Dear All
Some extrememly interesting postings and I think it is a credit to everyone that the debate is balanced and reasonable. All those rumours about Pprune appear to be unfounded. Well, in this thread at least.
To answer the points which haven't already been answered by others (apologies for not putting names to points):
management-related duties
I would be very wary of running this argument. The CAA makes reference only to hours of experience and the number of take-offs and landings in a given period. This was all the tribunal focussed on. To start arguing that a related activity counted towards recency / experience would muddy the waters to an impossible degree. Hours are as good a measure of experience as we have: our problem with BA was that they mixed up the absolute (number of hours) with the relative (percentage of a full-time roster)
the rights of the few
Such is the way advances are made in employment terms and conditions. It is necessary for a responsible association such as BALPA to recognise such issues and support them. This requires leadership, which sometimes entails opening the membership's eyes to what is possible. I give you an example: PTW is now accepted by most (at least) as a necesssary part of life. Enshrined in legislation and written into company policies globally, albeit in an imperfect way sometimes. BA Flight Ops has only had PTW since November 2000, if you can believe it, and in the early years very, very few pilots took up any form of PTW at all. They were in a tiny, tiny minority. It was BALPA who, in conjunction with a brave female member, sponsored, wrote, and negotiated that agreement which is now enjoyed by a significant percentage of th BA pilot workforce. Hopefully, post October 2006, it will be enjoyed by many more.
If we had run some form of consultative ballot on negotiating a PTW agreement which so far has only benefitted a small minority, would we have received support in 2000? Sometimes, you have to keep your eyes on the bigger picture. This case has veered occasionallly to the personal. It should not do. The principle of greater PTW access for all, plus intelligent and tailored working round of individual requirements, is what we are aiming for.
19 months off
This is correct, though it was technicallly 19 months off flying. BA grounds its females once they declare they are pregnant, and pays them an average of the previous 3 months' allowances on top of the basic wage. Very much hit and miss as to whether you were on leave, on a course, sick etc in those 3 months. The implications go further, as SMP is 90% of this figure. BA, along with all the other UK airlines as far as we can gather (unless anyone tells us otherwise) pays the bare legal minimum of 6 weeks SMP. This is despite the fact that you haven't a chance of seeing a CAA doctor about getting your ticket back for a minimum of 8 weeks after the birth, and BA Health Services themselves recommend that you do not fly for a minimum of 9 weeks after the birth. In terms of benchmarking, for jobs of comparable qualifications and remuneration, 6 weeks is way behind the mark. The RAF, for example, pays 14 weeks (from memory). Our european competitors pay even more, as I'm sure our colleagues will attest to.
Flying is in many ways one of the last bastions of male chauvanism. There is much work to do to drag its maternity handling up to levels of T&Cs enjoyed by our female pilot's peers in other jobs.
why didn't she have her children before joining BA?
Interesting: since when has BA - or any other employer for that matter - been into family planning? You can't have it both ways. Here, and elsewhere, the argument against Jessica is that it is her right to choose to have children, so she should just accept what she is given. Yet at the same time she is told variously to have her children before she joins, or only after a certain amount of time in the airline, or not at all (let's not go there) or space them out a bit so she can get lots of flying inbetween. We either let nature take its course and work round it, or we go down a road which to me at least seems faintly Orwellian. She either has the freedom to choose, or not at all. And do we really want the latter?
BA and BALPA ignoring the real world
The plight of the smaller companies is always a difficult one. It is far easier to absorb the disruption caused by maternity in a large organisation, particularly one where the job is not person-centered but rather seat-centered (ie exactly the same job is done but by different people. Most unusual in skilled professions). I have plenty of friends who either run or are part of small companies who have detailed to me at length in our discussions over the case just how difficult it is. All I can say is that case law hammered out in the big companies should make life easier for those in the smaller ones who perhaps do not have the luxury of resources or lack or persecution for sticking your head above the parapet and fighting these cases. Like it or not, BA is traditionally an industry leader, and we should not be shy of setting precedents which can be used by others.
Like I say, I have never worked for a small company and my exposure is restricted to my years of conversations and friendship with BALPA colleagues in the smaller carriers. I hesitate to tread in this area, as you can imagine. I am keen to hear how you all think what we are doing in BA could impact for better or worse on the rest of the industry.
paying back training costs
BA recoups much of the traning costs it puts into cadets in two ways:
1) by reducing starting salaries over the first 5 years, and
2) getting the cadets to pay back a proportion of their training costs out of their pay packets every month for the first 5 years. This is pro-rated for PTW, but from memory I think the upper limit is 7 years. Therefore, on a 50% contract, Jessica will suffer financially more than a more senior pilot changing to a 50% PTW.
"I don't see why women should be treated differently"
This is a common complaint and one I think is the most difficult for males to comprehend. As has been stated in this forum elsewhere, it is a universally-accepted fact in law that females are more likely to be the primary carer and that reasonable adjustments must be made to accommodate this. Jessica's ET, in their ruling, stated that:
we accept that women in our society generally have the day to day primary responsibility for childcare
Inconsistant BALPA processes
Bazzaman (? Go to IST a lot do you?) - the answer to your question is that the NEC are the ultimate arbiters of any decision as to proceed with a case. They are the ones who will take advice to ensure consistancy of approach. As has been helpfully pointed out in this thread, imagine the scenario flipped round. Under what circumstances can you see the NEC overturning the considered opinion of both our own LAP and also our lawyers? There would be a riot. I would suggest it would have to be a very special and politically impossible case for the NEC to refuse to take it. Can you imagine the fallout? I can't actually think of a scenario where they would refuse it, though I'm open to suggestions.
I'd also love to argue you point about the two cases, but I can't understand why a pilot would be forced to work less to cover for a colleague who was absent on maternity.
Finally, thank you to all who have expressed their support for Jessica and BALPA. Much appreciated, and I confess that the fears I had about coming onto this forum have proved unfounded. Thanks you. The debate that has flowed from the case has certainly been healthy and, I think, a good thing for our industry.
Best wishes
Dave