Jump to content

Women In Corporate Aviation Announces 2014 Spring Scholarships


Recommended Posts

Women in Corporate Aviation

Media Contact: Jill Henning | 602-502-6206 | Jill@ForwardStMarketing.com

Women in Corporate Aviation Announces 2014 Spring Scholarships

SOUTHHAVEN, Miss. – November 19, 2013 – Women in Corporate Aviation (WCA), the premier non-profit mentoring association for professionals in corporate and business aviation, has announced its 2014 Spring Scholarships, which will be presented during the 25th Annual International Women in Aviation Conference in Orlando, FL on March 8, 2014. WCA members may apply by January 5, 2014.

The following four WCA Spring Scholarship total $7,250:

1. Women in Corporate Aviation Career Scholarship ($2,000) - For any WCA member pursuing professional development or career advancement to be used toward specific corporate aviation education (not general business course work). Suggestions include: Flight training, dispatcher training, maintenance training, flight attendant training and upgrades in aviation education. Pilots: please submit copies of pilot licenses, medical and logbook pages with your application.

2. Women in Corporate Aviation International Career Scholarship ($2000) – For any non-U.S. based WCA member pursuing professional development or career advancement to be used toward specific corporate aviation education (not general business course work).

3. Dassault Falcon WCA Scholarship ($1,000) – For any WCA member pursuing an aviation-related undergraduate or graduate degree. The applicant must be a U.S. citizen, fluent in English and have maintained a GPA of 3.0 or better (on a 4.0 scale) in current year.

4. USC Viterbi Aviation Safety and Security Scholarship ($2,250) - For any WCA member pursuing education within the USC Viterbi Aviation Safety and Security Program. Scholarship covers the cost of tuition of any course. Who should apply: safety managers, training, flight department and maintenance managers and supervisors, pilots, air traffic controllers, dispatchers and schedulers.

Scholarship rules:

· Applicants must be WCA members, with dues paid in the last year, and logged into www.wca-intl.org to view scholarship application.

· Scholarship will not be awarded to previous winners of WCA scholarships.

· Annual membership dues are $40 for individuals and $25 for students.

· Applications must include: 500-word essay, two letters of recommendation and certificates, transcripts, and resumes, as applicable.

For additional rules and to apply for a WCA scholarship, visit http://www.wca-intl.org/scholarship-application.

Click here to join or renew your WCA membership: http://www.wca-intl.org/join-or-renew/

For questions not addressed on the WCA website, email scholarships-wca@wca-intl.org.

About Women in Corporate Aviation (WCA) - WCA is a premier 501©(3) non-profit premier mentoring association for professionals in corporate and business aviation. Providing networking, mentoring, scholarships, and educational opportunities for current and future corporate/business aviation professionals, WCA offers individual and corporate memberships. http://www.wca-intl.org.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Do these scholarships not represent another form of discrimination based entirely on sex?"

Well, the notion of discrimination and discrimination's overt and recognizable symptom that we name "inequality", is built into the DNA of the United States and it is right now rapidly moving towards a zenith driven by right-wing extremism, also known by the less-used, less-popular term, fascism, primarily through government action resulting from an unwillingness to confront a dangerous and growing faction of brownshirt 'thinkers' and, by a courage unique to ca. 1776, return the United States to where its Constitution and its founding principles of "liberty and equality for all" actually mean something. However, we will leave that little brown floater in the punchbowl for the moment.

That said, in my view even in Canada it is not discrimination when a privately constituted organization dedicated to the advancement of a group has privately chosen for itself a particular focus and goal and is not publicly funded or run through public governance.

If that (private) organization publicly or secretly ensured that women who were gay (or who didn't have certain social status, skin color, religion, etc), would not be entitled to membership, that, (these days anyway) would be discrimination because those are "guaranteed" societal rights as agreed by our present society. I have seen up close certain southern US "social clubs" associated with fancy golf courses ensure that their (white) members are capable of driving a Mercedes, (or better, having a driver who drives the Mercedes or Bentley).

Is it discrimination? Perhaps not; - such social entitlements, (where offshore trillions owned by US citizens lies intentionally and legally beyond the taxman and in doing so makes prime real-estate out of the best bridges to house oneself and perhaps one's family under as the social support network is increasingly defunded and dismantled to keep those horrible welfare cheats from stealing a few bucks or some soup), to unbridled wealth and exclusivities are as institutionalized as K-Mart wages are for most. However, if you're someone who, as Bill Cosby once observed, is so poor you don't even have a ditch to lie down in let alone a bridge to put your evening's cardboard under in this multi-trillion dollar economy, you might have a case for discrimination. But as Barbara Ehrenreich - You'll be hard-pressed to find an individual state that would hear your case. Take the great State of Wisconsin which has outlawed unions; rather, take Wisconsin's fascist dicta, er Republican Governor, Scott Walker...please.

