ewt340
Posts: 735
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Female Pilots in Commercial Aviation

Fri Nov 09, 2018 7:17 pm

greendot wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
greendot wrote:

You shouldn't "encourage" anyone based on gender. End of story. That is sexist. You can interject whatever self-projected emotions you want to an argument, it doesn't make it true. Let's just talk facts here.

As far as the article goes, it's clear that you didn't comprehend the important elements of it. Do you understand why he is suing Alaska? The major point here is that Alaska used flawed internal processes to fire him based on mere accusations. Who convicted him? Some Alaska HR people who have no authority whatsoever or a court of due process of law? He was treated grossly unfairly because there is a double standard when it comes to female on male accusations. I guess you've never seen "The Red Pill". My point in showing you this article is that women do get preferential treatment in that they are believed without evidence or due process of law. Mere accusations are enough to cost this man's career. While his career is effectively over, she somehow immediately got hired at a Hawaiian based airline. Again, my point being that women are highly privileged. If I'm wrong about this, then there wouldn't be a lawsuit. We all need to strive for equality, not for special treatments based on identity politics.



Thank for the lesson in the obvious but I already live the dream and I'm 110% familiar with all aspects of it.

Regional airlines pay terribly because the consumer and the employees allowed it. You can't dissolve responsibility away and those who fed the beast are to blame for its existence. Clearly these companies are making money. Have you checked on the amount of executive compensation? You can defend the business model all you want but it doesn't change the fact that the pilot shortage is a manufactured economic problem caused by the race to the bottom. If they can't find people who are dumb enough to work for $17k a year, that's their own fault for paying so little. When your revenue mostly goes to executive compensation and investors, I can't sympathize with management. I can't run a hospital paying doctors $20,000 a year, why should an airline get away with paying so little? At some point a business just shouldn't exist if it has no business model other than sheer exploitation.


:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

It's like I'm talking to a 5 year old here.....

I'm sure I'd like to take one of those Red Pills instead of using my brain to think logically :roll:


What you are advocating is not logical. It is sexist. It's very simple. Everyone should have equal opportunity. Equal outcome is not guaranteed.


What I said : "We should encouraging women to become pilots too because we already and currently encouraging men to become pilots"

What your response is: "That's sexist! illogical! Marxist Social engineering! Red Pills!"
 
greendot
Posts: 213
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:08 pm

Re: Female Pilots in Commercial Aviation

Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:24 pm

ewt340 wrote:
greendot wrote:
ewt340 wrote:

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

It's like I'm talking to a 5 year old here.....

I'm sure I'd like to take one of those Red Pills instead of using my brain to think logically :roll:


What you are advocating is not logical. It is sexist. It's very simple. Everyone should have equal opportunity. Equal outcome is not guaranteed.


What I said : "We should encouraging women to become pilots too because we already and currently encouraging men to become pilots"

What your response is: "That's sexist! illogical! Marxist Social engineering! Red Pills!"


No, you are using a false presumption to make your point. Your argument is based on the assumption that men are actively encouraged to become pilots. That is NOT the case. Is there such an organization as MEN In Aviation? No... but there is "Women In Aviation", "99's", and so on. All the other organizations are open to men and women, yet some activists (sexists) felt the need to create special interest groups for women. Do airlines hire with special status for women? - Yes... that is sexist. Do men lose their jobs based on accusations alone... Yes... that is sexist.

You are purposely confusing several things.
 
highflier92660
Posts: 691
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:16 am

Re: Female Pilots in Commercial Aviation

Sat Nov 10, 2018 1:01 am

greendot wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
greendot wrote:

Don't be daft. Give your brain a chance. Of course you can encourage everybody to join the aviation industry. But that isn't done by stratifying one gender as the solution to the problem. Encouraging people into aviation is done by having wages that exceed that of a burger flipper and by offering a decent quality of life. That's the *only* reason why the regionals can't get pilots. Supporting airlines having HR policies with gender quotas or gender elevated preferential hiring is a huge problem that needs to go away. Everyone needs to be treated equally, not glorified based on gender. Reverse discrimination will not make things better.

Let me show you what discrimination based on gender looks like: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-ne ... pe-claims/
Notice how he was never convicted of anything by a due process court of law. Yet, Alaska and their HR department vilified him based on her accusations alone. Why does this unequal treatment occur?


Let me phares the end of he article to why he is fired:

"Alaska eventually fired Engelien (The Male Pilot) after the MFR Group concluded he likely lied about his phone’s time discrepancies and violated the airline’s 10-hour rule. The same investigation also found “insufficient evidence” that Engelien (The Male Pilot) had raped and drugged Pina (The Female Pilot)"

They didn't vilified him based on the rape case. They vilified BOTH of them because of the alcohol situation. Please actually read the article....

Alaska also seeking to resolved this problems with both the Male and female pilots. They didn't just stop the process and say "Oh well".

Again, what I said was that since we already encouraging men to became pilots, why don't we encourage women to became one as well? You are ENCOURAGING not FORCING women to become pilots.
Why would you get soo angry about this? It's like you hated it when they became pilot.

Regional airlines paid pilot shitty wages because:
1. They know many pilots wanted to accumulate hours.
2. Operating a smaller CRJ or Bombardier aircraft require 2 pilots, the same as A321 or B737-900ER. Which mean that for 2 pilots, they carry less passengers which mean that the expenses for the smaller aircraft regarding the smaller aircraft is similar to larger narrow-body aircraft like A321 or B737-900ER. In order to be profitable they would have to offer lower wages. Unlike FA, you can't decrease the number of pilots.
3. Many smaller cities are unprofitable to operate to.


You shouldn't "encourage" anyone based on gender. End of story. That is sexist. You can interject whatever self-projected emotions you want to an argument, it doesn't make it true. Let's just talk facts here.

