"she began her airline career with a regional carrier, where the starting salary can be less than $20,000 a year for a first officer"
I guess the real question, given that the article mentions up to $100k costs for training (unless you go for the government subsidized route - i.e. the military), is why is anyone an airline pilot?
In the EU it's more of the other way around... That pay can be good (starting salaries in the range of EUR4500 p/month are not exceptional at legacy airlines). It's just the fact that you pay 100K (euro's) for your education.
Being a pilot is much like being a doctor (in the US at least). In the US, people go to college for 4 years (costing anywhere from a little to a lot) and then 4 years of medical school, costing even more. Before they've worked a day (not counting placement as medical students), a typical doctor-to-be may easily have over $100k in student loans or paid tuition.
At that point they become interns/residents and earn less than waiters for several years. After that is when they make their money back. Depending on which specialty (if any) they may make it back in spades. Top-notch surgeons can clear $500k-$1m+ a year.
Pilots in their early years are interns/residents. They've shelled out for their tuition, just like medical school, and now they're getting paid not in cash but in logged hours. After a few years those hours will translate to higher salaries.
Not even close...that's what just a normal bachelor grad tends to have(well those that go to private schools).
For a doctor, those numbers are much more closer to 250-300K.
And that's not even the worst part...once they graduate and get their medical degree...they have to do their residency, which means they spend a few more years working for peanuts while their debt continues growing.
Your numbers are way off base. "Among graduating 4-year undergraduate students who applied for federal student aid, 86.3% borrowed to pay for their education and the average cumulative debt was $24,651. (For just federal student loan debt, excluding PLUS Loans, the figures are 61.6% and $17,878."
Now, a small number of people get into huge amounts of debt but it's uncommon because normally it's irrational behavior. Going to a big name school is much like buying a Prada handbag there are upsides and a lot of social pressure to do so, but for most people it's simply a bad idea.
PS: The best case for Harvard is vary good, but so is buying a lottery ticket. Once you consider a wider range of outcomes and risk vs reward things shift. EX: Consider what happens if you don't like being a Doctor?
I don't think money is the problem here. In Germany, Lufthansa, the largest airline and has the following model: the pilot program takes 24 months. Students have to pay 60k Euro which the get pre-financed by Lufthansa interest free. The have to pay it back once they get a job at Lufthansa (entry salary 60k/year). If they don't get a Lufthansa job within 5 years they don't have to pay it back. So basically, there is very little financial risk and the job is very well paid. They even give a job guarantee after pregnancy.
Still the female pilot ratio is less than 5 percent.
It's definitely something to do with the one of the points the article mentions: the fact that women don't even consider it as a career, unless someone introduces them to flying (relative, friend, whatever) at some point in life. It's an interesting thought, and I wonder how much of that also applies to women and technology, particularly CS and open source.
Do pilots start that program with absolutely no experience, or do they have to have a license (private? ATP?) already? That's a hell of a deal, given the civilian path to flying for an airline in the States and the debt that rides along.
Do they still provide a job guarantee these days? The Dutch flying school stopped doing that quite a while a go; even the 'prestigious' KLM Flight Academy doesn't guarantee a job anymore; only an interview and grading (last time I checked, which was back in 2006/2007 when I started flightschool).
Haven't read TFA and I'm not going to because the answer seems obvious. I'd say this is mainly because a huge portion of (at least older) pilots were in the air force/navy and historically (unsure about now) women weren't flying in the air force/navy. The military is still pretty much a "men's world" and I think its probably the last place in society that we'll see an equal number of men and women on each task. Is it right? No, but that's what it is.
It's mind-boggling what some people consider worthy of an upvote around here... didn't read the article, guesses what it says, then pats self in the back for such a good job at commenting. Subsequent upvotes tell other people that this comment is somehow meaningful for the discussion. Cute!
Edit: and of course I'm downvoted. Thanks!
Edit2: I'm no longer downvoted. Even though this might be relevant to a discussion of the voting system, I don't want to intrude on the discussion of the article itself, so no need to vote anymore on this. Thanks for the upvotes, everyone. Nothing to see here, move along... :)
I downvoted you because as true as it might be, it's not constructive to call the OP out, and you're adding some of the very noise that you're complaining about.
Nod, I understand. At the risk of adding just a little more noise, a quick note: I initially ignored the comment, but then while reading other comments I started seeing the upvotes piling up, and frankly, it bothered me. I can't downvote, I can only comment, so that's what I did.
Anecdote: the first time I ever had a captain was about 10 years ago on a Thai Air flight. (Bangkok to Chiang Mai.)
Since then, I've had a female captain on precisely 3 other flights (Laos Air, Thai Air, and United Express). This is out of probably 600-700 flights.