But I realize that these are just the ravings of a progressive lunatic increasingly on the fringe as I grow older, and likely all but invisible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi DEFCON - I think that the notion of "discrimination" is a valuable intellectual asset. It is the lack of discrimination that causes problems and disconnects between earnest people.

The present meaning is a distortion of this quality of course. It is twisted into meaning a line of division between acceptance and rejection.

So, does Judaism "discriminate" because I, as a Gentile, am not permitted "membership"? Where do we take these notions... - to who's benefit, and why?

I prefer the old-fashioned notion of "discrimination" which conjurs the capacity for one, or a group led by valid leaders, to make a reasonable and "locally" defensible division between that which one favours and that which one, in the context of the action at hand, wishes not to.

The advancement of social notions of "keeping someone out because of their race, economic status, sexual orientation, gender, etc, to me anyway, applies to those contexts which our society accepts as "all-inclusive", and accepts that it is not "discrimination" (in the new sense of the word), when, say, biker gangs do not permit males who are also members of a police force, to join in... etc.

I am not offended if the Vancouver Bach Choir does not accept me as a member. I play music and can sing, (when out of earshot of all Christendom) but the notion of "qualifications" applies here, as it may with other such groups. I do not have to be anything other than alive and a citizen to "qualify" for the rights and privileges of Canada. Those rights and privileges may not be granted by other nations and I have to be careful not to take them for granted many other places. But they are intended to apply equally to all. Membership in a group such as the one under discussion doesn't intend to apply to all and frankly it is their right to advertise, (in their society's constitution or rules) to restrict membership as they wish. It is only when an individual's rights are offended in a way that restricts his/her capacity to act as a citizen (here, of Canada) in the broadest sense. I may have a right to sing on every streetcorner in Vancouver, (except those already taken...) but that my rights are not offended if the Bach Choir dismisses my application(s).

We are increasingly made aware through their very actions, that the Republican Party in the United States believes you must be white, family-oriented, Christian, gun-owning, middle-class but uneducated male of means to have "rights" as a citizen, (which explains why they're not winning elections and have resorted to "voter qualification" to restrict the right to vote just to their favoured little-and-shrinking group of voters).

In the present notion, millions and millions of ordinary people are presently "discriminated against" through the skewed laws of a favoured society of unbelievably wealthy people who, with Bush's and Obama's equal help, keep their trillions offshore and away from the clamourous hordes who only wish to be included in some small way.

I think that is the vilest, most heinous form of "discrimination" because in a society that advertises to all citizens the values and promise of a vibrant political economy with liberty and equality for all members, most are simply shut out, the economy for them being a devil's, (er, a Walmart's) promise, the future more uncertain than ever, while the Koch Brother's who spew right-wing propaganda behind the skirts of various "legitimate" organizations and buy political favours like we buy milk, fart in silk and dwell in a powdered world, unhindered by the unwashed. While it's all been done before in history, we like to think that the notion of "Progress" hasn't entirely been flushed down the memory hole. But it sure looks like it: the present economy remains astonishingly, obscenely, irrationally imbalanced. And we are tut-tutting over a little society for the advancement of women in aviation? Perhaps even Margaret Thatcher might slightly raise an eyebrow. No...probably not, but it just might flicker once...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Discrimination against males, particularly whites, has and is being applied across society in a somewhat subtle fashion. Being an old guy reduces my overall level of concern for it all to a, 'who really gives a damn anymore' Ievel now, but on occasion I do feel compelled to at least say something in response to my observations.

A simple and encompassing question might be; in consideration of the reality that there's been an almost exclusive ongoing anti-discrimination crusade against white guys for the last 35 + years now, I ask, why does society perceive said white guy as the only one capable of acting in a discriminatory manner?

When it comes to political promises, the lies and all the corruption, I don't think we can excuse the citizen for his complacency in the process, which is I think, a situation that appears to only be getting worse with the passage of time. Founding fathers recognized the citizen and his part as crucial to the maintenance of a strong and vibrant democracy. The US Constitution attempts to emphasize the importance of the citizens role more than our own and even went so far as to include articles in their Constitution such as the hotly contested 2nd Amendment.