As far as the article goes, it's clear that you didn't comprehend the important elements of it. Do you understand why he is suing Alaska? The major point here is that Alaska used flawed internal processes to fire him based on mere accusations. Who convicted him? Some Alaska HR people who have no authority whatsoever or a court of due process of law? He was treated grossly unfairly because there is a double standard when it comes to female on male accusations. I guess you've never seen "The Red Pill". My point in showing you this article is that women do get preferential treatment in that they are believed without evidence or due process of law. Mere accusations are enough to cost this man's career. While his career is effectively over, she somehow immediately got hired at a Hawaiian based airline. Again, my point being that women are highly privileged. If I'm wrong about this, then there wouldn't be a lawsuit. We all need to strive for equality, not for special treatments based on identity politics.

Regional airlines paid pilot shitty wages because:
1. They know many pilots wanted to accumulate hours.
2. Operating a smaller CRJ or Bombardier aircraft require 2 pilots, the same as A321 or B737-900ER. Which mean that for 2 pilots, they carry less passengers which mean that the expenses for the smaller aircraft regarding the smaller aircraft is similar to larger narrow-body aircraft like A321 or B737-900ER. In order to be profitable they would have to offer lower wages. Unlike FA, you can't decrease the number of pilots.
3. Many smaller cities are unprofitable to operate to.


Thank for the lesson in the obvious but I already live the dream and I'm 110% familiar with all aspects of it.

Regional airlines pay terribly because the consumer and the employees allowed it. You can't dissolve responsibility away and those who fed the beast are to blame for its existence. Clearly these companies are making money. Have you checked on the amount of executive compensation? You can defend the business model all you want but it doesn't change the fact that the pilot shortage is a manufactured economic problem caused by the race to the bottom. If they can't find people who are dumb enough to work for $17k a year, that's their own fault for paying so little. When your revenue mostly goes to executive compensation and investors, I can't sympathize with management. I can't run a hospital paying doctors $20,000 a year, why should an airline get away with paying so little? At some point a business just shouldn't exist if it has no business model other than sheer exploitation.




Greendot, having read through your posts may I first say that should you not achieve fulfillment in aviation with the Part 121 carrier of your choice, than a career in law certainly awaits based on your ability to write concise, cogent and valid argumentation. This latest itineration of the women's movement (and our media's obsession with it) didn't begin with Hillary's 2016 defeat-- although the timing is suspicious-- but The Year of The Woman in aviation has been on-going for decades. Try not to let it get your systolic too high.
 
User avatar
lebda
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 10:46 pm

Re: Female Pilots in Commercial Aviation

Sat Nov 10, 2018 2:47 am

greendot wrote:
lebda wrote:
greendot wrote:

You are aware that aviation causes different physiological dangers to women? For example: women who are pregnant cannot be exposed to the significant increase in cosmic radiation from flying. When I was in the military, women had to sign waivers absolving the government of responsibility to damage caused to their reproductive system as a result of flying high performance aircraft. Oh yes... and let's not forget the biological constraint of... https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... ng-at-work
They wanted to breast pump while flying the airplane. Yes, this is actually a lawsuit. I don't see why people are insulted by the facts of biology. Women do have increased needs that men don't have. This is probably a big reason aviation is not chosen by women just as much a reason why women choose not to work at oil rigs in the middle of the North Atlantic. Perhaps we need to push women into oil rig work too. You know..because of social justice and all....


Haha yes I forgot, women are supposed to be breeders, not people with individual aspirations. Silly me. Women are only useful so long as their reproductive systems push out like 10 kids. :roll:

...So did the men have to sign waivers acknowledging that their nuts might be permanently pushed up into their chest cavity if they pull like 9Gs?


I can see that you want to be emotional rather than factual and scientific.

Women are asked to sign waivers because there is a historical precedence for women being harmed by activities unique to high performance aviation. If there hadn't been problems in the past, they wouldn't be asked to the sign the waiver. Do you have a problem with that?

As far as men go, yes, some sign waivers but not for the same things women do. The simple fact is that women are have more things that can go wrong compared to men. Men didn't make this up... it's scientific fact. You can go test for yourself. As far as airline flying is concerned, it certainly isn't the equivalent of flying high performance military jets. Women are in fewer numbers because most choose not to want the lifestyle and all the baggage that comes with it.

Why can't you just accept what most women choose? The only logical counterargument is that there is a vast conspiracy to keep women out of aviation. That certainly is not the truth. It's the same reason why there aren't a lot of women in STEM or work as roughnecks in oil rigs. They just don't want to do it.

If you are doing it as a woman, more power to you. Just don't be so judgmental of women who are different than you or be sexist against men who don't support the crusade to get equal numbers of women as men in the cockpit. This is equal outcomes and it is not a just principle since it involves using sexism or racism to accomplish its goal. Let women be women.


Congrats, you just proved my point. Now claim your prize and leave.
Denver Tower: Gulfstream 592, you’re cleared to 9,000 feet. For a vector to Hector, contact the sector director.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19314
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Female Pilots in Commercial Aviation

Sat Nov 10, 2018 3:01 am

Getting to the interview has never been a completely fair and equal process. Having a contact at the airline can help, for example, or coming from a flight school that has a history of funneling to an airline. I have no problem with that, or with women getting some priority to the interview. If you work hard and are persistent, you will get to the interview eventually.

It's not like women make up more than 5-10% of applicants, so IMHO it is hard argue that they are "crowding out" qualified males. Once the numbers are 50/50, that will be a different situation and there will no longer be a need, or a place, for preferential treatment.

Passing the interview is another matter. I seriously doubt the interviewing pilot(s) cut the women any slack due to gender. You make the grade or you don't. Same with training. Either you pass or you don't.

I've never felt that any of the female pilots I've flown with have been less qualified or capable. They have to do the same training, and pass the same checks, as the rest of us, after all. There's no room for slacking off on the line either, regardless of gender. Certainly not all pilots are as "good", but there is a minimum standard we must all meet.

In fact, the feeling I get is that most female pilots work extra hard so that no one can criticise their competence. Same for women in many other male dominated professions, for that matter.


ewt340 wrote:
log0008 wrote:
I have seen statistics for Australian airlines and can tell you that retention rate for female pilots is almost 3x worse that of male pilot in terms of pilots leaving the carrier/industry the simple fact is that Aviation really isn’t suited to most women, long hours including days away from home, high stress, repetitive but demanding work load, work which requires you to start and end work and any hours of the day.

