The recent UA announcement on diversity goals is a topic that will likely engender some active discussion. Please remember, as we have that discussion, it needs to be:

1) within FT Rule 12.2, par. 2 ("FlyerTalk is a diverse, multi-cultural community. Expressions of prejudice or discrimination in any form are not permitted (such as those concerning race, nationality, religious belief, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, etc).")
2) that the discussion in the UA forum stay on topic of UA's initiatives. Noting that for those who are OMNI-qualified, the OMNI-OMNI/PR forums are available to discuss broader societal issues such as of diverse employment goals generally, and related topics.
and
3) all other FT Rules apply, leading to a discussion conducted in civil, collegial manner without this becoming an unnecessarily fractious thread.

If you feel a post is not within the FT Rules and/or the UA forum's focus, please use the Report Bad Post (RPB) alert (Red triangle with "!") to alert the Moderators to handle the issue, do not post your concern in the thread.

WineCountryUA
UA coModerator

If UA is serious about the diversity angle, they can't just make statements about hiring. They need to start earlier, or they'll find themselves without candidates to hire in the first place. Speaking as a GA pilot, I don't see a ton of these underrepresented groups hanging around the local airport going through flight training. They need to get into elementary schools to get those kids thinking "I could be a pilot someday." Get them exposed to aviation. Bring them to an airport and get them around planes. Then in high school they need programs to encourage kids to pursue the right subjects. Maybe support some of what AOPA is doing with STEM education that is aviation-focused. Then they need to support flight training - it is NOT cheap to become even a private pilot and it's very much not cheap to earn an ATP certificate. Offer scholarships to Embry-Riddle or UND. Maybe run their own flight academy like Lufthansa has done. Only *then* can they talk about diversity in hiring - there's a very long pipeline that comes beforehand.

#62. that is exactly what they are doing

This whole "military pilots make the best commercial pilots" is nonsense of a bygone era. Only Delta was grasping that straw for awhile, but seems to have moved on. I don't want a military pilot in my flight deck, I am not joining a dogfight or landing on a carrier, I want someone trained from the beginning across a broad spectrum of scientific, management and practical subjects, alongside building flight skills, similar to the program I graduated from myself, whose curriculum, ironically, was driven by 1980s-era United Airlines - which has since evolved over the years to really focus on cockpit resource management as a core requirement. The best way to prepare airline pilots of the future is a hybrid program of a college degree plus flight training which continues long enough, and in enough depth, to lead to an ATP which is now the minimum requirement to enter a regional airline position, from which a person can move into a larger carrier. Military pilots are much harder to 're-train' into civilian airline positions which focus on management, customer service, and CRM procedures and concepts, far beyond the basics of just flying an airplane.

The program is a required step in the right direction, but setting minimum targets which may or may not be possible to hit, which are completely dependent on whether or not students even want to pursue this line of work - an interest which may be practically damaged from the impact to the industry via coronavirus, and the resulting layoffs and uncertainty that now haunts this career, really just boxes the company into a corner and sets metrics they may not be able to hit.

The industry certainly has a problem brewing - fewer people are showing interest in this career path, while the pilots of today are aging or leaving the industry when the business suffers a setback. Eventually that will cause a labor crunch, and since we've already seen the effects of reduced standards (ie, Colgan), the outcome of maintaining high standards is a need to reduce flight schedules and capacity to fit not the market, but the availability of people to fly the planes.

I certainly don't mind a military pilot (think Sully Sullenberger) - but it is a bygone era. The military has figured out for quite a few years now that investing great sums of money in training pilots only to see them leave for airlines was not a great return on investment. They now have much longer commitments to stay in the military with very lucrative bonuses - I think I read roughly 1/3 of commercial pilots have a military background nowadays.

So you are looking for a well educated bus driver. Who can read off a check list and fill out paperwork? Why not hire them from Lion air or Ethiopian and cover diversity at the same time?

Disappointing so many feel you can't have diversity and inclusion AND top talent at the same time - it isn't an OR

Why not start with looking for the best and worry later as to what that looks like? Close your eyes and choose the best or has that become a lost art of management?

Because there might be hidden gems?

Why does it matter to you? If they washout that’s UA’s issue to deal with.

As a hiring authority I'd take a pilot with 500hrs of combat time with thousands of primary and has operated into austere locations around the world in all conditions imaginable over someone who's only flown a cessna and an A320 sim. Having had that as his only time toward his pay-your-fee-get-your-ATP. Mil time does give someone an edge. 10 years on the job? Yeah- it more than evens out and you'd be hard pressed to find a difference. Walking in the door as a new hire? The mil guy certainly has an advantage. There's no replacement for real world experience. Nonsense that its harder train a mil pilot in customer service (whatever that's supposed to mean anyway).

All that stuff aside the best qualified person needs to get the job. Quotas based on color, creed or favorite pizza topping have no place in a demanding professional environment. If the person who prefers pepperoni stacks up the best they get the job. If they don't then they then don't. If you end up with a 90% pepperoni workforce then so be it. The real mistake is bypassing the best qualified in the interest of creating a certain image, not in having that 90% same-same demographic.

It is a goal and not a quota. A goal in my opinion that won't be met (many diversity programs end up falling short) - but it is a goal to have a more diverse and inclusive organization. United Airlines - or any airline, does not need to be comprised 100% by white men.

Why not? (and that's not a racist question). Is diversity only judged by skin color? Not education, experience, religious beliefs, age, intelligence and a host of other traits? I tend to think its more than just outward appearance or gender. The best is the best. UA deserves best. Customers deserve the best. If that amounts to 100% of any demographic I could care less. I want the most competent qualified individual operating the aircraft. Just as I would a surgeon the operating room or any other specialized profession. But then I'm open minded and don't judge by demographic...which ironically is what is going on by establishing quotas goals. I want UA to succeed. I sincerely hope UA meets their goals. As long as it results in a better, safer, more efficient and more profitable airline I'm all for it.

Well, if a hiring manager has a bias that only white men can be qualified pilots then that tells me other highly qualified pilots are being turned away simply because they are a minority or female or both.

I'm not going to assume a bias exists just because a sample is 100% homogeneous. Especially when I don't know the hiring criteria or application pool. That's a dangerous proposition.

All this hypothetical baloney aside, lets hope UA is doing it for the right reasons, not the sweet smelling PR reasons. Judging by the sentiment out there it seems like its the latter.

I don't think anyone is objecting to the idea of having a diverse workforce. In fact, at least half of my last dozen UA flights, at least one of the pilots had been women.

The issue I do take with is UA's approach. Hypothetically, what happens when UA has filled half of its 5,000 new hires with one group, what then? Do you reject all applicants of the same group? We, as a society, put too much emphasis on labels nowadays. Just hire the best damn pilot, period.