4 year degree at JetBlue

[IB6 UB9]

"There must be some reason why more women don't apply to work there."

China...what are you trying to get at here? There are many possibilities as to why you keep digging at this subject. I can only possibly imagine what some of them are. As to your loaded statement that I pasted above...who knows. First of all, how do you know how many women have applied. (Who cares) Is it possible that they don't meet the hiring minimums? (Who cares) Maybe they don't think the airline would be a good fit for them. (LOL) Maybe during the big hiring boom a few years ago somehow you didn't get the call and you are having trouble getting past that! (Who knows). At any rate, you can crunch numbers, theorize, make assumptions, etc. all you want, but it won't change the fact that, IMHO, JB hires pilots with far more integrity than any major did in the past. Not only to supplement the ranks with quality, but to avoid any possible accusations like the one you may be delicately leading up to.

 

[English]

what's your problem with the numbers?

I don't have a problem with the numbers. I don't work there. I am surprised that there are only 30 female pilots out of a pilot group of 800.

The numbers Hugh quoted were for ATP rated pilots. Is an ATP required for employment at jetBlue? That might explain the percentage.

 

[Skank]

My theory is that the major hiring boom had severely depleted the ranks of women aviators out there. Jetblue's mins were quite high in the beginning and there weren't many qualified applicants from the female ranks. Just my theory. To suggest some sort of dicriminatory practice is plane (I have a degree, but it's not a very good one) silly.

 

[Dopps]

English, are you some kind of a feminazi?

The last person I want to fly with is some chick who has a chip on her shoulder about being a female pilot who is out to prove something to the rest of us. Don't give lady pilots a bad name, especially being on probation here at Aloha. We have some great lady pilots here who are very much down to earth, competent, and not feminazis.

If you're a safe/sound/competent pilot, I couldn't care less if you're black, white, purple, male or female. Just do your job professionally.

 

[IB6 UB9]

Oops.

" "There must be some reason why more women don't apply to work there."

China...what are you trying to get at here? There are many possibilities as to why you keep digging at this subject. I can only possibly imagine what some of them are. As to your loaded statement that I pasted above...who knows. First of all, how do you know how many women have applied. (Who cares) Is it possible that they don't meet the hiring minimums? (Who cares) Maybe they don't think the airline would be a good fit for them. (LOL) Maybe during the big hiring boom a few years ago somehow you didn't get the call and you are having trouble getting past that! (Who knows). At any rate, you can crunch numbers, theorize, make assumptions, etc. all you want, but it won't change the fact that, IMHO, JB hires pilots with far more integrity than any major did in the past. Not only to supplement the ranks with quality, but to avoid any possible accusations like the one you may be delicately leading up to."


Sorry China...I meant English.

 

[English]

[BIMHO, JB hires pilots with far more integrity than any major did in the past. [/B]

So, does this mean pilots at other airlines don't have any integrity?

I find it interesting that my mere mention that the ratio of 30 female pilots to a pilot group of 800 seems a little low evokes so much hostility from some on this board. I never said anything derogatory about jetBlue but did ask some questions that are worthy to be considered in an enlightened society (not trying to imply that flightinfo is enlightened). While this started as a comment communicating my surprise, it has turned into an assumption by several here that I must be pro-affirmative action. I tend to participate in discussions on this board with somewhat of a "devil's advocate" stance - I like to present varying sides because I tend to enjoy a healthy debate.

So, I will put my position out there now - I do not believe in affirmative action. Affirmative action, to me, means that a certain group is getting special preference due to fitting into a certain group. I have seen unqualified women being hired when more qualified men stood in the wings. I personally observed this one two years ago. However, the person stumbled through training and it was apparent to all in the class why she was there. However, I've also seen people hired based on where they were born, who they knew and who they were related to. It happens. On the other hand, I've seen highly qualified women turned down for a job because 1) a chief pilot was concerned how his wife would take it, him flying with a girl all the time 2) there was a concern about how the girl would go to the bathroom on long flights in a single pilot aircraft (!) 3) there was concern about whether the pilot would take medical leave to get pregnant. I've seen, observed, witnessed and experienced lots more than this.

There is no right answer to how many pilots of groups x, y, and z there should be, because, as Blue Dude stated, there shouldn't be any "goals" or "quotas". However, 30 out of 800 still sounds low to me. That's just me and I'm not making any value judgments about jetBlue's hiring process or the reasons why women would or wouldn't want to apply there. But I think it's good that these issues are explored and not just brushed under the table because they are considered "women's issues". These issues obviously anger alot of male pilots, and should be discussed between pilots in civil debate, to encourage more understanding and acceptance.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

I guess that percentage is right on. But then again, doesn't that just mean that a quota or goal IS being fulfilled? Why does the percentage have to match exactly? Would we think there was a quota in place if jetBlue hired 60 women instead of 30? Would all male pilots be upset if any airline hired more women than the 3.2% you quoted? Hypothetically, if only 3.2% of all ATP-rated pilots are women, shouldn't only 3.2% of all pilots employed be women?