The airlines promote female pilots because they see it as a way to boost numbers and prevent higher demands from pilots in regard to pay and conditions.

Also if you want evidence that women are favoured look at Jetstar and Virgin Australia cadetships where both as recent courses run with 8 females and 2males.


To be fair, the same thing could be said about female Flight attendants. They have the same schedule as male Flight attendants or pilots. long hours away from home, high stress, repetitive and more demanding workload, just like pilots.

But we don't really looking into that and compared it don't we?


Indeed.

I know quite a few female pilots, most of them Australian, incidentally. They'd laugh you out of the room if you told them that retention is poor due to high workload, irregular hours, high stress, time away from home. They were well aware of all that before they started training.

In my experience, the main reason many women are discouraged from the industry is the 19th-century attitude of many of their male colleagues, and that often includes fleet management. You can have a thick skin but it apparently becomes rather tedious in the long run to hear yet another sexist joke (followed by an obligatory "learn to take a joke, love..." if they react badly to it), or yet another comment on the value of a woman's opinion, or to have the other pilot look you in the boobs instead of in the eyes. Not saying all male pilots are like that, but there are more than a few. It also becomes tedious to be passed over for management jobs because there is an unconscious bias from men who are wary of accepting a woman into their little office group.

It is bullying, pure and simple, and unfortunately there seems to be a tacit acceptance of it, as well as a lack of awareness.

The only correct way to treat a woman on the flight deck is like one of the guys. They'd much rather hear the fart joke you'd blurt out without thinking to a male colleague than some "just joking" condescending reference to their gender. The women I've flown with don't want special treatment. They just want to be treated the same as you would a guy.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
groundbird
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2014 12:15 pm

Re: Female Pilots in Commercial Aviation

Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:44 am

For a woman to become a successful ATP she will first have to climb down off the pedestal that society assures her to then steadfastly pursue equality of rationality as well as equal accountability for her knowledge / performance / behavior. Who can beef that?
 
greendot
Posts: 213
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:08 pm

Re: Female Pilots in Commercial Aviation

Sat Nov 10, 2018 4:32 pm

Starlionblue wrote:
Getting to the interview has never been a completely fair and equal process. Having a contact at the airline can help, for example, or coming from a flight school that has a history of funneling to an airline. I have no problem with that, or with women getting some priority to the interview. If you work hard and are persistent, you will get to the interview eventually.

It's not like women make up more than 5-10% of applicants, so IMHO it is hard argue that they are "crowding out" qualified males. Once the numbers are 50/50, that will be a different situation and there will no longer be a need, or a place, for preferential treatment.

Passing the interview is another matter. I seriously doubt the interviewing pilot(s) cut the women any slack due to gender. You make the grade or you don't. Same with training. Either you pass or you don't.

I've never felt that any of the female pilots I've flown with have been less qualified or capable. They have to do the same training, and pass the same checks, as the rest of us, after all. There's no room for slacking off on the line either, regardless of gender. Certainly not all pilots are as "good", but there is a minimum standard we must all meet.

In fact, the feeling I get is that most female pilots work extra hard so that no one can criticise their competence. Same for women in many other male dominated professions, for that matter.


ewt340 wrote:
log0008 wrote:
I have seen statistics for Australian airlines and can tell you that retention rate for female pilots is almost 3x worse that of male pilot in terms of pilots leaving the carrier/industry the simple fact is that Aviation really isn’t suited to most women, long hours including days away from home, high stress, repetitive but demanding work load, work which requires you to start and end work and any hours of the day.

The airlines promote female pilots because they see it as a way to boost numbers and prevent higher demands from pilots in regard to pay and conditions.

Also if you want evidence that women are favoured look at Jetstar and Virgin Australia cadetships where both as recent courses run with 8 females and 2males.


To be fair, the same thing could be said about female Flight attendants. They have the same schedule as male Flight attendants or pilots. long hours away from home, high stress, repetitive and more demanding workload, just like pilots.

But we don't really looking into that and compared it don't we?


Indeed.

I know quite a few female pilots, most of them Australian, incidentally. They'd laugh you out of the room if you told them that retention is poor due to high workload, irregular hours, high stress, time away from home. They were well aware of all that before they started training.

In my experience, the main reason many women are discouraged from the industry is the 19th-century attitude of many of their male colleagues, and that often includes fleet management. You can have a thick skin but it apparently becomes rather tedious in the long run to hear yet another sexist joke (followed by an obligatory "learn to take a joke, love..." if they react badly to it), or yet another comment on the value of a woman's opinion, or to have the other pilot look you in the boobs instead of in the eyes. Not saying all male pilots are like that, but there are more than a few. It also becomes tedious to be passed over for management jobs because there is an unconscious bias from men who are wary of accepting a woman into their little office group.

It is bullying, pure and simple, and unfortunately there seems to be a tacit acceptance of it, as well as a lack of awareness.

The only correct way to treat a woman on the flight deck is like one of the guys. They'd much rather hear the fart joke you'd blurt out without thinking to a male colleague than some "just joking" condescending reference to their gender. The women I've flown with don't want special treatment. They just want to be treated the same as you would a guy.


How about this.... treat women equally in terms of hiring/firing/on the job. No discrimination based on gender (mask it out) and no free rides of any kind whatsoever. No more women specific events or PR stunts. Let's all strive for true equality. Right now the legal and institutional environment is extremely sexist, against men. Demand equality!
 
greendot
Posts: 213
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:08 pm

Re: Female Pilots in Commercial Aviation

Sat Nov 10, 2018 4:58 pm

highflier92660 wrote:
greendot wrote:
ewt340 wrote:

Let me phares the end of he article to why he is fired:

"Alaska eventually fired Engelien (The Male Pilot) after the MFR Group concluded he likely lied about his phone’s time discrepancies and violated the airline’s 10-hour rule. The same investigation also found “insufficient evidence” that Engelien (The Male Pilot) had raped and drugged Pina (The Female Pilot)"

They didn't vilified him based on the rape case. They vilified BOTH of them because of the alcohol situation. Please actually read the article....

