Jessica Starmer - BALPA's view
I have registered on Pprune under my real name and am not hiding my identity. I am the BALPA rep who has supported and represented Jessica Starmer throughout this whole process. I have spent a large amount of time on the BA BALPA forum answering questions about the case, and it has been suggested to me that I come here to do the same.
35 pages of postings is a lot to wade through, so I have skimmed through a lot of pages. Forgive me, therefore, if a point has been made before. It is hard to know where to start in a situation like this, and I felt it more appropriate to start a new thread. Possible the first thing to do is to scotch the rumour that Jessica has rejected a 50% offer. I spoke to her only a few days ago and nothing was mentioned. Indeed, it would make no sense for BA to offer her such a contract when it is appealing the very point. Would you in their shoes?
As for the case, the sentiments expressed here are pretty similar - though slightly less politically correct - than our internal forum. Many opinions arise from insufficient information, a point I always find perplexing given that pilots are trained to get as much information as possible before coming to a conclusion. So, this is my job: to give you as much information as I am able given that the case is still sub judice.
BALPA has a set process for determining whether a legal claim should be progressed. If the Legal Advisory Committee, in consultation with our lawyers, deem that a case has greater than a 50% chance of succeeding, then the NEC would have to have an extremely good reason not to support the case. Accordingly, when Ms Starmer approached us last year after her appeal had failed, we took on the case because it met the required criteria.
BA initially rejected her 50% application on the grounds of resource. The same reasons were upheld at the appeal. It was only when we indicated that if a negotiated solution was unsuccessful we were taking the case to tribunal did the safety argument start to appear.
The basis for our case was firstly that the resource argument for a company the size of BA did not stack up, and secondly that notwithstanding the fact that the rules had apparently changed half-way through the game, this 2000 hour limit was arbitrary, had no basis in fact, and had a disproportionate effect on females as opposed to males. Hence the discrimination, as four times as many applications for PTW in BA come from females as opposed to males.
Whilst it is most unusual for BALPA to disagree with BA on matters of safety, we did on this one. Whilst it can be argued that the safe way to operate is to have the 2000 hour limit, it can equally be argued that the safe way to operate is to fly with as much fuel as the TOPL will allow every flight. This does not happen in reality, as the fuel for each flight is calculated on an individual basis. Thus we argued that applications for PTW should be considered on a case-by-case basis and not by blanket restrictions. Our expert witnesses, BA training captains, testified that it is possible to make such individual assessements based on the skill and experience of the BA training system. In addition, BA also has a mature and well-developed system of recurrent checks which are very capable of detecting any decrease in standards. Indeed, these very systems DID pick up some decrease in some existing 50% contracts, but interestingly the pilots concerned were all highly experienced.
The tribunal agreed with us that BA had not demonstrated any evidence that flying less than 75% was unsafe. We, on the other hand, presented the evidence of the Airbus in the 1990s, when there were only 10 aircraft and relatively little flying. The data we had gathered, which BA did not contest, showed that the brand new P2s, mainly cadet pilots, safely flew over a 10-year period averaging only 67% of what the average Airbus P2 flies today. Furthermore, BA recruited two of these co-pilots after only 2 years in the company and less than 1000 BA hours to be managers, flying at best a 50% roster.
BALPA are delighted that the tribunal found in our favour, and are disappointed that BA are appealing. PTW has only been in Flight Ops in BA for about 4 years and, like many of our policies, has grown organically over the years with the changes in legislation. There are many aspects to it which desperately need updating, particuarly when the changes to the CRA next year probably will have a dramatic effect on our seniority list. PTW may well be the only way to keep any form of movement on the list at all, and it is vital we get it right, both in terms of allocation and bidding / rostering. Cases like Jessica's help this process enormously, as they force all parties to sit down and examine the way we do things.
Why are only 2.9% of professional licence holders in the UK female? What is it about our industry that is so unattractive to females? Being a mother and being a pilot should in no way be incompatible. In years to come we as an industry will have increasing difficulty in attracting sufficient pilots. Alienating 50% of the potential workforce would not seem a particularly clever way of addressing the problem. Yet this case goes further than child care, as our General Secretary pointed out. By fighting and winning a case against crude and discriminatory blanket restrictions, it opens the possiblities for many more pilots to work part-time for reasons other than child care. The law dictates that Right to Request cases come top of the heap, and that females are most likely to be the primary carer, therefore require more adjustments to their working practices. To a lot of males, that seems positive discrimination, but that is what the law says. The statistics, if you read the judgement carefully, back this both in BA and nationally. Remember, however, that whatever is agreed at the top of a pile more than likely filters down in time.
Enough for one posting. I await questions and comment.
Regards
Dave