The whole concept of IQ is questionable because there isn’t a widely accepted definition of intelligence. For linguistic tasks, women score higher. For mathematical/spatial tasks men score higher; does being good with languages mean you are smarter than someone who is good with math, or is it vice versa?CpnCrunch wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 5:49 pmYou do realise this was a hypothetical (made up) example of what the bell curve does NOT look like. Here is the tweet:
https://x.com/nuance_enjoyer/status/1785602734483534275
Most meta-analyses shows very little difference between male and females, so the second graph (above) is probably legit.
![]()
DEI And Aviation — Boeing’s take.
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog
Re: DEI And Aviation — Boeing’s take.
Re: DEI And Aviation — Boeing’s take.
As long as the tests are standardized, it doesn't matter what the definition is. The result is the score on the test, possibly corrected for age.tsgarp wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 6:13 pmThe whole concept of IQ is questionable because there isn’t a widely accepted definition of intelligence. For linguistic tasks, women score higher. For mathematical/spatial tasks men score higher; does being good with languages mean you are smarter than someone who is good with math, or is it vice versa?CpnCrunch wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 5:49 pmYou do realise this was a hypothetical (made up) example of what the bell curve does NOT look like. Here is the tweet:
https://x.com/nuance_enjoyer/status/1785602734483534275
Most meta-analyses shows very little difference between male and females, so the second graph (above) is probably legit.
![]()
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Re: DEI And Aviation — Boeing’s take.
Point well taken. But I think he means initial hiring not promotion due to seniority rules which does happen to be colour blind and gender blind and also frequently(but not always) experience blind. I have worked at more than one company with a union that did have experience requirements for movement to certain positions on aircraft(turboprop to jet, below 12.5 to above 12.5(ATPL), number of takeoffs and landings, and total time).goldeneagle wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 5:36 pmTell that to your unions, when you have somebody with 10 years of WB captain experience sitting at the bottom of a seniority list and there is an opening for a WB captain at your airline. Surely that promotion should be based on skill and qualification, not some arbitrary number on a seniority list....IJNShiroyuki wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 1:24 pm
But one thing everyone can all agree on is hiring should be based on skill and qualification, never race and gender.
-
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1294
- Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 3:28 pm
Re: DEI And Aviation — Boeing’s take.
What you describe is basically an experience matrix, no different than minimum qualifications on a job add. In the perfect union world, that seniority concept would also apply to hiring. All applications that meet the minimum requirements would go into a first in, first out que, and hiring would be done based on 'date of application', completely oblivious to any experience and/or qualifications over and above the minimum requirements. It would be DEI in it's ultimate form, a world that is color blind and gender blind and experience blind, one where you simply get in line and wait your turn once the minimum entry requirement is met.pelmet wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 9:51 pm Point well taken. But I think he means initial hiring not promotion due to seniority rules which does happen to be colour blind and gender blind and also frequently(but not always) experience blind. I have worked at more than one company with a union that did have experience requirements for movement to certain positions on aircraft(turboprop to jet, below 12.5 to above 12.5(ATPL), number of takeoffs and landings, and total time).
Re: DEI And Aviation — Boeing’s take.
But to what extent is this nature vs nurture? The horse example you bring up is particularly interesting. Throughout the years riding horses was almost synonymous with masculinity, and women had to fight for the right to ride, and not in the ridiculous side-saddle contraptions. Now the trend, at least in the west, is reversed, and horses are considered a "girl thing". Clearly this example shows that this preference is not biologically hard-wired.
This is not to say there aren't some hard-wired biological preferences. It's just really hard to tease them apart from societal influences, given how pervasive the latter are in everything we do. Which is why I don't think it's a bad idea to encourage people to explore careers outside of preferred gender norms. You'd think that at this point "everyone knows" that people of either sex can have any career they want, but let me tell you, nearly every time I fly with female co-workers, I witness some unbelievable reactions. People are mostly positive but surprised nevertheless, and it's not just the grandmas in their eighties either. So I think it's difficult to imagine the pressure the myriad of subtle societal hints exert on members of certain groups if you aren't a member of that group. Moreover, I think it's often difficult to see it even if you ARE a member of the group, just like it's hard for a fish to be aware of water.