Alaska also seeking to resolved this problems with both the Male and female pilots. They didn't just stop the process and say "Oh well".

Again, what I said was that since we already encouraging men to became pilots, why don't we encourage women to became one as well? You are ENCOURAGING not FORCING women to become pilots.
Why would you get soo angry about this? It's like you hated it when they became pilot.

Regional airlines paid pilot shitty wages because:
1. They know many pilots wanted to accumulate hours.
2. Operating a smaller CRJ or Bombardier aircraft require 2 pilots, the same as A321 or B737-900ER. Which mean that for 2 pilots, they carry less passengers which mean that the expenses for the smaller aircraft regarding the smaller aircraft is similar to larger narrow-body aircraft like A321 or B737-900ER. In order to be profitable they would have to offer lower wages. Unlike FA, you can't decrease the number of pilots.
3. Many smaller cities are unprofitable to operate to.


You shouldn't "encourage" anyone based on gender. End of story. That is sexist. You can interject whatever self-projected emotions you want to an argument, it doesn't make it true. Let's just talk facts here.

As far as the article goes, it's clear that you didn't comprehend the important elements of it. Do you understand why he is suing Alaska? The major point here is that Alaska used flawed internal processes to fire him based on mere accusations. Who convicted him? Some Alaska HR people who have no authority whatsoever or a court of due process of law? He was treated grossly unfairly because there is a double standard when it comes to female on male accusations. I guess you've never seen "The Red Pill". My point in showing you this article is that women do get preferential treatment in that they are believed without evidence or due process of law. Mere accusations are enough to cost this man's career. While his career is effectively over, she somehow immediately got hired at a Hawaiian based airline. Again, my point being that women are highly privileged. If I'm wrong about this, then there wouldn't be a lawsuit. We all need to strive for equality, not for special treatments based on identity politics.

Regional airlines paid pilot shitty wages because:
1. They know many pilots wanted to accumulate hours.
2. Operating a smaller CRJ or Bombardier aircraft require 2 pilots, the same as A321 or B737-900ER. Which mean that for 2 pilots, they carry less passengers which mean that the expenses for the smaller aircraft regarding the smaller aircraft is similar to larger narrow-body aircraft like A321 or B737-900ER. In order to be profitable they would have to offer lower wages. Unlike FA, you can't decrease the number of pilots.
3. Many smaller cities are unprofitable to operate to.


Thank for the lesson in the obvious but I already live the dream and I'm 110% familiar with all aspects of it.

Regional airlines pay terribly because the consumer and the employees allowed it. You can't dissolve responsibility away and those who fed the beast are to blame for its existence. Clearly these companies are making money. Have you checked on the amount of executive compensation? You can defend the business model all you want but it doesn't change the fact that the pilot shortage is a manufactured economic problem caused by the race to the bottom. If they can't find people who are dumb enough to work for $17k a year, that's their own fault for paying so little. When your revenue mostly goes to executive compensation and investors, I can't sympathize with management. I can't run a hospital paying doctors $20,000 a year, why should an airline get away with paying so little? At some point a business just shouldn't exist if it has no business model other than sheer exploitation.




Greendot, having read through your posts may I first say that should you not achieve fulfillment in aviation with the Part 121 carrier of your choice, than a career in law certainly awaits based on your ability to write concise, cogent and valid argumentation. This latest itineration of the women's movement (and our media's obsession with it) didn't begin with Hillary's 2016 defeat-- although the timing is suspicious-- but The Year of The Woman in aviation has been on-going for decades. Try not to let it get your systolic too high.


It's called 4th wave feminism. They eat their own, like most leftist ideologies. 1st/2nd wave feminism, which I mostly agree with, are battling it out with the 4th wave ("destroy men") movement. 1st/2nd wave wanted equality and they got it a long time ago. The problem is that 3rd/4th wave want social justice (aka SJW / ANTIFA style). 3rd/4th wave want to see equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. And, they will do so at any cost (e.g. the careers of a few men along the way - e.g. #Metoo). I don't care much about them but I do care about equality in the workplace and about the law. The biggest problem for aviation is the HR department of airlines. They are universally staffed with radical leftists who subscribe to social justice warrior fads. For example, they throw around key words like "inclusion" and "diversity" which really mean sexism, racism, and discrimination based on ideology. Remember that engineer that got fired from Google because he didn't fit into their leftist culture? He specifically called out Google about their inclusion/diversity policies being exactly the opposite of what they claim to be. Google is actually quite "exclusive and mono-culture". Now there is a lawsuit against Google. By the way, Google also just gave a huge separation bonus for a senior executive sexual harasser. So you can see, all this inclusive/diversity stuff is smoke and mirrors for the intellectually challenged. They don't want true equality. They want a system rigged for their ideology. True equality means no quotas, no free rides, no special stacks of resumes, no jumping in line in the stack of resumes, no special career fairs, no secret HR hiring directives, and no special airline one-gender PR stunts. Maybe one day we can stop talking about "women" in aviation and just say "people" instead. I would love a truly fair system based on results.
 
User avatar
lebda
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 10:46 pm

Re: Female Pilots in Commercial Aviation

Sat Nov 10, 2018 9:31 pm

greendot wrote:
highflier92660 wrote:
greendot wrote:

You shouldn't "encourage" anyone based on gender. End of story. That is sexist. You can interject whatever self-projected emotions you want to an argument, it doesn't make it true. Let's just talk facts here.

As far as the article goes, it's clear that you didn't comprehend the important elements of it. Do you understand why he is suing Alaska? The major point here is that Alaska used flawed internal processes to fire him based on mere accusations. Who convicted him? Some Alaska HR people who have no authority whatsoever or a court of due process of law? He was treated grossly unfairly because there is a double standard when it comes to female on male accusations. I guess you've never seen "The Red Pill". My point in showing you this article is that women do get preferential treatment in that they are believed without evidence or due process of law. Mere accusations are enough to cost this man's career. While his career is effectively over, she somehow immediately got hired at a Hawaiian based airline. Again, my point being that women are highly privileged. If I'm wrong about this, then there wouldn't be a lawsuit. We all need to strive for equality, not for special treatments based on identity politics.



