting a job that were less than experienced than other "non special" applicants. Not just leveling the field but LOWERING of standards to accomidate EEOC goals. Her tenure @ UAL and the perversion of just "leveling the playing field" theory is not just limited to the airlines. (my time in the military can testify to that). Granted, UAL was under pressure to meet "goals" under a 1977 court ordered consent decree that would fine UAL for falling short of certain stated "goals," that were de facto quotas. UAL was released from the consent decree in 1997, but management chose to act as if the were still under its guidance as liability protection for the numerous lawsuits UAL would get over alledged misdeeds in hiring. I am not passing judments on the program per se, but the original intention of EOE programs was to insure that otherwise qualified applicants were not being hired because of color, ethnicity etc. A goal which I agree with. The "leveling of the playing field" has uncomfortably morphed into "hire with less skills than others" (mainly to keep the EEOC gestapo at bay) on far too many occasions to be merely coincidental. BTW I noticed you asked a question a few months back on this forum regarding airlines that had hiring programs in place for women and minorities, what came about as the result of your search? It would be interesting to see what you found out. Can I safely assume you are female? Do you think it mattered to Aloha? Just curious....

 

[English]

What I discovered was just reaffirmation of what I already knew - that there are not currently any affirmative action programs in place at any airlines hiring in the post 9/11 environment. I asked the question after having been hired at Aloha, in response to someone on this board complaining about a woman stealing a job from a man. The answers I was given mainly focused on hiring practices of the past. In particular, the story you shared about United was brought up several times. There is alot of animosity among pilots looking for jobs during the last ten years because of United's hiring practices in the mid to late 90s. However, to the best of my knowledge, there is not a single company that has these programs in place TODAY. So, I'm just kinda curious why it is still assumed that if a woman is hired today, she must be fulfilling an affirmative action quota or be a token minority, as Blue Dude stated.

I think Aloha hired me because I had an internal recommendation and they thought I'd fit in well with the pilot group. While I'm not highly qualified for anything, my qualifications seemed to be middle of the road for new hires at Aloha. There were people in my class with no captain experience, and others with lots of it. Some with only turboprop time and others with lots of jet time. Some were ex-military and some were civilian. Some were furloughed major airline pilots and others came from the regionals. The only qualification we all shared was that we each had an internal recommendation.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

Wow, only 30 female pilots out of 800 total? I thought jetBlue was more progressive than that.

Only? Women make up 3.2% of all ATP certificated pilots. 30 out of 800 comes out to 3.75% by my math. Looks about right to me.

 

[ChinaClipper]

Hmmnnnnnnn..

interesting stuff about no formal programs in place today. One would think that with so many high time pilots on the street that there would be an attempt to "right size" experience levels to compensate for the number of white males who would most definately crowd the upper end of the experience levels of current applicants (furloghees, especially 14plus year USAir types) Blue Dudes comments about "quotas" is a bit off, if I understand him correctely. Quotas in their most basic form are illegal, "goals" have replaced them, usually a % of hirees based on the number of applications received and their gender etc. I can assure you that JetBlue's hiring policies have been vetted by a host of employment lawyers and the federal/state EEOC monitoring guidelines are being followed. It will be a matter of time before they are sued and the exact # of applicants, experience levels and and colors etc will be brought out for examination. JB would be a fool not to have some "protective cover" available for when that day comes. Your comments about "hostility among pilots" is well taken. I wouldn't want to be a female pilot simply because the default setting is "they were hired because of their gender etc" It detracts from the good number of competent, dues paying females I have flow with over the years. I feel some female pilots could lessen these feelings if there was some more fraternization. My experince at the last 2 flying jobs had females sorta sticking together and not socializing much. In my latest new hire class experince, we couldn't get the 2 gals to go have a beer with us guys. We did lots of gouge exchanging and later, one of the gals accused us of not sharing it and all the unpleasentness it implies. Bad karma when you are just starting out. I probably wouldn't wanna hang out in some bar telling lies with us immature lounge lizards either, but it one of the few things I am good at .........