Funny how most flight attendants, who have similar or worse schedules in terms of being away from home and working long days, are female then.
Re: DEI And Aviation — Boeing’s take.
Companies typically want to take further steps by interviewing in order to attempt to weed out candidates that they feel are not what they are looking for(personality, commitment, knowledge beyond the minimum requirement hours, etc). Then there is the sim eval that many companies use. Not many companies inside or outside aviation just pick in order of first minimum qualified come, first qualified hired.goldeneagle wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2025 10:17 amWhat you describe is basically an experience matrix, no different than minimum qualifications on a job add. In the perfect union world, that seniority concept would also apply to hiring. All applications that meet the minimum requirements would go into a first in, first out que, and hiring would be done based on 'date of application', completely oblivious to any experience and/or qualifications over and above the minimum requirements. It would be DEI in it's ultimate form, a world that is color blind and gender blind and experience blind, one where you simply get in line and wait your turn once the minimum entry requirement is met.pelmet wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 9:51 pm Point well taken. But I think he means initial hiring not promotion due to seniority rules which does happen to be colour blind and gender blind and also frequently(but not always) experience blind. I have worked at more than one company with a union that did have experience requirements for movement to certain positions on aircraft(turboprop to jet, below 12.5 to above 12.5(ATPL), number of takeoffs and landings, and total time).
I don't think it would be DEI in its ultimate form either as it is well known that females for example, just are not as interested in some jobs as males. I find it difficult to believe that if only the garbage collection companies hired the first to apply that met whatever qualifications they have, that half the employees would be women. Same thing with professional pilots by the way. But then the DEI frauds start making false claims (for certain jobs only) that it is the so-called patriarchy and how they didn't give girls blue shirts and tonka toys when they were young that is at fault. However, this only applies to the glory jobs. They are happy to leave the dirty jobs to men.
Ultimate form of DEI....I think not. As overall groups, males and females think too differently.....in case nobody noticed.
Last edited by pelmet on Wed Feb 26, 2025 4:37 am, edited 5 times in total.
Re: DEI And Aviation — Boeing’s take.
Males just aren't nearly as interested in doing service jobs like cabin crew. Females just are not as interested in careers as pilots nearly as much. They are interested as much in being doctors, controllers, lawyers, teachers. Perhaps piloting is seen as being more risky. Plenty of small planes crash. Not many doctors, lawyers, teachers or controllers die doing their stuff.
- Jean-Pierre
- Rank 6
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:56 pm
Re: DEI And Aviation — Boeing’s take.
Shouldn't there be DEI initiatives to attract them then?
Re: DEI And Aviation — Boeing’s take.
No, it would be totally unfair for some female to be discriminated against in favour of some lesser deserving male.Jean-Pierre wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2025 8:17 pmShouldn't there be DEI initiatives to attract them then?
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2023 1:31 pm
Re: DEI And Aviation — Boeing’s take.
Not enough men want to be mothers, and not enough women want to be fathers. We need to fix this to protect our children.pelmet wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2025 4:31 amNo, it would be totally unfair for some female to be discriminated against in favour of some lesser deserving male.Jean-Pierre wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2025 8:17 pmShouldn't there be DEI initiatives to attract them then?
Re: DEI And Aviation — Boeing’s take.
Attracting people to a job isn't discriminating. Also, all men know they can be an FA, most of us just hate the idea of doing it. In contrast, many women believe they can't be a pilot (and many men believe that too of women). It's a weird, outdated and unevidenced belief that should be addressed, and you don't need to discriminate to do that.pelmet wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2025 4:31 amNo, it would be totally unfair for some female to be discriminated against in favour of some lesser deserving male.Jean-Pierre wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2025 8:17 pmShouldn't there be DEI initiatives to attract them then?
This is the problem with the whole discussion around DEI. It's vague and means many things, and almost everyone gets confused and annoyed by it for that reason, making it fit their preconceived prejudices.