Thank for the lesson in the obvious but I already live the dream and I'm 110% familiar with all aspects of it.

Regional airlines pay terribly because the consumer and the employees allowed it. You can't dissolve responsibility away and those who fed the beast are to blame for its existence. Clearly these companies are making money. Have you checked on the amount of executive compensation? You can defend the business model all you want but it doesn't change the fact that the pilot shortage is a manufactured economic problem caused by the race to the bottom. If they can't find people who are dumb enough to work for $17k a year, that's their own fault for paying so little. When your revenue mostly goes to executive compensation and investors, I can't sympathize with management. I can't run a hospital paying doctors $20,000 a year, why should an airline get away with paying so little? At some point a business just shouldn't exist if it has no business model other than sheer exploitation.




Greendot, having read through your posts may I first say that should you not achieve fulfillment in aviation with the Part 121 carrier of your choice, than a career in law certainly awaits based on your ability to write concise, cogent and valid argumentation. This latest itineration of the women's movement (and our media's obsession with it) didn't begin with Hillary's 2016 defeat-- although the timing is suspicious-- but The Year of The Woman in aviation has been on-going for decades. Try not to let it get your systolic too high.


It's called 4th wave feminism. They eat their own, like most leftist ideologies. 1st/2nd wave feminism, which I mostly agree with, are battling it out with the 4th wave ("destroy men") movement. 1st/2nd wave wanted equality and they got it a long time ago. The problem is that 3rd/4th wave want social justice (aka SJW / ANTIFA style). 3rd/4th wave want to see equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. And, they will do so at any cost (e.g. the careers of a few men along the way - e.g. #Metoo). I don't care much about them but I do care about equality in the workplace and about the law. The biggest problem for aviation is the HR department of airlines. They are universally staffed with radical leftists who subscribe to social justice warrior fads. For example, they throw around key words like "inclusion" and "diversity" which really mean sexism, racism, and discrimination based on ideology. Remember that engineer that got fired from Google because he didn't fit into their leftist culture? He specifically called out Google about their inclusion/diversity policies being exactly the opposite of what they claim to be. Google is actually quite "exclusive and mono-culture". Now there is a lawsuit against Google. By the way, Google also just gave a huge separation bonus for a senior executive sexual harasser. So you can see, all this inclusive/diversity stuff is smoke and mirrors for the intellectually challenged. They don't want true equality. They want a system rigged for their ideology. True equality means no quotas, no free rides, no special stacks of resumes, no jumping in line in the stack of resumes, no special career fairs, no secret HR hiring directives, and no special airline one-gender PR stunts. Maybe one day we can stop talking about "women" in aviation and just say "people" instead. I would love a truly fair system based on results.


Christ. I'm definitely not surprised that you're one of these people, and somehow even less surprised that you're practicing apologetics for literal rapists in a thread that has absolutely jack shit to do with #MeToo, because of course that has to be inserted into everything when you're pissed off at women. The spooky strawman you and others of your ilk have created around the idea that The Feminists™ want to kill men and destroy everything is one that has been recycled over and over again since the era of the suffragettes. You need to spend more time outdoors and less time in mommy's basement getting worked up over chicks and leftists. It's pathetic and frankly really embarrassing that you actually believe this stuff.
Denver Tower: Gulfstream 592, you’re cleared to 9,000 feet. For a vector to Hector, contact the sector director.
 
ewt340
Posts: 735
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Female Pilots in Commercial Aviation

Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:30 pm

greendot wrote:
highflier92660 wrote:
greendot wrote:

You shouldn't "encourage" anyone based on gender. End of story. That is sexist. You can interject whatever self-projected emotions you want to an argument, it doesn't make it true. Let's just talk facts here.

As far as the article goes, it's clear that you didn't comprehend the important elements of it. Do you understand why he is suing Alaska? The major point here is that Alaska used flawed internal processes to fire him based on mere accusations. Who convicted him? Some Alaska HR people who have no authority whatsoever or a court of due process of law? He was treated grossly unfairly because there is a double standard when it comes to female on male accusations. I guess you've never seen "The Red Pill". My point in showing you this article is that women do get preferential treatment in that they are believed without evidence or due process of law. Mere accusations are enough to cost this man's career. While his career is effectively over, she somehow immediately got hired at a Hawaiian based airline. Again, my point being that women are highly privileged. If I'm wrong about this, then there wouldn't be a lawsuit. We all need to strive for equality, not for special treatments based on identity politics.



Thank for the lesson in the obvious but I already live the dream and I'm 110% familiar with all aspects of it.

Regional airlines pay terribly because the consumer and the employees allowed it. You can't dissolve responsibility away and those who fed the beast are to blame for its existence. Clearly these companies are making money. Have you checked on the amount of executive compensation? You can defend the business model all you want but it doesn't change the fact that the pilot shortage is a manufactured economic problem caused by the race to the bottom. If they can't find people who are dumb enough to work for $17k a year, that's their own fault for paying so little. When your revenue mostly goes to executive compensation and investors, I can't sympathize with management. I can't run a hospital paying doctors $20,000 a year, why should an airline get away with paying so little? At some point a business just shouldn't exist if it has no business model other than sheer exploitation.




Greendot, having read through your posts may I first say that should you not achieve fulfillment in aviation with the Part 121 carrier of your choice, than a career in law certainly awaits based on your ability to write concise, cogent and valid argumentation. This latest itineration of the women's movement (and our media's obsession with it) didn't begin with Hillary's 2016 defeat-- although the timing is suspicious-- but The Year of The Woman in aviation has been on-going for decades. Try not to let it get your systolic too high.