Smart and manipulative politicians have I think over the years learned to keep the masses subdued by providing and to some degree, managing the expectations of the citizenry. Politicians have carefully elevated their own role in the democratic society from one of a public servant, to that of a 'leader'. They've developed many creative tasks for us to comply with that I believe are intended only to dumb us down by keeping us busy doing their almost always mindless bidding. For example; following a move, why does one have to change his address with maybe six, or even more governmental organizations? Is it an accident that government has never created one address repository for its purposes, or is this but one example of governments attempt to keep the population occupied with mandated and obviously unnecessary projects, which has the cause and effect of teaching us to be compliant of authority?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DEFCON...in terms of creating a compliant and obedient populace, I think your remarks are spot on. While there is a difference between the infinite and layered frustrations of "the bureaucracy" (in terms of, say, 'address changes', etc) and the institutional manufacturing of consent, the outcomes tend to be the same: a compliant populace that is permitted their vote every so often and which is expected to go away and shut up and leave governing to those more intelligent, informed and connected.

There is nothing inevitable or necessary about such an arrangement but once in place it is impossible to change without significant social action. Thus the reason for a compliant population, busy with sports, entertainment, the internet and trying to make enough money to raise, educate, house and feed a family on.

Although I don't believe it to be the original goal of the close and historical partnership between giant private corporate power and even-more-giant government, (the original goal was appropriation of resources, ours and other country's and the assurance of markets for private enterprise), I think the outcomes in terms of low wages, limited opportunities for millions and generally low educational standards are congenial for western governments, particularly the United States but I suspect the present Canadian government would find comfort in these outcomes as well. Educated people "with time and money on their hands" are trouble for power.

On prejudice against white males, yes I agree - over the years, sorry, decades, I have noticed (because it is so offensive), that the portrayal of white, over-fourty males, particularly fathers as inept appendages is indeed rampant in corporate advertising. Men are culturally, regularly dismissed as 'part of society'. I don't know why this is so and it may even be anthropological, (male lions tend to be loners while females within a pride are social) although I think such a connection with "lion behaviour" is really tenuous! If we 'follow the money', which always shows us where the advantage is being sought and by whom, perhaps those who do the family buying are the targets? Dunno, but it sure exists, (except in car ads and ads for condoms but even those ads are for under-thirties, etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, "evidence" is a strong standard and generally it is difficult to meet such a standard in these types of discussions, (it's not like investigating an accident with data recorders, for example), but if you haven't observed the trends I respectfully suggest you may not have been looking in that particular direction. This study has just been published as a result of the phenomenon, but the signals have been around a long time. It just takes time for formal studies to be done.

I know you know this, but social trends are never "all at once". They show up at different times in different places. Not all such emergences are indications of trends. The "informal" social commentary, which are advertisements, magazines, sometimes newspapers, and cocktail conversation are places where early signs of such trends occur. Academia catches on years later, mainly because most universities these days are commercially-supported enterprises heavily entwined with large corporate donators which (naturally) limits independent thinking which in turn slows down certain studies and writing that are "controversial". Our public schools are rich grounds for such private interventions but that's another thread.

America's Angry White Men


On November 5th, renowned sociologist Michael Kimmel released his latest book, Angry White Men: American Masculinity at the End of an Era. To purchase the book, click here. According to the New York Times Book Review, "Kimmel is unusually adventurous for an academic... Kimmel maintains a delicate balance when handling his sources..."

Angry White Men, according to Booklist, "delivers... a lively, frequently scary look at a group of people who are trying, ever more desperately, to hang onto a world that no longer exists." Kimmel, one of the leading writers on men and masculinity in the world today, has spent hundreds of hours in the company of America's angry white men — from white supremacists to men's rights activists to young students. Angry White Men presents a comprehensive diagnosis of their fears, anxieties, and rage.

Kimmel locates this increase in anger in the seismic economic, social and political shifts that have so transformed the American landscape. Downward mobility, increased racial and gender equality, and a tenacious clinging to an anachronistic ideology of masculinity has left many men feeling betrayed and bewildered. Raised to expect unparalleled social and economic privilege, white men are suffering today from what Kimmel calls "aggrieved entitlement": a sense that those benefits that white men believed were their due have been snatched away from them.

The future of America is more inclusive and diverse. The choice for angry white men is not whether or not they can stem the tide of history: they cannot. Their choice is whether or not they will be dragged kicking and screaming into that inevitable future, or whether they will walk openly and honorably — far happier and healthier incidentally — alongside those they've spent so long trying to exclude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Don

I have heard of "the angry white male" and to me it is more about the erosion of the advantage that has traditionally beeen there from being born a white male. The demographics of the US and to a lesser extent Canada are changing and there are those who feel threatened or angry by what they see as their power being pulled away.

