Dave,
A few points.
Ms Starmer apparently said "all I want is to be able to care for my daughter" or words to that effect. Now correct me if I am wrong, but she is based in London doesn't exactly live near to where she works. What part of the tribunal took account of the fact that travelling time was time wasted that could be used looking after her child? Why should BA pay for that?
Is her husband not part time already? What stopped her presumably more experienced pilot husband from getting 50% and looking after the kids? Surely then all she needs is 2000 hours then she can go 50% and spend more time with the kids. Not perhaps first choice, but my parents gave up an awful lot to bring me up - it seems she wants her cake and a full tummy.
Sexixm - BA presumably has written a policy. Where in this policy does it say it is restricted to women? How can it be sexist if the policy is applied the same way to both sexes?
Evidence of safety - if there is no proof in the fact that 50% is dangerous (based on a very small percentage of pliots), then what do we wait for? Do we reduce working hours until it becomes dangerous (ie we have proof that danger has occurred) before we stop it - or do we make a reasoned judgement. What if someone wants 30%, or 10%? Will you say "we have no evidence that 10% is dangerous" - well of course not as no one has done it!!!! If hours is as good a measure of experience as we have then come for an aerobatics and spinning session with me. If have a significant number of hours flying aeros, but none for about 5 years. Would you trust me to recover from the spin properly? (I'm attacking the logic of your argument here, not suggesting airline pilots spin regularly!)
Women pilots - great, lets have more, and lets give them time to do what humans do and be paid maternity. Also, lets look at why there are only 2.9%. Women and Men are fundamentally, and scientifically provably different. Flying is largely a spatial task and females are provably not as apt at these as men. They are much better than men at a lot of other things. One reason there are not many female pilots is that it simply does not attract them as a task. Much the same as a teaching/nurturing role does not attract as many men. This is no refelction on women - I love flying with them, but it is provably true.
Grounding during pregnancy - one can't criticise BA for grounding someone during pregnancy. BA has a duty of care to it's employee's and passngers. BALPA would be the first to take the company to task if a pregnant pilot kept flying at the company's behest and gave birth to an abnormal baby. BA are doing themselves and the pregnant pilots a favour.
We do need to support a good way of bringing up kids and letting people be pregnant and have a family. But this case seems way over the top to me. Where is BALPA's support on other very important things? What about the attendance management policy? Sometimes it is a real shame we as members cannot take BALPA to a tribunal, because I am sure you would lose.
Bidline - why are you a strict defender of bidline - it is clearly "seniorityist" and one of the reasons that the lady in question could not guarantee time off in opposition to her husband. Surely this is a major part of the case. It is not "BA rostering systems" it is "BALPA forcing BA to roster in a certain way". I would be much happier to have "pregnancy lines" in the bid pack than take the case to a tribunal and spend a lot of hard earned members cash on a questionable case. It wouldn't be hard. Assign trips at the training stage for both partners in sympathy with each other and chuck the rest into the normal bidline pot.
Oh and one more thing - you told us in your first post that many people are judging without getting all the facts. Maybe your judgement is impaired regarding your initial thoughts about Pprune? Was this same impairment the thing that got you to sign up to the attendance management programme? Perhaps you should be in posession of the full facts before you make descisions which effect others lives...