It's called 4th wave feminism. They eat their own, like most leftist ideologies. 1st/2nd wave feminism, which I mostly agree with, are battling it out with the 4th wave ("destroy men") movement. 1st/2nd wave wanted equality and they got it a long time ago. The problem is that 3rd/4th wave want social justice (aka SJW / ANTIFA style). 3rd/4th wave want to see equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. And, they will do so at any cost (e.g. the careers of a few men along the way - e.g. #Metoo). I don't care much about them but I do care about equality in the workplace and about the law. The biggest problem for aviation is the HR department of airlines. They are universally staffed with radical leftists who subscribe to social justice warrior fads. For example, they throw around key words like "inclusion" and "diversity" which really mean sexism, racism, and discrimination based on ideology. Remember that engineer that got fired from Google because he didn't fit into their leftist culture? He specifically called out Google about their inclusion/diversity policies being exactly the opposite of what they claim to be. Google is actually quite "exclusive and mono-culture". Now there is a lawsuit against Google. By the way, Google also just gave a huge separation bonus for a senior executive sexual harasser. So you can see, all this inclusive/diversity stuff is smoke and mirrors for the intellectually challenged. They don't want true equality. They want a system rigged for their ideology. True equality means no quotas, no free rides, no special stacks of resumes, no jumping in line in the stack of resumes, no special career fairs, no secret HR hiring directives, and no special airline one-gender PR stunts. Maybe one day we can stop talking about "women" in aviation and just say "people" instead. I would love a truly fair system based on results.


I think you are unable to think logically without bringing in your skewed perspective and unproven statements and theories. You are currently experiencing constant Denials and bias towards billions of women by creating imaginary situation that you never experience in real life or even understood to begin with. I'm afraid you are unfit and unqualified to actually perform many basic tasks that most normal functional adults do, and decision making would probably gonna be quite challenging if you are trying to use the same judgements regarding the choice you would make in real life situation.

You are also currently trying to justify your hatred by trying to convince people that your hatred and beliefs are somehow superior to others even though everybody could see the flaw in your logic. It doesn't work because you keep contradict your own comments repeatedly. Even when you are in agreements with some of the comment from other users, You're keep getting infuriated for no reason and try to convince yourself that the other users are wrong for voicing the same opinions as you are. You also try to accuse others for being a horrible person by judging them using your own political bias, which never works because you're unable to enforced your standard to other people.

You are currently trying to simplified every single aspect of life to make it easier for you to justify the narrative that is being pushed into your brain through the content you are consuming on daily basis. These are more likely to come from the Internet I supposed.

I just hope you're not too deep into those kind of shit. It ruins people's life you know.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1662
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Female Pilots in Commercial Aviation

Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:12 pm

greendot wrote:
How about this.... treat women equally in terms of hiring/firing/on the job. No discrimination based on gender (mask it out) and no free rides of any kind whatsoever. No more women specific events or PR stunts. Let's all strive for true equality. Right now the legal and institutional environment is extremely sexist, against men. Demand equality!



Do you know who gets a lot of free rides? Men, usually white men at that. You cannot overturn centuries of discrimination in a few years and then because you feel uncomfortable with it wish it away after a few years. As we are preparing to honour the dead from WWI, lets remember that the UK didn't allow woman to vote until 1918 and even then there were restrictions placed on woman that was not placed on men. It took until 10 years later for equal voting rights to be applied to men and woman.

As for why woman aren't as interested in aviation, it may be to do with the conditioning we do to children from a young age. Young boys get to play with airplanes and cars and trucks while girls get dolls and play kitchens.
 
stratosphere
Posts: 1672
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: Female Pilots in Commercial Aviation

Sun Nov 11, 2018 2:33 am

enzo011 wrote:
greendot wrote:
How about this.... treat women equally in terms of hiring/firing/on the job. No discrimination based on gender (mask it out) and no free rides of any kind whatsoever. No more women specific events or PR stunts. Let's all strive for true equality. Right now the legal and institutional environment is extremely sexist, against men. Demand equality!



Do you know who gets a lot of free rides? Men, usually white men at that. You cannot overturn centuries of discrimination in a few years and then because you feel uncomfortable with it wish it away after a few years. As we are preparing to honour the dead from WWI, lets remember that the UK didn't allow woman to vote until 1918 and even then there were restrictions placed on woman that was not placed on men. It took until 10 years later for equal voting rights to be applied to men and woman.

As for why woman aren't as interested in aviation, it may be to do with the conditioning we do to children from a young age. Young boys get to play with airplanes and cars and trucks while girls get dolls and play kitchens.


Maybe in an earlier time but now women can pursue anything they want. The percentage of women as pilots has been climbing steadily in the 30+ years I have been in aviation as it has for blacks as well. As to why the numbers are not at a certain level who knows. I mean going into aviation in any job is a sacrifice as it is.
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6274
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

Re: Female Pilots in Commercial Aviation

Sun Nov 11, 2018 1:35 pm

This is an interesting thread, as the "usual" arguments are made. But, let's face it, any time you have something entitled "FEMALE pilots in commercial aviation", then it will be a "sexist" discussion, as the topic is gender. How can people get riled up about a topic when the reason for the discussion is that sole topic being discussed?

I recall flying with Judy Cameron many years ago. She was Air Canada's first female pilot and recently retired as a 777 Captain. Superb pilot, excellent Captain and a very gracious lady. One comment she made I always remember. She said "It never even occurred to me that a woman can't be a pilot. And, as soon as you bring gender into the discussion, the discussion is lost".

Some people think it is a gender discussion, but I see two topics being discussed. One the availability of aviation to certain groups (gender, race, age, sexual orientation) and the practise in the past where those specific groups were targetted to increase quotas. Some on here think it is about men being disadvantaged when those quotas are filled, but really it comes down to the very basic question ...

When airlines hire pilots, should they hire the most qualified ... or the most qualified within a quota? If you have to sit beside someone when doing a single engine NDB circling approach (and I have), do you want to do that with the best there is, or the best of that quota? Ironically enough, Judy Cameron was hired before quotas began and she was (probably still is) against women using their gender as a tool.