The basic premise in the excerpt you quoted is that white males are scared and angry because their world is changing.

I would vehemently disagree with you that this is some sort of discrimination. It is a matter of the previously excluded groups (on a meta level) simply wanting the same access that their white male peers have always had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The great North American society that quickly became the destination of choice for 'most' of the worlds emigrating populations was by extension, the product of the vision of 'white men'. It's not that change isn't absolutely necessary and inevitable to moving forward, but like a tsunami, every home-grown flake and Johnny come lately now demands change to meet, match, emulate, reflect, or honour his traditions, religion and beliefs. Again; I'm old and don't really give much of a damn anymore, but from my pov, the society that was once seen as utopian appears to have reached a metamorphic peak and will now likely follow its predecessors; i.e., Rome etc., into the dust bins of history. What ever happened to JFK's 'ask not what your Country can do for you, but what you can do for your Country' direction?

It seems to be a commonly fielded question these days; 'why doesn't anyone of quality, character, or ability run for public office anymore'? I'm sure there's lots and lots of reasons, but I think it's safe to guess that the smart ones know better and they've decided that it's better to stay safe, quiet, innocuous and make hay while the sun is shinning versus attempting to manage the non-directional mess that is our free wheeling society today.

I feel like we've come to the point where we're vertical, out of power and the flight controls don't have the airflow necessary to maintain directional control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the thread seems to have taken an interesting spin. It appears that you think society is going to hell in a hand basket but I would tend to disagree. As far as the wide ranging points in your post:

I am not sure our country was "envisioned" by anyone as anything but a place for commerce and a way to extend power of our colonial masters. They hardly set out to form a country, it just evolved that way. It was envisioned by white men because that is who had all the power.

I agree that North America has been and is till continuing to be seen as a premier destination for emigration, people will always flock to where there is economic opportunity.

I will take with a grain of salt your quote from JFK, what specifically did the generation he was challenging rise up and do? I will also take a pass on leadership lessons from a serial philanderer. Politicians today are no different than politicians 100 years ago, some good, some bad.

I don't see a wholesale change in "every flake and Johnny come lately" wanting things changed. It is things evolving just as it always had and for the most part white males still hold the balance of power. Look at the House of Commons, US Senate, etc, what is the color and gender of most of the members?

I am old according to my kids and some of their rotten friends :) but don't feel old. I still give a damn, just not scared and angry at the very incremental changes I see.

On a somewhat related note, given the season we are about to enter I eagerly await all of the WAR ON CHRISTMAS posts that make their yearly appearance!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Chock;

First, re, "I eagerly await all of the WAR ON CHRISTMAS posts that make their yearly appearance!"

I will resist the war on Christmas; I will play carols, put up lights, wish people a Merry Christmas!, and leave the politically-correct, who are just hedging their commercial and ideological bets, with a fresh and inviting world view to guide them: Live, and let live. I'm anticipating snow for Christmas and can't wait for the lights, the tree, the bustling downtown and other romantic-but-true images of my favourite season.

On your point, yes, I see it and the point the author is making also, - so thank you for your response and helping me to see more broadly.

For me I think there is great reason, in spite of my writing, to remain deeply, passionately optimistic and "young-at-heart" even as one's effectiveness reduces and one's invisibility increases with age. Even as skepticism is healthy, there is no point in cynicism because it doesn't affect anyone except oneself, generally in unhealthy ways.

My views on the United States political economy haven't changed since the seventies; since the mid-eighties the situation for most ordinary people has only grown staggeringly, disappointingly worse. It isn't that I believe that everyone is equal, but I believe that at least everyone deserves an equal shot so that they can put their best talents, work and energy forward and reap the benefits. That is what has been institutionally erased as a societal promise in the U.S. and, increasingly, Canadian political economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


A very eloquent response to my somewhat snarky war on Christmas crack!

I tend to agree that in the US at least, Regan and those who worship at the altar of trickle down economics represent a real shift in the gutting of the middle class. However I don't think there is one single factor that is hastening the continual decline. I see a lot of noise generated about manufacturing jobs but unfortunately those jobs are not coming back. It used to be a person out of high school could get a job at a company and know that 30 years later they would be getting a gold watch and a handshake. Outside public service, that ship has sailed.

