Capt Sly
"If you read the rulings then you will see the BA training department saying it is not unsafe for somebody of those hours to fly part time. So BA's own training department completely blew away the BA management arguement."
If you read the rulings?
I've just been reading the Appeal Tribunal judgment and it doesn't say anything of the sort.
Nor to the best of my recollection (but I haven't got it to hand to check) did the ruling of the original tribunal.
Perhaps you are referring to the views of the BA Training Captain whom Mrs Starmer side called at the original hearing to give evidence in support of her claim? He expressed his
personal opinion that she would be safe flying 50%, but he wasn't there to speak on behalf of BA's training department and didn't claim to be.
She called two other captains on her behalf to express their opinion that there was no risk to safety if Mrs Starmer was allowed to work only 50%. The report doesn't make clear if they too were training captains but, even if they were, they were not speaking on behalf of BA's Training Department and didn't claim to be.
One of the latter two has the same surname as the BALPA rep who'd given press briefings outside the hearing about BA's failure (in his view) to give young women pilots with families the "special consideration" which they should be given. I don't know if the witness who gave evidence was the same person or someone independent of the parties.
NB
The Appeal Tribunal did
not express any view, one way or the other, about the validity or legality of the policy, introduced by BA in September 2004, and still in force, whereby no-one (man or woman) who has not flown a minimum of 2000 flying hours will be transferred to 75% part-time work.
Contrary to what has been asserted here by some of those on the 'pro-Starmer' side of this discussion -
BA [u]did not at any stage, from internal decision/review through to the appeal stage, claim to be entitled to rely upon the "2000 hour threshold" policy which was introduced in 2004.