Let's say you take your son or daughter into the ER requiring an emergency appendectomy. Do you want the best qualified surgeon ... or the best qualified that fulfilled a quota?
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
ewt340
Posts: 735
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Female Pilots in Commercial Aviation

Sun Nov 11, 2018 4:03 pm

longhauler wrote:
This is an interesting thread, as the "usual" arguments are made. But, let's face it, any time you have something entitled "FEMALE pilots in commercial aviation", then it will be a "sexist" discussion, as the topic is gender. How can people get riled up about a topic when the reason for the discussion is that sole topic being discussed?

I recall flying with Judy Cameron many years ago. She was Air Canada's first female pilot and recently retired as a 777 Captain. Superb pilot, excellent Captain and a very gracious lady. One comment she made I always remember. She said "It never even occurred to me that a woman can't be a pilot. And, as soon as you bring gender into the discussion, the discussion is lost".

Some people think it is a gender discussion, but I see two topics being discussed. One the availability of aviation to certain groups (gender, race, age, sexual orientation) and the practise in the past where those specific groups were targetted to increase quotas. Some on here think it is about men being disadvantaged when those quotas are filled, but really it comes down to the very basic question ...

When airlines hire pilots, should they hire the most qualified ... or the most qualified within a quota? If you have to sit beside someone when doing a single engine NDB circling approach (and I have), do you want to do that with the best there is, or the best of that quota? Ironically enough, Judy Cameron was hired before quotas began and she was (probably still is) against women using their gender as a tool.

Let's say you take your son or daughter into the ER requiring an emergency appendectomy. Do you want the best qualified surgeon ... or the best qualified that fulfilled a quota?


The best analogy for the current situation is there's shortages of qualified surgeon because the lack of applicants. In this situation, while there's many male surgeon, the hospital still have hard time getting enough qualified surgeon. Since it's already common amongst men to become surgeon, the hospital started encouraging women to try to become surgeon to increase the possibility of more qualified surgeon to enter the field.

Tapping into new resources always help resolving many shortages.
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6274
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

Re: Female Pilots in Commercial Aviation

Sun Nov 11, 2018 5:08 pm

ewt340 wrote:
The best analogy for the current situation is there's shortages of qualified surgeon because the lack of applicants. In this situation, while there's many male surgeon, the hospital still have hard time getting enough qualified surgeon. Since it's already common amongst men to become surgeon, the hospital started encouraging women to try to become surgeon to increase the possibility of more qualified surgeon to enter the field.

You missed my point.

I am not talking about genders in certain professions. I am simply saying ... in a life or death situation, in which your life is on the line ... would you rather the most qualified person to handle that situation, or the most qualified person within a certain quota?
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
ewt340
Posts: 735
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Female Pilots in Commercial Aviation

Sun Nov 11, 2018 5:19 pm

longhauler wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
The best analogy for the current situation is there's shortages of qualified surgeon because the lack of applicants. In this situation, while there's many male surgeon, the hospital still have hard time getting enough qualified surgeon. Since it's already common amongst men to become surgeon, the hospital started encouraging women to try to become surgeon to increase the possibility of more qualified surgeon to enter the field.

You missed my point.

I am not talking about genders in certain professions. I am simply saying ... in a life or death situation, in which your life is on the line ... would you rather the most qualified person to handle that situation, or the most qualified person within a certain quota?


You missed my point. The problem isn't about which one you choose. The problem is there's not enough "the most qualified pilots" to be hired.

Airlines are looking for "the MOST qualified pilots" around the world. But there's a shortages for it. Hence they're unable to hire enough "Qualified Pilots".
Since in many part of the world, it's uncommon for other potential groups like Women to enter the aviation industry as a pilot, so now we need to change that with the hope to increase the chance of having more of "The MOST qualified pilots".

Notice how I said Pilots instead of pilot. Because we need more than just 1 pilot. We need a whole bunch. There's not enough of them.
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6274
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

Re: Female Pilots in Commercial Aviation

Sun Nov 11, 2018 11:31 pm

ewt340 wrote:
You missed my point. The problem isn't about which one you choose. The problem is there's not enough "the most qualified pilots" to be hired.

Airlines are looking for "the MOST qualified pilots" around the world. But there's a shortages for it. Hence they're unable to hire enough "Qualified Pilots".
Since in many part of the world, it's uncommon for other potential groups like Women to enter the aviation industry as a pilot, so now we need to change that with the hope to increase the chance of having more of "The MOST qualified pilots".

Notice how I said Pilots instead of pilot. Because we need more than just 1 pilot. We need a whole bunch. There's not enough of them.


I must have missed your point, as I see absolutely no relevance between a pilot shortage and choosing pilots with respect to quotas over qualifications.

I don't imagine airlines will ever find themselves in a position that "everyone who applies, will be hired", and until they do, I ask again for the last time ... should the most qualified be hired, or the most qualified within a quota?

For the record, where I fly, about 1 one in 40 who meet initial application standards actually gets hired.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
ewt340
Posts: 735
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Female Pilots in Commercial Aviation

Mon Nov 12, 2018 8:43 am

longhauler wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
You missed my point. The problem isn't about which one you choose. The problem is there's not enough "the most qualified pilots" to be hired.

Airlines are looking for "the MOST qualified pilots" around the world. But there's a shortages for it. Hence they're unable to hire enough "Qualified Pilots".
Since in many part of the world, it's uncommon for other potential groups like Women to enter the aviation industry as a pilot, so now we need to change that with the hope to increase the chance of having more of "The MOST qualified pilots".

Notice how I said Pilots instead of pilot. Because we need more than just 1 pilot. We need a whole bunch. There's not enough of them.


I must have missed your point, as I see absolutely no relevance between a pilot shortage and choosing pilots with respect to quotas over qualifications.

I don't imagine airlines will ever find themselves in a position that "everyone who applies, will be hired", and until they do, I ask again for the last time ... should the most qualified be hired, or the most qualified within a quota?

For the record, where I fly, about 1 one in 40 who meet initial application standards actually gets hired.


Of course they're not gonna hired everybody. Just because you got enough hours and training doesn't mean you would be hired. We all know that.