All of that being said I would still rather live today than in the robber baron days around the turn of the century or the repressed societies of the 50's. I am unsure what the happy balance is and know that I am rambling here but it just seems that there is more nostalgia about how good things used to be rather than how good things can be right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HI Choc - I think a "happy balance" is just an even break for all in a multi-trillion-dollar economy. Racial, gender, status and other deeply-held prejudices all combine along with the present small-but-scary-extreme right group which has completely co-opted the Senate and Congress to intentionally limit such breaks and advance narrow special interests for an extremely tiny group - it really is "1%" - that just wasn't a title of a movement.

I think we can put our finger on how and why this (the present unfortunate political economy) happened. I think we can point very accurately where, when, and precisely how and why the present disastrous-for-middle-class-families-shut-out-of-the-US-economy circumstances began.

First, I happen to believe that the present circumstances are not accidental - they are the result of very powerful interests ensuring that there is more for them and little-to-nothing for everyone else. This goes back to the early 20th Century with the disastrous and violent collisions between workers/employees and giant private corporations led by very violent and powerful men, supported by the governments of the time; men like Henry Frick and Mr. Carnegie for example, - it didn't begin in the 70s although it took broad foot-hold then, beginning with Nixon's dismantling of the Bretton-Woods agreement. Many decisions contributed to these changes, all with a focus towards the wealthy-and-powerful. lt continued with President Clinton's repealing of the Glass-Steagal Act, (I've written about this extensively here and elsewhere), which set the fundamentals up for the 2008 (and earlier-but-smaller) financial disaster(s) in motion.

The goals were simple - maximize profit, marginalize profit's millstones, squash politically or even physically those who advanced/advocated for employees while marshalling the forces of the press by squeezing labour's power and voice to the point where today it has essentially been silenced. The present economy is a corporate leaders' and a shareholders wet-dream - a compliant, silenced workforce where even those most disadvantaged by such obscene (and legal) tactics rail against "unions" for their "greed" and "corruption". By all measures it is an astonishing "success"; what has occurred in the US as a result of the war on ordinary people and the maximization of profit is by comparison to other nations which control their populations with violence, a remarkable example of mass compliance through propaganda, without a shot fired...more or less.

With billions spent since these early times, the efforts were successful perhaps beyond many corporate leaders' wildest imaginings. Today, the US has a two-tiered Third-World social model as a result of high repression strategies which have lowered wages such that ordinary people can no longer retire, let alone raise, house, feed, educate a family. Organizations like "Focus on the Family" and other such platitude-ridden groups simply reek of hypocrisy and double-speak.

Absolutely there are exceptions, but the numbers of those earning Walmart wages, (and Walmart's current advertising is trying desparately to suppress and counter these "dangerous" views) has increased while the promises of a shiny life keep on coming. There is something wrong with a society that brags about wealth and democracy when the reality is significantly, demonstrably at odds with what is said and portrayed.

This is not just one president/party/corporation but a focus served by the powerful in service to themselves and not others. Within that there are of course acts of legislative heroism and vision and we/they (Canada/US) have certainly achieved a standard of living far exceeding the kings and queens of historical fame - our "courtiers" and "servants" are electronic and digital, (although in the latter, I believe we are the servants of our electronics, but....another thread!)

Somehow, the notions raised in the beginning of the thread just seemed to fit the present meaning of "discrimination", and that is from where I (probably too enthusiastically) launched the present 'turn'. To me, the outcomes for millions of families dealing with low wages, food stamps, keeping their right to vote and other such marginalizing conditions are the same as those outcomes which obtained a hundred years ago for blacks and do so today for racial, gender, (male-female, gay-and-lesbian) and even religious groups. The discrimination against ordinary people by the extremely-wealthy and powerful is no different, nor are the results. It's not new, but one would have thought that it would have sort-of disappeared from a nation that advertises that it values "liberty, freedom and equality for all."

This perhaps puts in (too) simple terms the current outcome for ordinary Americans (and for ordinary Canadians, even though we think our nation doesn't have the same scent only because we hide it better and believe we are "beyond a class society"), of an intentional, legalized, propagandized-since-the-twenties "arrangement" for giant private corporations and the "captains of industry", (the fabulously-beyond-all-imagination-wealthy). I would love to see the same breakdown for Canada:

9 Out Of 10 Americans Are Completely Wrong About This Mind-Blowing Fact

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some reason I can't quote anything or cut and paste it, but in response to Chocks post #15 where he states that NA is the premier spot for immigration;

There was an article in the paper today about Malta selling citizenship for $850k and people were snapping them up to get coveted entry to live anywhere in the EU. There was a protest from other EU countries and their own citizens so the practice was cancelled.

Don't we have the same thing in Canada? The "entrepreneur" immigrant. I don't see them flooding the country here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...