It's called the law of averages. If there is nothing preferential going on, then one could reasonably assume that over a large number of hires, the numbers would generally work themselves out...based on the law of averages, and one could reasonably conclude the percentages work and randomly fall generally into place. When people start counting penises and vaginas in a pilot group, that's when the trouble begins, because someone might arbitrarily pick a number they think might be more....shall we say, progressive. Aloha having somewhere in the neighborhood of 7%, in such a small pilot group doesn't seem to raise any more flags. Now, if it were a group of 1000 pilots, and the percentage ran double the average of certificated pilots, then one could reasonably wonder if someone had a little mathematical agenda going on. 25% of your new hire class was female. Can you conclude there was preferrential hiring? No, not with such a small sampling size, but if the pilot group doubles, and the number consistently stays at 25%, then there's something else afoot. Hire the people you want to hire based on company fit, qualifications, references, leave the gentialia out of it, and the law of averages should work itself out. So, the next time you see a SWA class of 26 and only one of them is female, and you do the math, you can say, well, that's about right. And when the following class has about 4 women, you say, okay, fine... If you see a company that consistenly hires 5 times the average distribution of pilot demographics...pick your demographic....then you are witnessing misguided preferrential hiring. Stick to counting your landings. It's much more fun.

 

[English]

See, Hugh, I knew there was a reason I liked you.

Thank you Hugh and ChinaClipper for the enjoyable and logical discourse.

 

[Freight Dog]

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.

Actually, you only got an interview because you had an internal recommendation and you met the set requirements.

It was still up to you to pass the interview process in order to get hired. Our interview process is fairly simple - they either like you or they don't. Granted, you still have to pass that crazy computer test and the sim, but still... I think the personal interview is the most-heavily weighed portion.

Now, as for the ratio of women pilots, Hugh is right - laws of averages takes the cake here. Aloha is a rather small group. For example, in your class, there were 2 of you gals. In my class, we didn't have any. We're too small to base the average to measure how "progressive" a carrier is.

Listen to the old man Hugh... he knows his stuff.

 

[IB6 UB9]

"So, does this mean pilots at other airlines don't have any integrity? "

That is not what I meant, although when I read my statement back to myself I can easily see how you misunderstand it. What I meant was that the hiring process has integrity, meaning fairness. I meant nothing about the actual pilots' integrity. I think most of us have evolved from some of the bitterness developed from affirmative action programs not so long ago. For some however it may take a little longer, and I am sure there are some who will never let go. These people feel they were adversely affected by these programs and in some instances I can see why. I remember coming out of my UAL interview and getting on the bus to go back to DIA. One of the people in my interview group got on and sat beside me. I think the conversation went something like this:

"How was it?" (me)
"I don't know...what's EPR?" (her)

(She was a 24 yr old SF340 FO). I have no idea as to whether she was hired or not, she wasn't in my class, but I do know that her extensive experience probably wasn't the reason she was being interviewed. Maybe that person was you English.

But that seems like a very long time ago now. I second the statements made about gender and color at my airline...they are the same statements that I have been making for years. If you are qualified to work here then I don't care if you have horns. If you bring a touch of personality and fun with you then so much the better, and that is how we are hiring. So there is more to it than just actual numbers.

 

[English]

[BI remember coming out of my UAL interview and getting on the bus to go back to DIA. One of the people in my interview group got on and sat beside me. I think the conversation went something like this:

"How was it?" (me)
"I don't know...what's EPR?" (her)

(She was a 24 yr old SF340 FO). I have no idea as to whether she was hired or not, she wasn't in my class, but I do know that her extensive experience probably wasn't the reason she was being interviewed. Maybe that person was you English.

[/B]

Nope, not me. You sure are making alot of assumptions though.

 

[Eagle-ista]

What's all the hub-bub, bub?

Ok, gotta interject here...

I flew with English when she worked at Eagle. She is no "feminazi". She's a d*mn (spelling to fool the censor) good pilot and I really enjoyed flying with her.

The "was that you" remark is just as goofy as when someone walks up to me and says, "I know a friend that works for Eagle in Miami, his name is blahblah, don't you know him???" And no, the sarcasm wasn't lost on me. (Sorry, just an equal dose of passive- aggressive behavior...)

Perspective kids.... The days of the 350 hour United new hire are gone.

They are at Eagle now (male and female) and I'm trying to teach them the evils of going below V-ref, glide-slope and block time...

 

[TonyC]

These days its not if you are male, female, black, white or purple, all that matters is do you have competitive qualifications, can you do the job well, and do you have a good attitude.

