Ok, lets separate fact from fiction.
I read your entire post, but what I saw was almost all fiction and very little fact.
I am in favor of hiring qualified candidates- regardless of color or plumbing, and so are most pilots I know. What we don't like is for someone to piss on our heads and tell us it's raining, which is what you are trying to do:
At the time United had lower hiring minimums than today's standard for EVERYONE. You were separated in to different stacks. If you had 2000 hours then you were not in competition against someone with 1000 hours. There was roughly a total of 15 different stacks you could fall in to and minorities had a stack on their own. So YOU WERE NEVER IN COMPETITION WITH ANY MINORITY.
You could also separate the 10,000 applications into 10,000 piles, and then say, "You were only competing against yourself" but that doesn't make it true. Nice try, though.
If you didn't get the job it's because you failed against your peers, not because some female took your job.
Give me a break, Ms. Goebbels. There were plenty of females and minorities hired between 1990 and 2000 who were not competively qualiifed. In fact, after they had depleted the pool of qualified minority candidates, they eventually had to do away with the sim check altogether, as many of the "preferential" candidates were washing out. That is a fact.
There are over 90,000 airline pilots flying today of which only about 2000 of them are black. So if you don't get the job, what are you going to do? Blame it on a segment that makes up less than 2.5% of the industry?
Nice try at playing the race card, there, Ms. Cochran, but no one is suggesting that at all. What we are saying is that there are a finite number of interview slots available, and to put someone on the list at a much lower experience level means that someone else (at a higher experience level) had to be removed from consideration. . . . . which is discrimination, too, although since it affects white males, I doubt you are willing to see it.