Most of us reasonable people are just scratching our heads at the whole kerfuffle around DEI. We grew up without any prejudices, believing that everyone should get whatever job they want without discrimination, and now the whole world has turned crazy for no apparent reason.
- Daniel Cooper
- Rank 6
- Posts: 439
- Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:38 am
- Location: Unknown
Re: DEI And Aviation — Boeing’s take.
This assumption that men can get any job they want is definitely not correct. Try it yourself! Apply for traditionally female occupations and see if you get hired.
Re: DEI And Aviation — Boeing’s take.
The funny thing is, this is not new, just a different name!Daniel Cooper wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2025 11:53 amThis assumption that men can get any job they want is definitely not correct. Try it yourself! Apply for traditionally female occupations and see if you get hired.
Anyone who applied to join the RCMP 30 years ago would remember the recruiter saying, unless you’re female or native don’t bother.
Of course you can’t say that today but you can advertise for tenants in an indigenous group owned apartment building and say only indigenous applications accepted, that’s ok now under DEI policies!
Re: DEI And Aviation — Boeing’s take.
Approximately 25% of TSB incident reports are due to a flight attendant becoming incapacitated during the flight. Perhaps it's a very hard job?
Re: DEI And Aviation — Boeing’s take.
Good point. I was more referring to the belief that (assuming you get the job), you would be able to do it. I'm pretty certain I could easily do an FA job, but I'm equally sure I would absolutely hate it.Daniel Cooper wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2025 11:53 amThis assumption that men can get any job they want is definitely not correct. Try it yourself! Apply for traditionally female occupations and see if you get hired.
Re: DEI And Aviation — Boeing’s take.
Another good point. I wasn't saying the job isn't difficult, and I have the greatest respect for FAs.
Being a commercial pilot is a difficult job, but most men would probably say "yeah I could do that" until you show them a video of an IFR checkride and try to explain VORs and ADF tracking. That's another job I have zero interest in doing, even though I have a CPL with multi-IFR, so I'm glad there are so many people (mostly men) queueing up to do it. Maybe women underestimate their abilities whereas men have an overinflated idea of what they are capable of.
Re: DEI And Aviation — Boeing’s take.
That may be the case, but that's a different argument. I was answering the poster who said it's specifically the idea of being away from home so much that makes the piloting career offputting to women.
As for your point, yes, this is true, but again, how much of it is nature vs nurture? You were the one who brought up horses, didn't you? Horses used to the ultimate "guy thing" and now they are the ultimate "girl thing". Surely nothing in male/female biology has changed so much in the last hundred years as to completely reverse this preference. So these seemingly hard-wired preferences are at least in part due to somewhat arbitrary gender norms and stereotypes.
Perhaps women tend to choose service jobs and avoid technical jobs in part due to societal conditioning. Then trying to attract women to careers not traditionally considered feminine might counteract societal biases to some degree.
Mind you, I am not suggesting hiring less qualified or less capable candidates because of skin colour, sex and other such irrelevant characteristics. I believe it's a disservice to everyone, including the employer, the candidates who were bypassed, the minorities who earned their right to be there on merit, the less qualified candidates themselves and, ultimately, the travelling public. But I am all for school talks, for example, or Girls Can Fly events that can help people visualize themselves in careers they previously thought were not possible for them due to their minority status.
Re: DEI And Aviation — Boeing’s take.
From the studies I read, this seems to be the case in general.
Re: DEI And Aviation — Boeing’s take.
….which leads to what was one proposed as a definition for intelligence…It’s what IQ tests measure.digits_ wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 6:34 pmAs long as the tests are standardized, it doesn't matter what the definition is. The result is the score on the test, possibly corrected for age.tsgarp wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 6:13 pmThe whole concept of IQ is questionable because there isn’t a widely accepted definition of intelligence. For linguistic tasks, women score higher. For mathematical/spatial tasks men score higher; does being good with languages mean you are smarter than someone who is good with math, or is it vice versa?CpnCrunch wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 5:49 pm
You do realise this was a hypothetical (made up) example of what the bell curve does NOT look like. Here is the tweet:
https://x.com/nuance_enjoyer/status/1785602734483534275
Most meta-analyses shows very little difference between male and females, so the second graph (above) is probably legit.
![]()
Re: DEI And Aviation — Boeing’s take.
Being a safe pilot requires a reasonable amount of belief that you can be a pilot without having to have someone baby you along. If you don't have it, you shouldn't try it. Too many people die in aviation.CpnCrunch wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2025 10:33 am Also, all men know they can be an FA, most of us just hate the idea of doing it. In contrast, many women believe they can't be a pilot (and many men believe that too of women). It's a weird, outdated and unevidenced belief that should be addressed, and you don't need to discriminate to do that.
But I believe that few women actually believe that they can't be pilots. If that were the case, just as many would feel the same about being a doctor or a lawyer. They just don't like the idea of a piloting career as much as males, while they do in terms of doctors, lawyers and controllers. There is nothing to address just like there is nothing to address for the lack of males wanting to be cabin crew. If less males want that, so be it. Why would anybody be upset at that. If there is anything to address is that all have an equal opportunity. How fair is that? Very.
Re: DEI And Aviation — Boeing’s take.
digits_ wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 6:34 pmAs long as the tests are standardized, it doesn't matter what the definition is. The result is the score on the test, possibly corrected for age.tsgarp wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 6:13 pmThe whole concept of IQ is questionable because there isn’t a widely accepted definition of intelligence. For linguistic tasks, women score higher. For mathematical/spatial tasks men score higher; does being good with languages mean you are smarter than someone who is good with math, or is it vice versa?CpnCrunch wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 5:49 pm
You do realise this was a hypothetical (made up) example of what the bell curve does NOT look like. Here is the tweet:
https://x.com/nuance_enjoyer/status/1785602734483534275
Most meta-analyses shows very little difference between male and females, so the second graph (above) is probably legit.
![]()

Re: DEI And Aviation — Boeing’s take.
Congrats Air Canada on another DEI award while OTP continues to drop.
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Thu May 06, 2021 9:56 pm
Re: DEI And Aviation — Boeing’s take.
both of those are subjects on an IQ test, amongst others.tsgarp wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 6:13 pmThe whole concept of IQ is questionable because there isn’t a widely accepted definition of intelligence. For linguistic tasks, women score higher. For mathematical/spatial tasks men score higher; does being good with languages mean you are smarter than someone who is good with math, or is it vice versa?CpnCrunch wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 5:49 pmYou do realise this was a hypothetical (made up) example of what the bell curve does NOT look like. Here is the tweet:
https://x.com/nuance_enjoyer/status/1785602734483534275
Most meta-analyses shows very little difference between male and females, so the second graph (above) is probably legit.
![]()
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Thu May 06, 2021 9:56 pm
Re: DEI And Aviation — Boeing’s take.
Damn that is so true and I've never even thought about it. We need more female garbage collectors! Really picking and choosing where we need diversity eh?pelmet wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2025 7:00 pm Have you ever noticed that the DEI frauds whine about not enough female airline pilots and have all kinds of programs to try and get more of them but not one of them EVER complains about not enough construction workers, garbage collectors, plumbers, truck drivers etc, etc.
It is all just a scam to try to reserve the glory jobs but avoid the tough ones, even if the pay is good. Why is that?
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Thu May 06, 2021 9:56 pm
Re: DEI And Aviation — Boeing’s take.
If were sharing anecdotes, I cant say I've seen what you've seen.DanWEC wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2025 6:56 pm I have a small sample group, but here's what I'd like to say;
I've taught roughly 100 pilots. Maybe 6 or 7 were women.
Of those, every single one was exceptional compared to the overall 100.
Taking an average from the men and the women, the women showed up better prepared, more intent, and less hungover. They were more even-keeled, owned up to mistakes better, and improved on weaknesses better.
If there was anything that could be a challenge it could be that they can be a little meeker and more polite initially- but that's only an issue in an operating environment full of boisterous dudes.
After a few years on the line, any hint of that is definitely gone!