Dave,
Thank you for your response. I would like to start the ball rolling with a few observations, but first: a question:
You said:
"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".
I am unfamiliar with the inner workings of BALPA but perhaps you could clarify this: does this mean BALPA has an internal policy of supporting pilot's claims where they stand a 50% chance of succeeding? Surely (please correct me if I am misguided) there is an element of discretion, whereby BALPA can decide whether it agrees with the pilot's claim in the first place?!
You said:
"secondly that notwithstanding the fact that the rules had apparently changed half-way through the game"
Can you confirm this: other posts, many of them seemingly well-informed, suggest that the rules were not changed after the request - but in 2003?
You said:
"This 2000 hour limit was arbitrary, had no basis in fact, and had a disproportionate effect on females as opposed to males"
In law, as you may be aware, these are known as 'indisctinctly applicable' measures - where there is, prima facie, the same burden in law, but a different burden in fact. Surely the tribunal, however, has failed to recognise that there is an element of CHOICE in having a baby (most of the time)? If I don't like sunlight then I shouldn't apply for a job that involves me being in the sun - why should the onus be on my employer to find me a job working at night? Mrs Starmer made a choice in having a child - there is no discrimination based solely on the fact that she is a women. Thus, I would distinguish the argument that the part-time-hours rule is indirectly applicable on the basis that it only affects women after they have exercised their own discretion in having a child. The issue of gender is a red herring. What matters is - as has been argued without acknowledgment on the other thread - lifestyle discrimination. Presumably a male applying for 50% hours in order to look after his child will now be entitled to the same leave?
You said:
"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"
This seems to contradict the basis of BALPA's argument, surely? Firstly, the suggestion that the recurrent checks in place will detect a decrease in standards is irrelevant - because by that time the damage is done! If the standards have slipped then BA will have to spend funds on retraining before the pilot can resume service. There is no point claiming that these checks can counterbalance the decrease in the pilot's abilities, because by this argument fails to consider the commercial interests of the employer - something that the law leans against these days. Secondly, the fact that the decreases in ability were picked up in experienced pilots does not lead to the logical conclusion that they ability won't decrease in less experienced pilots - rather, it shows that if it can happen to the best, it is at least possible it will happen to those with less hours, even if BA hasn't produced empirical evidence to show this is the case.
You said:
"The tribunal agreed with us that BA had not demonstrated any evidence that flying less than 75% was unsafe."
I want to draw attention to this remark for interest, if nothing else. Surely the question here isn't whether it is safe or unsafe, but whether it is safe to the standards of safety that BA requires. Aviation is a tough industry and airlines rightly demand the best of their cadets throughout the training process. To argue that flying less than 75% is still safe is to argue that airlines aren't free to impose stricter requirements on their employees. Consider, for example, the case of an applicant to a flying school who wishes to embark on a sponsored fatpl. Why shouldn't that flying school impose very high standards of competence and ability, so as to ensure that their standards are the very best. What BALPA seems to have done (and I would be interested to hear your response) is say that as long as the minimum threshold is reached we are content - what ever happened to the idea of striving to excel?
You said:
"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."
I appreciate that many people will bring calls of 'sexist', but I think political correctness has distorted the situation here. You suggest that being a mother and being a pilot should in no way be incompatible. Yet these are CHOICES. You don't HAVE to be a mother. Consider the following: being fat and being an athlete. Or being blind and being a driving instructor. Some jobs are incompatible with some lifestyles, and rightly so! Of course it is important to strive for equality in employment, but the point is that there should be no ARBITRARY discrimination between men and women. If you want a 9-5 job then you don't become a pilot - simple as that! I find it tiring that the gender discrimination argument is confused with lifestyle discrimination. There is no discrimination between men and women - there is only discrimination between mothers and non-mothers. To assert that women are more likely to be mothers is to ignore the fact that this is largely a matter of choice - if a male pilot wanted to adopt a child, presumably you would agree that they ought to be given part-time working hours?
My summary is simple: it's not sexist to point out that having a child is a lifestyle choice. Clearly we want to fight to remove barriers to employment based upon gender. But to use the fact that only 2.9% of commercial pilots are female is to stoop to a very low level and bring in an irrelevant statistic to the argument. I am very sorry that there aren't more female pilots - there clearly should be. But first, all pilots - male and female - must show their dedication to the job and recognise that they are in a highly competitive industry and are lucky to be so. If they want to have children then to me that seems no different to deciding that they want to emigrate to Australia - some lifestyle choices are incompatible with some jobs. It is not sexist to think that.
I for one hope that BA's appeal succeeds. If Mrs Starmer is concerned about her children's welfare and is also concerned about equality, why doesn't her husband take 75% hours - between them they would have just as much time off as if she took 50%. Or is that because she thinks that raising children is a woman's job: perpetuating the very idea she is trying to combat?
Last edited by bazzaman96; 1st May 2005 at 10:44.