(And to those who are wondering, "are you sure you didn't miss any", I suspect you've never had a female captain. It turns out it's almost impossible to NOT notice a female captain's voice on the PA, because it's so unusual.)
I think your comment has some (limited) merit - men are supposed to have better spatial reasoning which is pretty important when you're considering attitude and approach, etc., I imagine.
Take an industry which has a geeky enthusiast appeal very similar to that of IT. Then add in huge barriers to entry which make it very difficult for those not wholly committed to a long term career as a pilot to be considered.
First, airlines usually recruit military pilots, since the government was kind enough to invest $500k or more to train them as pilots.
Second, the era of airline pilots being a glamorous job is over. When major airlines add pilots, they usually come from a layoff pool.
Third, mothers are usually primary caregivers for their children. The schedule for a pilot is awful relative to the level of education required. It only really works if your spouse is in a job with very flexible hours.
Dumb question. It is a short sighted question. This same question exists in most fields. Why aren't there more women fill_in_the_blank?
Why aren't there more women engineers? Why aren't there more women politicians? Why aren't there more women programmers? Why aren't there more women executives?
Women's interests and their own culture, from childhood to college, drive them to the occupations they want.
24 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 53.6 ms ] thread"she began her airline career with a regional carrier, where the starting salary can be less than $20,000 a year for a first officer"
I guess the real question, given that the article mentions up to $100k costs for training (unless you go for the government subsidized route - i.e. the military), is why is anyone an airline pilot?
At that point they become interns/residents and earn less than waiters for several years. After that is when they make their money back. Depending on which specialty (if any) they may make it back in spades. Top-notch surgeons can clear $500k-$1m+ a year.
Pilots in their early years are interns/residents. They've shelled out for their tuition, just like medical school, and now they're getting paid not in cash but in logged hours. After a few years those hours will translate to higher salaries.
More: http://blogs.wsj.com/middleseat/2009/06/16/pilot-pay-want-to...
Not even close...that's what just a normal bachelor grad tends to have(well those that go to private schools).
For a doctor, those numbers are much more closer to 250-300K.
And that's not even the worst part...once they graduate and get their medical degree...they have to do their residency, which means they spend a few more years working for peanuts while their debt continues growing.
Now, a small number of people get into huge amounts of debt but it's uncommon because normally it's irrational behavior. Going to a big name school is much like buying a Prada handbag there are upsides and a lot of social pressure to do so, but for most people it's simply a bad idea.
PS: The best case for Harvard is vary good, but so is buying a lottery ticket. Once you consider a wider range of outcomes and risk vs reward things shift. EX: Consider what happens if you don't like being a Doctor?
Still the female pilot ratio is less than 5 percent.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abitur
Edit: and of course I'm downvoted. Thanks!
Edit2: I'm no longer downvoted. Even though this might be relevant to a discussion of the voting system, I don't want to intrude on the discussion of the article itself, so no need to vote anymore on this. Thanks for the upvotes, everyone. Nothing to see here, move along... :)
Since then, I've had a female captain on precisely 3 other flights (Laos Air, Thai Air, and United Express). This is out of probably 600-700 flights.
(And to those who are wondering, "are you sure you didn't miss any", I suspect you've never had a female captain. It turns out it's almost impossible to NOT notice a female captain's voice on the PA, because it's so unusual.)
"Recent research suggests that dynamic spatial reasoning tasks show more robust gender differences than static spatial reasoning tasks."
From the Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, http://www.jstor.org/pss/749620, 2001:
"By 8th grade, girls' relatively poorer spatial-mechanical skills contribute to lower scores in types of mathematics at which boys typically excel".
Come on HN how does this not add to the discussion. Here's some food for thought:
* http://pss.sagepub.com/content/18/10/850.short - action games altering spatial reasoning differences across the genders * http://rer.sagepub.com/content/65/1/22.short - spatial reasoning appears to be a function of mathematical ability and not gender per se * http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi... - showing that it appears to be relatively easy to improve spatial reasoning, particularly for females, if there's a desire to do it
But hey stick your head back in the sand and repeat after me "everyone is equal; gender is an illusion".
First, airlines usually recruit military pilots, since the government was kind enough to invest $500k or more to train them as pilots.
Second, the era of airline pilots being a glamorous job is over. When major airlines add pilots, they usually come from a layoff pool.
Third, mothers are usually primary caregivers for their children. The schedule for a pilot is awful relative to the level of education required. It only really works if your spouse is in a job with very flexible hours.
Why aren't there more women engineers? Why aren't there more women politicians? Why aren't there more women programmers? Why aren't there more women executives?
Women's interests and their own culture, from childhood to college, drive them to the occupations they want.