 

[English]

Ah, my friend Hugh "DTB" Jorgan, your math is definitely right on. I guess that percentage is right on.

 

[English]

ChinaClipper,

My research on the subject consisted of asking members of flightinfo if these types of hiring practices are occuring now. It definitely wasn't a controlled survey. Unfortunately, no one with any real insight chimed in. Joinops seems to be the one member of this board who would be most familiar with actual hiring practices in terms of preferential hiring. Jointops, could you or would you be willing to share your hiring philosophies at jetBlue, or your experiences outside of jetBlue?

 

[jetblue320]

No, progressive doesn't mean "pushing a social agenda". It means, I thought more women would want to work there. If more women wanted to work there, more would have applied, and more would have been hired.

Why are you assuming that if a woman is being hired, it must be because of affirmative action quotas, or that a woman would be a token minority, as you call it?

You can twist all the semantics you want but what Blue Dude said is about as accurate as it is. JointOps will agree as well I am sure. There are a good number of female applicants that make it to the interview table and if they meet the competative experience and personailty standards, they will be hired, just like any male. JointOps will provide more detail but I do know that we actively participate in WIA seminars and shows and the lot. I don't know how many of the 9000+ applications on file belong to females. I think that is confidential data not shared with even the Interviewers.

C yaaa

 

[Flying Freddie]

Hey Jetblue 320,

Does this mean you are anti-semantic as well?

 

[jetblue320]

Hey Jetblue 320,

Does this mean you are anti-semantic as well?

Oh jeez, did I spell it wrong? Grammar isn't one of my strong points. Maybe if I had a college degree................

 

[Blue Dude]

So, I'm just kinda curious why it is still assumed that if a woman is hired today, she must be fulfilling an affirmative action quota or be a token minority, as Blue Dude stated.

I most emphatically did not say that. I did say that there's no affirmative action hiring, therefore no "progressive" policy in place at JetBlue. We have a goodly number of what are traditionally called "minority" pilots, but I just prefer to call them professional crewmembers. Who cares what color or gender they are? They met the standard, they were hired, period. The standard itself is utterly color- and gender-blind, as it should be.

You asked why we don't have more, and that's really begging the question what's wrong with JetBlue that more aren't being hired. You just don't want to go there. "Progressive" is indeed code for something more. I smell an agenda, and it doesn't smell very good. Hugh has it right: the numbers in general are commensurate with the available population; what's your problem with the numbers?

China, "quota" was perhaps the wrong term. I like your term "de facto quota" over "goal". It's more descriptive of the actual practice.

Bottom line is: I don't care what our pilots look like. I just care that they're competent and are fun to work with. Isn't "not caring" the whole point?

 

[English]

I most emphatically did not say that. I did say that there's no affirmative action hiring, therefore no "progressive" policy in place at JetBlue. We have a goodly number of what are traditionally called "minority" pilots, but I just prefer to call them professional crewmembers. Who cares what color or gender they are? They met the standard, they were hired, period. The standard itself is utterly color- and gender-blind, as it should be.

You asked why we don't have more, and that's really begging the question what's wrong with JetBlue that more aren't being hired. You just don't want to go there. "Progressive" is indeed code for something more. I smell an agenda, and it doesn't smell very good. Hugh has it right: the numbers in general are commensurate with the available population; what's your problem with the numbers?

China, "quota" was perhaps the wrong term. I like your term "de facto quota" over "goal". It's more descriptive of the actual practice.

Bottom line is: I don't care what our pilots look like. I just care that they're competent and are fun to work with. Isn't "not caring" the whole point?

I agree with most of your points. I didn't mean to imply that something was "wrong" with jetBlue because they were not hiring more than 3.2% of pilots of the female gender. But no, progressive is not a term for affirmative action. Progressive has to do with culture at an airline. I know jetBlue employees are very proud of their culture, and I'm happy for the pilots there that have developed a culture that they are proud to be a part of. There must be some reason why more women don't apply to work there. And, if they do, why is the exact ratio represented?