Assume you’re on a flight from the U.S. to a foreign destination with a high-density air traffic environment — say, Heathrow or Hong Kong, for example. Which fact, if true, would make you feel safer about being a passenger during your descent into this complex, dynamic environment? A) knowing your pilots were hired on the basis of their skin color, gender identity, sexual orientation, or some combination of these, or B) knowing your pilots were hired on the basis of their competency?

The sane crowd’s answer to this question is obvious. So why ask it? Because airline near-mishap rates have dramatically risen in the past year, as evidenced by seemingly countless front-page articles highlighting this fact, and those near-miss rates are very related to the answer to this question.

The most recent near-miss episode emerged from the shadows last week during a segment of “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” The incident occurred on December 18, when a United Airlines Boeing 777 came within 700 feet of impacting the Pacific Ocean shortly after takeoff from Hawaii’s Kahului Airport in Maui. Details are still closely guarded, of course, but we do know this much, based on the Tucker exposé: 1) the captain was “brand new” (that is, not new to United, but new to being a captain on a United Triple Seven) and the first officer (copilot) was a “new hire”; 2) both pilots were removed from flying duties in the wake of the event and directed to receive extensive retraining; and 3) by inference, based on the fact the pilots continued the flight to its scheduled destination despite a harrowing near-miss with the ocean, the incident was unlikely to have been caused by a mechanical problem.

All these facts imply that the incident was the result of pilot error. And the fact that both pilots were inexperienced in their respective positions undoubtedly contributed to the problem. “Airlines are dramatically lower[ing] hiring standards for pilots in the name of equity,” Carlson warned. “At some point, many people are going to die because of this.” Wait: What? Okay, so the captain and first officer were inexperienced — what does that have to do with “lowering hiring standards for pilots in the name of equity”?

Nothing. And everything.

“Nothing” in that in this particular case we have no idea whether either the captain or the first officer was hired “in the name of equity” (or other “woke” metric) rather than purely on the basis of merit. All we can reasonably contend is that putting a new hire at the controls of a Triple Seven is probably not a good idea, much like hiring a brand-new Harvard MBA to be second-in-command of a major corporation is unlikely to be the “A”-answer for that corporation. Each novice needs seasoning and experience before he or she is ready for primetime. And in no case — at least on a plane having the size and human-life carrying capacity of a Triple Seven — should two “newbies” be scheduled to fly together. When things go wrong, there simply isn’t enough experience specific to that airplane between the two of them to fix the problem in a timely manner.

And “everything” in that the mere existence of a substantial pilot shortage doesn’t mean lowering hiring standards is a good way to solve the shortfall. Newly hired United pilots are now routinely placed in the cockpits of “widebody” (double-aisle) aircraft such as the Triple Seven and 787 Dreamliner, both of which fly long international flights into very complex airspaces. Historically, pilots were unable to secure positions on such aircraft without many years of experience — and new-hire pilots manning widebody aircraft were unheard of. Industry-wide pilot shortages have nonetheless put pressure on commercial air carriers to lower their hiring standards and scheduling practices. But peel this onion back a little further and it gets worse: Not only are airlines hiring subpar applicants as compared to traditional hiring standards and practices, but carriers are actively recruiting based on woke ideology rather than on the basis of competency.

In United’s case, the airline announced that it has set quotas to ensure half of its pilot training academy entrants will be women or “people of color.” To what end, exactly? Better competency? Ability? Performance? No: Diversity trumps all other criteria, apparently. United’s counterargument is that pilots must still meet the same minimum-hour requirements as they ever have to become a commercial airline pilot. But this is incorrect on two counts: First, the FAA has dramatically lowered the baseline hour requirements for entry into commercial air carrier ranks; and second, regardless of FAA minima, historically, airlines have chosen new-hire candidates with experience levels far exceeding FAA minima.

Not anymore. Now, “the min is the min,” and as long as candidates meet the FAA minimum experience requirements, apparently — as with United’s stated aims — the key criteria are now based on the woke holy trinity: diversity, equity, and inclusion. For example, the website for United’s pilot training pipeline, the “Aviate Academy” (United Aviate Academy), notes: “Anyone can apply, regardless of race or gender identity. The scholarship funds are distributed through our partner organizations: Latino Pilots Association, National Gay Pilots Association, Organization of Black Aerospace Professionals, Professional Asian Pilots Association, Sisters of the Skies and Women in Aviation International. Each organization may have their own requirements.” Translation: “Straight white males need not apply for a scholarship.”

In a Twitter statement, United announced, “All the highly qualified candidates we accept into the academy, regardless of race or sex, will have met or exceeded the standards we set for admittance.”

Carlson retorted: “We know they’re lying and you know it too because in the airline business there is only one standard that matters, and it is not race, and it’s not gender. It’s competence.” We won’t go so far as to say United is lying. Indeed, we have no doubt each new-hire candidate meets the minimum criteria. But meeting the minimum standard isn’t the same as being chosen on the basis of being the most qualified. Reading between the lines, this was likely Carlson’s main point, as well. In any case, Carlson aptly concluded, “Safety is no longer [United’s] top concern — identity politics is.” Based on our research, we would concur.

So what’s the solution? Well, first, what isn’t the solution: lowering credentialing and hiring standards, as discussed above. Second, perhaps a little more creativity that doesn’t involve lowering standards would be a good thing. For instance, one quick, no-cost solution along these lines would simply be to remove the mandatory pilot retirement-age barrier. That is, remove or extend the current Age 65 retirement law. If a pilot is in healthy condition and can continue to pass each semi-annual First Class flight physical, and that pilot wishes to continue flying, why shouldn’t he or she be allowed to do so? This would maintain a higher average experience level while simultaneously alleviating at least part of the pilot shortage problem while new pilots are being trained to fill the void. This may not be the answer, but at least it would be a good start toward addressing the problem without lowering standards.

The bottom line is that if competency and aptitude are not the primary criteria used to select the most qualified candidates for high-skill-level jobs like commercial airline pilots, then whatever criteria is chosen will by definition supplant and devalue these. Put another way, while United may wish to be the most woke airline on earth, if that Triple Seven had slammed into the Pacific killing hundreds, and the accident investigation subsequently revealed it was solely due to pilot error, all the diversity, equity, and inclusion in the world wouldn’t save United from being a soon-to-be-former airline.

So, hey, United: Maybe instead of being woke you should simply wake up — and do so soon, before it’s too late.