I reckon I could get myself in a heap 'o trouble for speaking up here, but I can't resist...

(OK, I CAN resist, I've just chosen not to...)

That statement is, unfortunately, more idealistic than realistic. I wish it were true, you wish it were true, every minority and ... non-minority? majority?? hmmm well, EVERYbody wishes it were true, but it ain't.

There are far more qualified applicants than there are positions, so it takes more of a discriminator (this meant in a positive way) to separate the applicants that will be called from the applicants that won't than "qualifications," "doing the job well," and "good attitude." Until gender is ignored, and eliminated from the application altogether, you're going to have a hard time proving there is no bias.

I may be way off base here, but I seem to recall you talking about your pilgrimage to the Blue side some many months ago, and I thought I remembered you telling us about someone who tried to persuade you to leave your airline and join the team. Unless that same person was using the same power of persuasion with ALL of the pilots at your old airline with similar qualifications, regardless of gender, race, or religion, then it would appear that something about YOU distinguished you from the others, and something about YOU opened a door that wasn't opened for everyone else. I'm sure you're an outstanding pilot in all other respects, but I respectfully submit that gender might have been part of the formula.

Now that I've said that, let me emphasize that I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing. I have friends and connections that other people don't have, and other people have friends and connections that I don't have - - should we be coerced to share friends and connections so that we all have equal access and opportunity? I think it would be an impossible endeavor. I think it would be equally ridiculous to scrutinize the gender of every contact you have and cry foul if you have a woman friend that wants to help you. It's just part of reality, and it will always be that way. Even if we took the MALE __ FEMALE __ blocks off the applications, the influence would still exist.

I just think it's naive to say, "No, being a woman did NOT open any doors for me."

 

[IB6 UB9]

"Nope, not me. You sure are making alot of assumptions though."

That's bad english English...a lot is two words. The only assumption I made is that you are a woman, which really makes no difference to me if you are or not. But enough of this silly bantering back and forth...I can assure you that anyone who applies, is qualified, and has what the interview team is looking for will be offered a position here regardless of gender or race...or horns. I wish you good luck if you apply as JB is a fine place to work, as is Aloha I am sure.

 

[Krusty]

WOW, all that was way off.

Thanks to "Bluebusdriver, blue dude, enigma, jaydub, albief15, pilotyip."....

I appreciate the responses, I could care less about all the female discussions, and the Riddle stuff, "Riddle rats", what is that, is that a bad thing? what are you guys in high school?
I spent 7 years enlisted in the Navy as a Hard Hat Navy Diver, fixing Nuke subs and salvaging the Space Shuttle. I needed to aquire a degree, so Embry Riddle has a great program online and in the evenings to take classes while I was flying.

anyhow, JB would be great, thanks to all that had some positive info.

 

[English]

The great thing about flightinfo is that you're never really sure where a thread is going to end up, but, usually, you're guaranteed a hijacking...

 

[splatt]

Only 1% of all ATP's are female...

"just the facts, maam"

 

[skirt]

WOW, all that was way off.

I spent 7 years enlisted in the Navy as a Hard Hat Navy Diver, fixing Nuke subs and salvaging the Space Shuttle. I needed to aquire a degree, so Embry Riddle has a great program online and in the evenings to take classes while I was flying.

anyhow, JB would be great, thanks to all that had some positive info.

Krusty,

Since you have Navy Sub time, you should look into Thomas Edison State College online program. They will give you credit for Nuke Sub work and also for your flight ratings. It is a completely accredited program, and much cheaper than Embry Riddle.

My husband just finished a degree from there. He was very pleased with the program, particularly for someone going back to get a degree in his 40's. Check it out at www.tesc.edu

Skirt

 

[English]

Only 1% of all ATP's are female...

"just the facts, maam"

Hmm, Hugh Jorgan says the figure is 3.2%, so I'm gonna go with him. Hugh is never wrong about this stuff..

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

Hmm, Hugh Jorgan says the figure is 3.2%, so I'm gonna go with him. Hugh is never wrong about this stuff..

Actually, there is some inherent error built into the numbers I was spewing off, but the 3.2% comes from the FAA and there are qualifiers in that number too that can lead to deception. Bottom line: 3.2% is a little low, but the ballpark is probably about right. Look to see the numbers of women, percentage-wise rise, not due to preferrential hiring so much as the law of averages catching up. We should talk about this one over a beer.

I'll also agree to an extent with the individual who brought up lawyers advising the Jetbule hiring folks. While I doubt there's much preferrential hoo-ha going on there, it is interesting to note that the number of females falls pretty darned close to the national demographic of female ATPs. There are two groups of people who cannot sue JB for hiring discrimination based on sex. Males and females, since neither can prove an unusual number of either being hired. They're gonna have to look elsewhere for their frivolous suits.