Of course they are looking for the most qualified. But there's not enough of them. That's why they are encouraging women to enter the industry as pilots. Because it would increase the chance for the airlines to get more of "the most qualified pilots". It's not about Quota, it's about increasing the chance to get more qualified pilots to be hired.

There is no Quotas. Please everybody stop with this nonsense. They didn't fired male pilots just to make room for female pilots....

Now you wonder why they are encouraging women in particular? because we can't encourage any other potential groups to try to enter the industry.
 
zippy
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 9:46 pm

Re: Female Pilots in Commercial Aviation

Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:43 pm

longhauler wrote:
I am not talking about genders in certain professions. I am simply saying ... in a life or death situation, in which your life is on the line ... would you rather the most qualified person to handle that situation, or the most qualified person within a certain quota?


Let's say you're having a stroke and brought in to the ER. Who's the most qualified doctor then? The department chief who's out at dinner and has had a couple drinks? The attending who's in the middle of dealing with another patient? Or one of the residents?

One of the things that's surprised me from reading the comments on this thread was just how explicit the misogyny is. Encouraging female pilots is bad because it might discourage them from being homemakers? Is this to say that men can't take care of themselves? … Females don't want to become pilots because the hours are rough? Obviously that's a bunk claim as the cabin crew would share the rough hours and there are plenty of female FAs. But what about the air traffic controllers? While I have to think back a while to the last time I was on a flight with a female pilot (United SFO-MCO, IIRC), listening to a bit of ATC dialogue revealed plenty of female ATC. Surely nobody's arguing that being an ATC is significantly less demanding than being a pilot?

Surely that Air Astana flight would've had a better outcome with a male handling the Libson approach?

Or how about that Piper at KBVY? An emergency landing with a female pilot AND controller? Surely things would've gone better if the pilot hadn't been dreaming about how she should just become a homemaker. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B229-KLudTo
 
User avatar
NeBaNi
Topic Author
Posts: 443
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 10:45 am

Re: Female Pilots in Commercial Aviation

Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:20 am

zippy wrote:
longhauler wrote:
One of the things that's surprised me from reading the comments on this thread was just how explicit the misogyny is. Encouraging female pilots is bad because it might discourage them from being homemakers? Is this to say that men can't take care of themselves? … Females don't want to become pilots because the hours are rough? Obviously that's a bunk claim as the cabin crew would share the rough hours and there are plenty of female FAs. But what about the air traffic controllers? While I have to think back a while to the last time I was on a flight with a female pilot (United SFO-MCO, IIRC), listening to a bit of ATC dialogue revealed plenty of female ATC. Surely nobody's arguing that being an ATC is significantly less demanding than being a pilot?

This. I mean, when I started this thread, I didn't expect it to be this one-sided. But I guess part of it comes from the fact that an overwhelming majority of A-net users are male, and I'm not sure we'd be getting the full picture without hearing from some women too. I guess you can't really identify with female experiences if you aren't one yourself.

That also leads me to a broader point about the AvGeek/ aviation enthusiast community though. From the events I've been to and from the membership of this forum, it seems the community is overwhelmingly male as well. There are no taxing requirements to be an AvGeek, so why is it still male-heavy? This to me suggests a need for encouragement for participation. And since being an AvGeek is not a competition (or I should hope it is not), there should be plenty of space without the need to grumble about quotas and including "less qualified" people.


On a side note, I cannot understand why this thread was moved to Tech/Ops. I intended for it to be a discussion related to civil aviation, not really a management/ operations specific issue, and I believe I made that clear in the title/opening post, but maybe I could have some tips for the future? I spent two days searching for it and wondered whether it got deleted. Incidentally, is one supposed to get a notification when one's thread is moved or deleted?
 
ewt340
Posts: 735
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Female Pilots in Commercial Aviation

Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:45 am

NeBaNi wrote:
zippy wrote:
longhauler wrote:
One of the things that's surprised me from reading the comments on this thread was just how explicit the misogyny is. Encouraging female pilots is bad because it might discourage them from being homemakers? Is this to say that men can't take care of themselves? … Females don't want to become pilots because the hours are rough? Obviously that's a bunk claim as the cabin crew would share the rough hours and there are plenty of female FAs. But what about the air traffic controllers? While I have to think back a while to the last time I was on a flight with a female pilot (United SFO-MCO, IIRC), listening to a bit of ATC dialogue revealed plenty of female ATC. Surely nobody's arguing that being an ATC is significantly less demanding than being a pilot?

This. I mean, when I started this thread, I didn't expect it to be this one-sided. But I guess part of it comes from the fact that an overwhelming majority of A-net users are male, and I'm not sure we'd be getting the full picture without hearing from some women too. I guess you can't really identify with female experiences if you aren't one yourself.

That also leads me to a broader point about the AvGeek/ aviation enthusiast community though. From the events I've been to and from the membership of this forum, it seems the community is overwhelmingly male as well. There are no taxing requirements to be an AvGeek, so why is it still male-heavy? This to me suggests a need for encouragement for participation. And since being an AvGeek is not a competition (or I should hope it is not), there should be plenty of space without the need to grumble about quotas and including "less qualified" people.


On a side note, I cannot understand why this thread was moved to Tech/Ops. I intended for it to be a discussion related to civil aviation, not really a management/ operations specific issue, and I believe I made that clear in the title/opening post, but maybe I could have some tips for the future? I spent two days searching for it and wondered whether it got deleted. Incidentally, is one supposed to get a notification when one's thread is moved or deleted?


It's expected. This kind of behaviour also happen in other industry as well, like gaming for example.

I work as Flight attendants before, which is mostly consisted of female especially in Asia where I lived. They are extremely welcoming of me as a male, they even said they are happy that there's more male FA. Can't said the same about the numbers of male pilots in MY own experience. Not the most welcoming especially towards some of the female pilots during some of the flights.

That's why most female pilots hang out with Flight attendants most of the time because the male pilots tend to exclude them from their activity. Not all the time, but I only work with few female pilots, only one are treated nicely by the male pilots, the rest are usually hang out with us after the flights because they don't even get invited.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: airportugal310, nws2002 and 14 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos