Jessica Starmer - BALPA's view (Update - Appeal decision)

[Carnage Matey!]

put her on part time and fail her opc/lpc.

That assumes you can find a stooge of a trainer who would be willing to fail her unfairly. Not withstanding the fact that the Airbus trainers are generally a fine bunch of chaps, all the sims have the ability to record and print the flight paths of any particular detail. One would need specific reason to fail the detail and if the system shows the flight was flown in accordance with the required standards you'd be on something of a sticky wicket to fail her. Besides, failing an OPC/LPC certainly isn't grounds for dismissal as a very senior manager recently did just such.

Sack her and lets see how easy she finds getting a job from the wilds of Dorset as and when she stops having children.

BA need to send a strong message that they want 100% work from the workforce until they have more experience

Fortunately even the most hard line BA manager is rather more sophisticated in the industrial relations field than thegypsy. The company are already getting hammered in the PR arena over this case. A fairly blatant "sack her and see if we care" attitude would result in a rapid end to any managers career. Corporate BA are actually quite a responsible employer. In the mean time BA are sending a strong message that they want 100% from the workforce regardless of experience. Part time contracts for any pilots are awarded sparingly with alacrity, and only because the law requires them to do so.

[Justbelowcap]

Umm
Sack her and lets see how easy she finds getting a job from the wilds of Dorset as and when she stops having children.

Too many GCSE's to count
Four grade A a-levels
First class honours degree from Oxford
British Gliding champ
Probably the highest marks in Western Europe for her JAR Op exams.
Extremley competent pilot.
Liked and respected by all those who have flown with her.


Yeah Jess would find it really tough to find another job......... I would so like to see "thegypsey" and Jess side by side in the sim to see who could really cut the mustard. I know who my money wold be on.

As far as the interview stage I wouldn't even have the heart to put thegypsy through the humiliation of trying to compete with such a quick and interesting intellect.

[Kirkwall]

Interesting debate considering Eileen Collins is about to blast off on her fourth mission as a Space Shuttle Commander. Looks like she did some gliding along the way too. Obvously not a crime in the states.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/preparingtravel/eileen_collins_profile.html

I believe I read somewher that she has a couple of children. I wonder how NASA viewed her request for maternity leave? Did they consider writing her off as a waste of space and money?
I will think of this as I help develop a debate in my own company, part of which involves the question of whether manning the photocopier is appropriate work for a Captain temporarily grounded for reason's of maternity.

Come on BA, wake up, we are in a new century. The trouble is that most of the senior managers in the industry are left over from 1960's Transport Command, where chaps who flew the kites were Chaps.



The Gypsy and others, fancy offering your services and standing in for Eileen next week. Obviously, she is only a woman with kids, chop her on her next base check. There are plenty pruners like yourselvs out there (male) willing to jump in and do a better job.




Good on you NASA and good luck.

[Cruise Alt]

Kirkwall

Casting new light on the term 'frequent flyer,' she has logged more than 6,280 hours in 30 different types of aircraft. More than 537 of those hours were logged in space

Looks like Collins has a little more experience to me - guess she didn't spend her career part time!

Next...

[thegypsy]

Justbelowcap Yes we all know Jess is a clever Bunny! Perhaps too clever for her own good as it has turned out.

Getting a job from the wilds of Dorset has nothing to do with her Intellect or Degree but the fact that she is labelled a "trouble maker" Perhaps Branson would give her a job just to get one up on BA.!!?? Other Airlines would not touch her with a bargepole I suspect.

The late Roger Green from RAF Farnborough ( Chirps) once said that Airline Pilots only need to have the same Academic qualifications as a Primary School Teacher ie a couple of lowgrade A Levels.

Perhaps with her high Intellect Jess cannot stand the thought of working 100%??

Kirkwall Don't be silly. We are talking about Jess not Eileen.

[GrumpyOldFart]

Too many GCSE's to count
Four grade A a-levels
First class honours degree from Oxford
British Gliding champ
Probably the highest marks in Western Europe for her JAR Op exams
Extremeley competent pilot
Liked and respected by all those who have flown with her
These are all wonderful qualities and achievements, but without any demonstrated commitment to an employer, or any apparent knowledge of the meaning of 'work ethic', nobody will go far with any employer or prospective employer, in any industry.

[Justbelowcap]

Getting a job from the wilds of Dorset has nothing to do with her Intellect or Degree but the fact that she is labelled a "trouble maker" Perhaps Branson would give her a job just to get one up on BA.!!?? Other Airlines would not touch her with a bargepole I suspect.

What utter drivel! If nothing else Jess has the total respect of the BA management for standing her ground. A trouble maker for ensuring that she has the same rights as everybody else in the UK workforce.......please. Even PoD realises that BA is lucky to have Jess as an employee, although to be fair the vast majority of her cadet colleagues are all of the same calibre.

The law says she is entitled to percentage working.

BA have lost on this ground. They have then moved the goal posts by insisting that for somebody to have less than 2000 hrs this is not safe. Nobody would object to BA choosing their own levels of safety but this is an arbitary figure plucked out the air just because Jess has slightly less than this figure. In BA 1500 hours has always been the cut off point. To suddenly change this figure is almost obscene in it's arrogance.

The 50% working figure that Jess will fly will give her far more flying than 100% on the 747. Which she could easily transfer to if she so desired.

10 years ago cadets flying 100% on the airbus flew a lot less than Jess will fly on 50% now.

Cadets used to go striaght on to the Tristar and flew way, way less than Jess will fly.

This is not about safety (find ONE BA airbus trainer that will state publically that Jess would not be safe to fly a 50% contract. You can't because not one non-management trainer would agree to to make that statement.) it is simply that BA are trying to not allow Jess her legal rights because it will cost them money. She is entitled to those rights. Eventually she is paving the way for women and mothers to be able to have careers as pilots AND have a family. The law, and common sense, say that this is the way it should be for all employees. That includes pilots.

I pity the companies who think that the ability to work non-stop outways the ability to command an aircraft to the highest standards. These companies will pay the price if they employ "primary school teachers" instead of the most able individuals they can find. Unfortunately it will only be time before there is a major hull loss. Those responsible will have long gone, enjoying the vast fortunes made from stock options and bonus payments. Whilst some poor git will get the blame for failing to to do a job that he was probably never able to do since day one.

That is why the industry MUST keep employing those of the highest calibre. The less hand flying we do and the more automated the AC become the much more important it is that the truely able get selected. There is no time for practise anymore. The first time you deal with an aircraft that has no protections will be for real! That is why it is important that Jess wins. We need the most skilled people we can find in this industry. It simply cannot afford to overlook 50% of the population because they want to have a family.

[Roobarb]

This appeal has nothing to do with whether Jess is entitled to part-time, or whether BA is obliged to employ her.

This is all to do with PoD publicly losing face, and desparate to retsore some shred of credibilty in big-BA.

I hope he loses, and I hope he resigns.

http://www.tvradiobits.co.uk/eightieszone/Roobarb1.jpg

I'll take on the opposition anyday - it's my management I can't beat!

[Re-Heat]

The late Roger Green from RAF Farnborough ( Chirps) once said that Airline Pilots only need to have the same Academic qualifications as a Primary School Teacher ie a couple of lowgrade A Levels.
All well and good, but if the intellect to understand the systems is lacking then - as in the past when the engineering knowledge was fundamental - systems failures will confound those not bright enough, however applied they are.

Both that - and indeed her motivation (though I somehow doubt that with her background) - are irrelevant. I agree again that BA have placed themselves in a hole due to trying to save money at the expense of work/life balance. All companies must equally share the burden of cost of the social rights that we all possess.

How many hours did MS - former LGW chief pilot - achieve before going to very low levels of flying and management? Was that deemed to be unsafe at the time? You know the answer - sanctioned by PD - and indeed the CAA.

[Kirkwall]

PoD resign.

Excellent. A great opportunity for the first woman to achieve status of GMFO in BA. There must be loads of them queueing up in the lower levels of managment just waiting to step into his shoes.

Aren't there??

[Flying Lawyer]

Story from BBC NEWS:
BA loses appeal in pilot sex case
British Airways (BA) has lost an appeal against a tribunal that found it had sexually discriminated against a pilot by refusing to let her work part-time.
Jessica Starmer, 26, from Wareham in Dorset, won a claim for indirect sex discrimination in April.
An appeal by BA was rejected at an Employment Appeal Tribunal on Thursday.
Ms Starmer wanted to cut her working hours in half to spend more time with her one-year-old daughter Beth.
BA said it was disappointed by the ruling. The firm has now submitted an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Mrs Starmer, who is expecting another baby and still works for BA, said: "I am pleased with the result but extremely disappointed that an appeal will leave me uncertain on how I am going to balance my parental responsibilities and career."

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40705000/jpg/_40705479_snow_pa_203.jpg
(Pic from BBC website)

BA had told the tribunal its original decision was based on safety, rather than gender. It said pilots should have at least 2,000 flying hours before reducing their working hours to below 75%.
BA told the appeal tribunal it had "huge concerns" about the approach of the original tribunal to safety and stressed it was sympathetic to people with childcare requirements.

The British Airline Pilots Association (Balpa), which represented Ms Starmer, said it was "delighted" with the ruling. Captain Mervyn Granshaw, chairman of Balpa, said: "The appeal decision could not be clearer. Flight safety is not on trial in this case - an argument put forward by BA late in the day after Jessica's application for part time working so she could look after her young child was rejected by them."

Jenny Watson, acting chairwoman of the Equal Opportunities Commission, said: "The tribunal's decision is great news for millions of women in Britain juggling their careers with their responsibilities at home, too many of whom are denied from using their talents to the full."

Mrs Starmer currently works for BA on 75% hours. Her husband Simon is also a pilot with the airline.
Mrs Starmer may be "extremely disappointed" by the prospect of an appeal to the Court of Appeal, but surely she can't be surprised.

[Buy one get one free]

Any indication as to how long the next steps in the process will take?

[southside]

Godd on ya Jess. Fab news and great news for all BA workers. Hopefully the company will soon realise that the single greatest factor in their success are its people and NOT its shiny aircraft. Wake up BA.

[Flying Lawyer]

Buy one

I'd be surprised if the case is heard by the Court of Appeal this year. Early next year I suspect.

southside
I realise knocking BA at every opportunity is a popular sport in some quarters but, aren't you in the services? Royal Navy? :confused:

[southside]

I may be...but both my Father and wife fly for BA....

[Lou Scannon]

"The late Roger Green from RAF Farnborough ( Chirps) once said that Airline Pilots only need to have the same Academic qualifications as a Primary School Teacher ie a couple of lowgrade A Levels."

As someone who knew Roger more than most I feel that he would also have added that motivation, determination and dedication will need to be of a higher order than most other jobs.

Jessica may have taken one step further, but I'm afraid that I keep wondering how the latest appeal failure will affect all those other young ladies who are trying to get into the profession.

Many of them will have far inferior intellects to Ms Starmer but be able to demonstrate many other qualities that we find more valuable to this profession.

[Bart O'Lynn]

justbelow cap,

you are a snob to allude to the fact that unless you are an oxford cadet ,oxford uni grad and a ba cadet you are not of the highest calibre. I have less than The primary school requirements but would gladly take up the gauntlet thrown down on this thread to go head to head with this woman in the sim.
There are many talented airline pilots about that dont have a scrap of education . Your criteria are not exhaustive but rather a means of extendeing elitism.
It will be one of your highly able systems operators that will be the weak link when the sh1t hits the fan.
What use the dreamy spires then.

countless gcse's....So what , she has a good memory and a stable upbringing that nurtured homework. All the advantages that english middle class life provides detract from ones achievements when they are the norm in your strata.

It is the relativity of the achievement that is important, not the baubles avilable to a minority of society.

Ba isnt lucky to have her, she is lucky to have such a good start to her life and if she cant be arsed with her career for now should move over.

Highest calibre my arse.

[Hand Solo]

It will be one of your highly able systems operators that will be the weak link when the sh1t hits the fan.

Yeah it won't be you because you're far better than that. What breathtaking arrogance! Can't wait to see the look on your face if you turn out to be the weak link one day.

[thegypsy]

Justbelowcap seems to be in total awe of young Jess does he not?

If BA lose this then it is one more nail in the coffin of it's long term financial future. For those in BA who seem to think they have total protection and a job for life regardless of all that is going on around them are delusional in the extreme.

As others have said a "high intellect" without all the other add ons which she has obviously not got do not make " highest calibre" in my book.

When she eventually comes off maternity leave perhaps with all that has happened she will be "psychologically" scarred and not fit to fly?? Perhaps she could then sue BA for damages?

[Hand Solo]

Aah another 'one more nail in the coffin' post. Regardless of the outcome of this case, BA still made a rather hefty profit last year and the doom-sayers who've been predicting it's demise since 9/11 are still facing dissappointment. The impact of changes in Flight Ops labour costs would barely be felt by corporate BA such is the vast cost of the other employee groups.

[GuinnessQueen]

Lou Scannon - How right you are!

Jess has demonstrated a huge lack of motivation (lets not forget that this is NOT about maternity leave - but complete lack of compromise on Jess's side of things).

Personally as a 26 year old female fATPL (without a current flying job) I feel rather miffed at her actions. Perhaps if she was bonded for the £60,000 BA have spent, her motivation would be a little better (or if she had self funded).

All the intelligence in the world, but Jess clearly has no knowledge (or appreciation) of commercial industry - other than the 'me, me, me' attitude.

I fear there is nothing I can do to improve my chances at interview against the stereotype Jess has now painted of female pilots.

a miffed GQ!

[Bart O'Lynn]

Hand solo,

I fail to see how my post is breathtakingly arrogant and the superior rantings of justbelowcap are not.

The arrogance is in your reply defending by association the bllocks written by justbelow.

I am aware of my limitations whereas if the superior attitude touted by previous posters is anything to go by that doenst apply to the BA cadets, as they are all superior and not in need of currency and experience.

Hand job would be a more fitting name for you.

[Hand Solo]

I think you'll find I've made no attempt to defend anyone elses comments. I merely pointed out your post suggested a personal belief that you were immune to being the weak link in the chain that you believe the 'highly skiled systems operator' is so likely to be. If you are well aware of your limitations then I doubt you'd be so willing to throw stones around in the glasshouse.

[Another FNG]

Well said QG. It is a silly situation. Equal opportunities for all of course but you've got to EARN your spurs in this game-that comes from experience and THAT comes from DOING the job! I don't care how good your degree is-it means zip if you can't/won't fly

[MikeGodsell]

So lets see: She trains as an airline pilot @ approx 60,000 cost to BA. She does just enough flying to find and marry a suitable BA captain. Promptly becomes pregnant and stops work on full pay. Gives birth to first child, and rapidly becomes pregnant again. Without ever intending to do a days work she requests 50% working from BA and then takes them to an industrial tribunal when they refuse. Will be off work on full pay for another 9 months for the second baby. How long can she keep this scam going? What if she has another 3 or 4 babies? If this is the way sex discrimination law works then something is seriously wrong.
MG

[Hand Solo]

Purely as a point of information I'd like to address this comment:

She trains as an airline pilot @ approx 60,000 cost to BA

Every penny of that will be paid back to BA through the combination of a reduced salary and direct repayment from that reduced salary. Lets not pretend the training is a great act of benevolence from BA to help the greater flying community. It's a carefully considered business proposition that gets them qualified pilots at a lower cost than any other means. If it wasn't then they wouldn't do it, would they?

[Arkroyal]

Every penny of that will be paid back to BA through the combination of a reduced salary and direct repayment from that reduced salary.If the lady ever gets around to doing the job, that is :rolleyes:

[Hansof]

Women will always want to have babies and, although not a PC view, in many cases bringing up children will be a lot more fun for the mother (and her children) than going to work and having to mix with, work with, do the bidding of, etc., of others whose only real aim is to get better paid as quickly as possible. A lot of these 'career-minded' people will step on as many other as possible to reach their goals, or other insidious acts.

Any employer who doesn't realise that has a serious reality problem and will continually complain about his/her staff leaving to have children.

This is life - why are flight-deck any different? The lady has made her choices all along the way and, by going 50% freed up another 50% for someone else as a bonus. She may retire eventually without having made the dizzy heights of whatever but hopefully will be pleased with her family- and so will her husband and children. She may wish she hadn't then.... but how many women forego children and wish they hadn't ?

As for those who complain she had too easy a start in life - communism still exists in places where almost noone is allowed to fly aeroplanes. Would anyone put up with the CAA hoops and every other mind-bending trick designed to weed out as many potential pilots as possible if it were not for the opportunity to earn a reasonable wage while having more fun than sitting at a desk/working down a mine/being a lifeguard ?

Good luck to her and her family.

[GS-Alpha]

Hand Solo
Every penny of that will be paid back to BA through the combination of a reduced salary and direct repayment from that reduced salary.
Not strictly true. She will be paying back (£250 before tax) per month towards the £15,000 officially owed. However if you are 50% part time, the amount you pay back from being on the cadet scale compared to the DEP scale, will be halved (because the difference between the two 50% scales is halved). This is compounded by the fact that BA will only be getting half the benefit of your skills, because you are doing half the work.

If BA's concern was purely safety, then I agree with them. However, it seems that the courts do not believe this stance.

Women have babies, and it is not right in this day and age to force a woman to choose between career or baby. Personally I think it is best for the child, that they do make this choice - but it is not right to force them to.

[757manipulator]

The real sad thing that seems to have been lost in this whole arguement, is a sense of compromise, and resolution. To often today parties on both sides run to the lawyers to solve the issue rather than sitting down face to face and resolving it.
Now Im not saying that this case has followed that path, but it seems there has been a lack of objective judgement shown by both parties.
BA seem to have come to the table with a clear, and yet strangely muddled game plan. Jess on the other hand has played both the role of victim and then latterly the boastful (in a sense) victor.

What really saddens me, and GQ alluded to this; is the negative impact this will have on HR departments view to training and recruiting female aircrew as they will now be viewd as a poor return on investment, I fear this is just the tip of the iceberg.

[electricjetjock]

Hansof

In your wonderful world why do all the pilots at BA not ask for 50% work. BA could then employ another whole workforce and just think of all those commands!! That would be a great bonus for all the out of work pilots and wannabees.

Problem is the real world has commercial realities.

Why has her husband not requested a reduced roster then he could be a "real" father to his children as well as Jessica being a good mother to her child / children. Perhaps it is the "commercial" aspect.

Cake and eating come to mind. :} :}

[Hansof]

electricjetjock

Why doesn't every one ask for 50% ? Why indeed ? We are numbers who turn up to do the job. The rostering programme would need a bigger disk and some more memory - not a big deal.

There may be a lot of benefits that BA offer that would make it uneconomic to allow it for all. I suspect these are being reduced - interesting equations.

The days of company loyalty are gone, largely due to the bean-counters' approach. So we can, if we are able, adjust work to suit us. If there isn't any work then we have a problem...unless we start our own business.

I suspect most people do not want the hassle of working for more than one organisation (if more than one engine is safer, perhaps more than one job is too?), of spending more time away from work on less money even if it is at home. Looking after the children - god forbid.

Jessica wants part-time, her husband doesn't. Or not yet. Good luck to the cake-eaters, I want to be one.

[QDMQDMQDM]

I am a private pilot and a GP. My wife is also a GP. We each work half time, which equates to two days a week (yeah, I know, life is hard, hey?). If we make a mistake, a patient can die. It's not as dramatic as when an airline pilot makes a mistake, but for the individual the effect is the same.

In our early years as doctors we worked stupid hours, which were unsafe. Junior doctors don't do the same today, quite rightly. However, they do still do a reasonable amount in a short period and it is this intensity of working which consolidates the experience. There is something about doing it a lot in a short time, which is important in the learning curve. You learn more full time in five years than you do half time in ten years and I think the quality of that experience is different.

I don't know the full details of this case, but I think the principle that someone in a profession like yours or mine should work full-time in the early years to be safe and gain the relevant experience is a sound one.

Even though I am a dosser who now works as a doctor a mere two days a week (although I have various other business interests) and my wife is the same, strangely enough we both probably support BA on this one.

QDM

[overstress]

electricjetjock:

You can be forgiven for missing it, but in these myriad pages of generally Victorian-mill-owner-like rantings, someone has probably volunteered the fact that Capt Starmer (JS's other half) is 75%.

[Heliport]

overstress:

You can be forgiven for missing it, but in these myriad pages of generally excellent discussion (accusing people with a different opinion of 'ranting' excepted) it has been mentioned several times that .....

BA offered to help the couple with their alleged childcare difficulties by -

offering to allow Capt Starmer to change from his existing 75% contract to 50% if he wished - ahead of other captains who'd already applied for 50% and were waiting their turn

and

offering Mrs Starmer a 75% contract - ahead of more senior and more experienced FOs who'd already applied for 75% and were waiting their turn.


Both offers were rejected.

[Capt Sly]

ahead of more senior and more experienced FOs who'd already applied for 75% and were waiting their turn.

So when is "their turn"?
What order do FO's or Captains get part time?
Please Heliport tell me who is 'next to be offered part time'?

Its a leading question - there is NO PTWK policy - getting PTWK depends on some manager saying yes you can have it (havent heard that one in a while) or no you cant, or perhaps come back when you have some kids. There is no PTWK list whereby you put your name down and 'wait your turn'. If there was a transparent policy then IMHO we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Heliport]

Capt Sly

I was only summarising what was posted earlier.

I notice you're not saying the offers weren't made by BA.
Do you think they were fair and reasonable offers of a compromise in light of how difficult it is to get PTWK on the fleet?

[overstress]

Well thanks heliport that's the first 'admonishment' I've had by a moderator since joining this forum in 1997 (despite what it says in my profile). I stand by what I say, I have witnessed a few PPRuNe rants and a lot of the stuff on here (cake, eating, doesn't know she's born, shouldn't live in Dorset etc) qualifies as rant to me. I find your quoting of me rather disappointing and sarcastic. The case was brought by BALPA because they felt that JS was being disadvantaged unfairly by an arbitrary safety argument (rejected by the tribunal). The Starmers were within their rights to reject such an offer as you mention, and to hold out for their preferred option, which the Tribunal and subsequent appeal upheld.

Declaration of interest: I am a male BA pilot who has been part-time for child-care reasons (narrows it down a bit!)

[Flying Lawyer]

Come on overstress. Maybe just a touch over-sensitive there.

With respect, it's not correct that BALPA brought the case.
Mrs Starmer chose to take BA to the Employment Tribunal.
She brought the case.

BALPA supported her, and according to previous posts, financed her claim, but that's a different matter.

______________________


For those interested in the next stage:

BA applied to the Employment Appeal Tribunal for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
The EAT refused to give leave to appeal its decision. Nothing significant in that. SOP.
BA was given 56 days in which to apply direct to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal. That's a longer period than usual, but takes into account that the Court of Appeal doesn't sit in August and September.
So BA has 56 days (49 remaining) to decide whether to apply for leave to appeal.

There's no automatic right to have an appeal heard by the Court of Appeal. Unless BA can show there are grounds for arguing that the EAT made a mistake of law, the Court of Appeal will not give leave to appeal.

Neither the first appeal (to the EAT) nor the appeal from the EAT to the Court of Appeal (if it goes ahead) is a fresh hearing of the claim. No evidence is heard. It's a 'review' of the previous decision.
Provided (1) the previous tribunal made didn't make a mistake of law and (2) the decision wasn't perverse on the facts, the previous decision is upheld.
In ordinary language, it's much more difficult to get a decision overturned on appeal than it is to win at the first hearing.

[CaptainFillosan]

It will always be the case that sides will be taken. This case is no different and JS is by no means sitting well in the 'for' street. The cynics abound. They believe that JS has taken matters to the extreme by wanting so much and giving so little.

As I said in an earlier post I think the chances of employment for the female flying fraternity will be harder as a result of this selfish action. I cannot see managers on the side of women if they think they will be demanding time off for first one child and then another - and even yet another!

In spite of overstress taking the view that a cliche like 'can't have her cake and eat it' is a rant (how can it be.) That is exactly how she comes across. Greedy is another.

Part time pilots is NOT good. For OBVIOUS reasons. One of them is the reason BA stood up - safety. I agree with them.

[airrage]

Don't visit here often anymore, but here is what I had to say on our Company Forum about the JS case............

Lets not try to cloud this Issue with personal morale opinions on;
- the greater good for Britain of having children due to the declining birth rate.
- where peoples priorities should lie.
- views on a childs maternal upbringing.
- Career vs motherhood.
- whether it helps attain PTWK for all other members.
etc, etc, etc.

Its simple;
- BA were not obeying the law and as a result were discriminating against a BALPA member.
- The BA pilot concerned had the courage and conviction to stand up against her employers for what she believed was right (which is more than I can say for the other 93% of male BA pilots who haven't shown any of the same courage unless it affected them directly............see pay restructuring, NEP Pension or any other countless Issue)
- BALPA provided the member with legal support.
- The BALPA member won her case with the support of our union and legal support.
- They subsequently won the appeal.

What the members moral convictions/reasons for fighting BA in the first place are her business, and not up for our judgement. She certainly doesn't have to come on here either to tell us what her reasons where. It is sufficient for me to know that through BALPA's support a member had their legal rights defended. As for the costs of doing so, I couldn't care less, just as I hope the cost of the Bill wouldn't affect BALPA's decision to defend me if I needed them to one day.

If anything this case might help BALPA's teeth sharpen and give them the confidence that they can say NO and win.

I can only hope the reason some pilots might not support the case is because INDIRECT discrimination is not as well understood as direct discrimination, and people can't get their heads around why a female pilot in BA, (who is more likely than a male to get PTWK in the 1st place), can win a sex.disc case wrt PTWK. But that I hope is down to the nuances of this law and misinformation, and not down to prejudices. It's not about whether something makes sense, it's whether her rights were being violated or not. And they were. Wouldn't you want the same support in a rights violation by BA against you ?

Lets keep the moral opinions to a minimum and let the facts speak for themselves if we want to ever convince the doubters of the virtues of this case.

Congratulations JS and right call BALPA, lets have more of that fighting spirit.

[Phoebe Buffet]

If Jessica-rabbit is going to take an unknown amount time off for an unknown amount of children then work 50% on return and retire at 50 can I have her job in the meantime?.

I'll work 100% and be 100% loyal if you pay my training and wages on time.

[Flying Lawyer]

It was very generous of airrage to share what he had to say on the company forum, especially as he doesn’t visit here often any more.

Such a pity he doesn’t.
I’d like to have asked him which aspects of the Starmer case (if any) are (in his view) legitimately open to discussion. :confused:

[airrage]

Hi FL,

I think the discussion should revolve focus on whether JS was being discriminated against or not, whether her rights were being infringed upon, and if so, was it right for the union to provide her with legal support. In hindsight it appears she was legally in the right.

If we agree that she was legally in the right, then people here should aim their negative comments at the government who pass such laws, not question the integrity of the person who had to actually battle with her company, simply to get them to comply with the law. By all means question the legitimacy/economics of such laws, but that is not what is generally being commented on here.

[Re-Heat]

Part time pilots is NOT good. For OBVIOUS reasons. One of them is the reason BA stood up - safety. I agree with them.
And at what level of full-time flying does it become 'safe'? The maximum? O'Leary & co will be laughing to the bank if that is the case. It is not, and much lower levels of flying have been achieved safely by persons with lower hours both within BA in the past, and on part-time lines at many other carriers.

[GuinnessQueen]

Airrage,

Please clarify for me then that any UK worker, in any indsutry is entitled to demand (and then be given) 50% part-time working regardless of circumstances?

So regardless of whether the person has children (otherwise than would be discrimination against non-parents). Regardless of how long they have been employed and regardless of sex every employee is entitled to work as and when they like?

Surely this would bring industry to an end!

I think the area that has sparked the debate, is not because BA were discriminating but because JS showed a complete lack of compromise.

And as a previous posted stated, if she doesn't want her job...there's a few of us who can be bothered to put the effort in, and would very much like the opportunity!

GQ

[overstress]

GuinnessQueen: I believe we are recruiting, so why not apply? I believe that JS may want to re-apply for full-time in the future, but as I said, we are recruiting.

Capt Fillosan: the arguments for safety have been disproven, I did over 500 hours one year on P-T, approximately double my annual average whilst in the RAF. I never felt 'not current'. So by your argument all of that was unsafe? Also, the 'cake and eating it' - this means what exactly? It's not as if PTWK-ers get paid the same as full-time. You work less, you get paid less. Less cake, in that case. (BTW who buys a cake then doesn't eat it?)

FL: yes I know that JS brought the case, BALPA just represented her, but they had to given that they thought the case was valid and that they had a good chance of winning. Yes I was oversensitive, but I'm not used to mods being provocative, things have gradually changed here over the years.

Phoebe Buffet: see my reply to GuinnessQueen. You don't want JS's job, that's hers, but you're welcome to apply for your own!

There seems to be a problem with some contributors actually coming to terms with the fact that several UK airlines have pilots on P-T contracts, this seems to be viewed as some sort of unsafe heresy which somehow forces all the full-timers to have to work harder. In my case, I applied for PTWK then had to wait 10 months until the establishment was correct on my fleet.

[Harry Wragg]

You had to wait 10 months for PTWK, my god, your human rights have been infringed, better get on to BALPA :}

Harry

[airrage]

Guiness Queen


Airrage,

Please clarify for me then that any UK worker, in any indsutry is entitled to demand (and then be given) 50% part-time working regardless of circumstances?

So regardless of whether the person has children (otherwise than would be discrimination against non-parents). Regardless of how long they have been employed and regardless of sex every employee is entitled to work as and when they like?

I can't clarify that, nor did I try. But then that is not the legal case for which JS faught and won against BA. You can debate all you want about your opinion of employment law, but JS's case was about INDIRECT SEXUAL discrimination. The court found not only was BA indirectly discriminating against her, but safety was not a legitimate BA defense(as per other comments here), nor was BA's financial ability to offer her PTWK(another false arguement here).

I think the area that has sparked the debate, is not because BA were discriminating but because JS showed a complete lack of compromise.
By her lack of compromise I guess you are referring to her inflexibility on not allowing her employer to continue to ignore her rights, and ignore the fact they were breaking current UK employment legislation in the process ? Why should she compromise when, as proven by a UK court of Law twice now, she had every legal right to request what she desired ? Would you allow an employer to prevent you from something you were legally entitled too ?


And as a previous posted stated, if she doesn't want her job...there's a few of us who can be bothered to put the effort in, and would very much like the opportunity!

If anything JS has created more opportunity, for those looking for a job in BA, than existed when she was still Full-time. If you are lucky, this might trigger more PTWK for pilots in BA, thereby creating even more opportunity for those wanting a job in BA. You should celebrate the courts decision.

[overstress]

Harry Wragg: :confused:

[WeLieInTheShadows]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned here already but if you have a child under 4 and can prove to your company that it would be beneficial for them and for you to give you part-time working. It has a specific name - can't remember it now, anyway it's some government scheme that shows employers are being considerate towards their employees.

Cabin crew I know have applied for it and got it. They had to present their case to a board but at the end of the day got P/T outside of established lists.

Did shetry this course of action first?

Again...sorry if this had already been mentioned.

[Alex Whittingham]

airrage, you commented 'but safety was not a legitimate BA defense'. Safety would have been a very legitimate defense, what BA failed to do was convince the tribunal that putting JS on part time had a safety implication.

[Sparkle]

to Phoebe Buffet
With your name calling you have disqualified yourself from the discussion.
Answer this question for yourself in a quiet room: Are you really mature enough to drive an airliner?

[Phoebe Buffet]

Sparkle - what name calling???????????.

I'm all for JS having a career and family but I'm more interested in her job as are a few thousand other pilots.

[Carnage Matey!]

what BA failed to do was convince the tribunal that putting JS on part time had a safety implication.

Mainly because they had no evidence whatsoever to support their claim, only a gut feeling. The evidence was all on JS's side as previously discussed.

[airrage]

Alex

airrage, you commented 'but safety was not a legitimate BA defense'. Safety would have been a very legitimate defense, what BA failed to do was convince the tribunal that putting JS on part time had a safety implication.
I do not doubt SAFETY might have been a legitimate defense, but this thread refers solely to the JS case, where safety reasons failed as a defense for BA's refusal to put JS on PTWK.

[Alex Whittingham]

Either I'm misunderstanding you or you're missing the point. What I'm trying to say is that the tribunal would be unlikely to accept BA just saying 'Safety reasons', they would be asked to prove that safety was or would be prejudiced and it was in that proof that they failed. 'Safety reasons' is likely to still be a valid defense in some future tribunal if the circumstances turn out to be different.

[airrage]

I don't see where you think we disagree ? My last post said quite clearly;

"I do not doubt SAFETY might have been a legitimate defense, but this thread refers solely to the JS case, where safety reasons failed as a defense for BA's refusal to put JS on PTWK."

Safety reasons as provided by BA in the JS case failed. They failed wrt their "safety reasons" (ie. 2000 hr limit for 50% PTWK) defense.

[MikeGodsell]

Some time in the future.
A catastropic engine failure on a BA airbus, resulting in total loss.
The investigation finds that the First Officer, a Mrs Starmer, had been trained by BA but had not flown for more than two years. She had just completed a refresher course, but on the insistance of BALPA and the employment tribunal was flying only 50% of normal hours. !.......
If I was a relative of one of the dead pax, I might think that safety had been deliberately compromised.
MG:*

[Alex Whittingham]

Thanks airrage, I misunderstood what you were saying

[CaptainFillosan]

MG, that was my point exactly. Safety could be compromised with this ridiculous case and JS should come out and accept that!

Currency is not something to be taken lightly. Even if some feel they are current. Feeling it is one thing. Putting it into practice is another thing entirely.

Let us hope it sinks in sooner rather than later.

[Bronx]

"I do not doubt SAFETY might have been a legitimate defense, but this thread refers solely to the JS case, where safety reasons failed as a defense for BA's refusal to put JS on PTWK."
Can I get this straight.

Right or Wrong, BA think she aint got enough experience to only work 50% time.

BA don't call enough evidence to show the court why they think that.

BA lose the case.

So now they gotta let someone they don't think, Right or Wrong, is safe to be flying only 50% fly only 50%.


I cant see how can they honorably do that.
They gotta fire her.
Its gonna cost them but they screwed up the case.

[slj]

There is a lot of guidance on flexible working.

http://www.eoc-law.org.uk/cseng/family_friendly_hours/2.the_procedure_for_making_a_request_for_flexible_working_un der_the_era.asp sets out details on how to approach such claims. There appears to be good grounds for believing that BA appraoched this problem in a rather ham fisted manner and falls foul of this guidance. It seems that BA only began to get its act together when it was already too late.

You may ask yourself what on earth the personnel staff at BA were doing when Jessica was storming or were they just being ignored.

The guidance includes

Grounds on which an employer can refuse

The employer can only refuse the application on one of a number of specified grounds, which are set out in 80G(b)(i) to (ix) ERA. They are:
• the burden of additional costs
• detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand
• inability to re-organise work among existing staff
• inability to recruit additional staff
• detrimental impact on quality or performance
• insufficiency of work during periods the employee proposes to work
• planned structural changes
• other grounds as may be set out in regulations. (At the present time there are no other grounds).


The employer only has to give one reason for refusal. For example, an employer who states that the work cannot be re-organised among existing staff (80G(b)(iii) ERA) does not then have to consider whether to recruit additional staff (80G(b)(iv) ERA). However, in order to objectively justify an otherwise discriminatory refusal to allow flexible working under the SDA, the employer should consider recruiting another member of staff.


Obligation on employer to give reasons for refusal

If the employer refuses the application, it must provide in a written dated notice:
• which of the grounds for refusal apply
• a sufficient explanation as to why those grounds apply in relation to the application, and must
• set out the appeal procedure: Reg 5(b)(ii) Procedural Regs.
• The failure to comply with the obligations under Procedural Regs, Reg 4, 5 and 9 and 10 (which concern the employer's duty to notify the employee of their decision) a breach of the prescribed procedure entitling the employee to complain to an ET.

Thus, if the employer does not provide the necessary information, the employee can claim that he is in breach of the procedure and make a claim to the tribunal for compensation and for the employer to reconsider the application: Reg 6 Eligibility Regs.
The employer must give one of the prescribed grounds for refusal and an explanation as to why the grounds apply. There is no further clarification as to the extent of the explanation required and this will be for the ET to decide. The DTI guidance suggests that an explanation of around two paragraphs will usually be sufficient. If the employer does not give a prescribed ground and accompanying explanation, the employee can make a claim to the tribunal for compensation and for the employer to reconsider the application: Eligibility Regs, 6, Procedural Regs 4, 5(b)(ii).

In addition if the employer's reasons are based on incorrect facts, this will also provide the basis of a claim to the tribunal: s80H (1)(b). The DTI guidance says that facts must be accurate and although it is not a necessity for the employer to provide the detail in the explanation, they should ensure that they are able to back up any facts should they subsequently be disputed.

Examples of incorrect facts may be:
• that the employer could not provide cover from 9-9.30am for the telephones when other employees were willing and able to do this.
• That there was not enough work for the employee to do on the days suggested when this was not the case
• The employer had advertised for a job-share when it had not.

Provided that it follows the procedure and gives a prescribed reason and a sufficient explanation of the reason, the employer is not required to justify his decision objectively.

This leaves little scope for complaining to the tribunal in the event of a refusal. The employee's only option may be to bring a claim of sex discrimination under the SDA, if the necessary circumstances apply. If the claim is for direct discrimination (for example where a man is refused flexible working when it would be allowed to a woman) no justification defence is available to the employer. In indirect discrimination claims there is a higher burden on the employer, who has to objectively justify any refusal of flexible working –.

[Re-Heat]

A catastropic engine failure on a BA airbus, resulting in total loss
And a massive engineering failure has what exactly to do with flight deck safety MG?

[maxy101]

If they fire her it will cost BA millions.....do you really think they'd do that?

[Kirkwall]

One of the benefits of Jesica’s case is that it is now helping to force less enlightened companies to review their part time policies as applied to pilots.

Some companies still try to define a part time roster for a pilot as extra days off, but full time flying. i.e. for a company working pilots to the same levels as Jessica’s fleet, for a 75% part time agreement they would give her the extra days off, but would try to roster in more work to the available days to try and maintain a 100% flying rate i.e. 80-90 or more hrs per month. Lots of 4 sector 12 hr duties. This happens on a regular basis.

To put this into perspective, if an office worker were to take 60% part time contract on a similar basis and agree to work 3 days per week (for 60% pay), using this principle, the company would expect them to come in at 06.00 in the morning and leave at 21.00 at night.

This part time days off and full time hours principle still exists in my company, however, thanks partly to cases like this, it is now under review. Jessica and her colleagues are lucky in that they have some protection from this sort of thing, however, beware, the mangers who fought so hard to maintain this principle in one particular company might now be working for BA and could just possibly be on Jessica’s fleet. ;)

Good on you Jess, whatever people might be saying, your action is helping to drag the industry standard for part time pilots up to the same basic level as other workers.

I do hope you win the appeal.
:ok:

[Sparkle]

I still don't get it.
You don't want the girl to be able to work part time because you say it's unsafe.
Do you lot realise that a freshly qualified cadet with barely 200 hours is flying the line?

Ok, I am a pax on some line flight: I would like to be informed of the composition of my flight crew. My preference would be a training Captain and another Captain.
Not a 3000hr captain (let's face it: 3000 is not really that much experience) with a 190hr Fo coming straight from his little Seneca and his little Jet Appreciation course.
So when your relative is dead, are you gonna moan about that, too?

Phoebe, read your post again. I took offence in your name calling of Jessica.


The whole case fell flat on its face because BA introduced the 2000hr rule after the grievance procedure was under way.
They should have let it go through and afterwards quietly introduce it, so no-one could take advantage of it in future.
They moved the goal posts during the game, and that's what the judge didn't like.

[HORKA]

If anyone wants to talk about safety and part time, lets be very honest. Compare a pilot working a full time roster, with tours, three and four sector days, moving from early's to late's and vice versa. A fifty percent part time pilot is far safer from where I sit. Well rested, looks forward to their days flying and has a real quality of life.

Most airlines now have a problem, many Captains are requesting part time work and are not interested in the financial reward, they want their lives back. Lemons, pips and squeezing come to mind...... you will reap the seed that you sow.

The successful airlines will be the one's who recognise that part time working will attract and retain high quality professional's. Those Airlines that don't put agreements in place could struggle to crew aircraft.

Well done Jess, Dave and BALPA.

[One Step Beyond]

Unsafe my :mad: . 50% of 900 hours is 450 per year. Have you all forgotten so quickly that totals per year in and around this amount was the norm with flag-carriers pre 9/11? It wasn't unsafe then and it ain't now.

The only problem with all this is that BA are forced to carry the extra costs of such practices while the likes of Ryanair reject all forms of life-style improvements and can thus further undercut the better carriers.

You all should be focussing your ire on those airlines that don't allow such rosters rather than those who do and those who take advantage.

[Big Tudor]

Don't see how they can Heliport, not without a massive climbdown and loss of face.

I also wonder how Mrs Starmer is going to feel going back to flying, knowing that her employer believes (or believed) that she will be operating in an unsafe situation. Wonder how long it will be before 'safety' issues start arising? :rolleyes:

[thegypsy]

I wonder how long it will be before BA get young Jess to confirm that she never ever drives from the wilds of Dorset prior to a Flight Duty? I would want her to confirm where she stays before a duty and I would get Investigators to monitor her address in Dorset to make sure she does not cheat and put the travelling public at risk by a lengthy drive from her home in Dorset. Afterall the distance and time that she must allow for such a journey is way beyond what the CAA and BA deem safe prior to a Flight Duty.

[CaptainFillosan]

That point is of course entirely valid. 371 defines travelling time as 1 1/2 hours as the maximum and further states that should this time be exceeded, accomodation should be found nearer to base. Dorset is surely far enough to exceed that and her supporters cannot condone it - or can they? Safety is then an issue.

However, I strongly suspect that BA will correct some of their apparent ineptitude in dealing with the safety issues in due course.

As someone said much earlier, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

[maxy101]

You can tell the non BA employees on this thread by some of the comments. Comments referring to BA victimising JS or monitoring her as she drives to/from home are wide of the mark. Thousands of pilots/crew live more than 1.5 hrs away from work. (This topic has been done to death on pprune before) Unless BA monitors everyone,
JS will have a very good case for victimisation/discrimination again. As I understand it, there isn't a ceiling for damages/compensation, so BA could in theory be liable for millions. It will be easier just to let the matter drop. No loss of face...who cares? JS and her husband would probably find that they wont progress further than line captain in the company until the various players have gone or retired. But then that happens in all companies. Human nature I suppose....

[SR71]

I went into the RHS of a medium jet in the UK after 1 year of no flying whatsoever (post 9/11), 10 4hr sim sessions prior to an LST and 166.55hrs in my log-book total.

Frankly, I'm with the Americans on this one. I'm staggered the CAA mandate this kind of thing.

I heard an anecdotal story from one of our CSM's a few days ago about one of our new FO's, who is presumably in a similar position to that which I found myself in a few years ago, who expressed the sentiment to her, whilst the skipper was out of the flightdeck for a physiological break, that she'd rather have her (the CSM) on the flightdeck during that period in case anything went wrong.

The CSM was, of course a little startled, bearing in mind the last time she'd checked her logbook, the CAA hadn't certified her to fly a jet.

SIA added a SIN-JKT into the route network for the A345 because, as I understand it, pilots on this fleet would otherwise only get 1 TO or 1 LDG a month!

Valentino Rossi has spent 10000hrs on a bike in his life. Me? Maybe 2000hrs. Who is going to do a better job at work then? Arguably, even if he'd only spent 1hr on a bike, he'd do a better job than me, but the dependent variables that operating safely is commensurate upon include more than just annual hours. Which is presumably exactly what BA are trying to suggest, albeit poorly to date.

When did you last have a FD failure on your LPC/OPC? Did that make the detail significantly harder?

For me, there is no question whatsoever in my own mind, that the systems sophistication and redundancy on a modern commercial flightdeck hides a multitude of sins. However, it still won't catch them all - that nirvana remains to be attained. Altimeter settings and fuel checks spring to mind.

For me, therefore, the argument that one has flown a modern commercial jet for 450hrs/year for 20 years doesn't really justify the conclusion that this is best practise. And thats what I understand BA always endeavour to claim? Perhaps the aircraft capabilities are masking the pilots' deficiencies?

What would surely be far more revealing is to correlate pilot performance in major incidents with experience and currency levels. Even then, the study may not justify what I believe we all know is merely common-sense, namely, that the less time you spend in the seat, the worse your performance will generally be. (I'll ignore the argument that 900hrs a year is fatigue inducing etc etc.)

Whereupon, part-time pilots in the seat are always de facto, going to give you a less safe operation. They may still be better than another crew, but they'll never be as good as that crew could be.

People draw the line in the sand at different places depending on the size of their ego and I personally don't think the argument BA is advancing is particularly unreasonable. Arbitrary maybe? Unreasonable, no?

Of course, the fact that it then appears inconsistent may only serve to illuminate other areas of BA's operation that are also less than best practise inspite of what they claim.

My $0.02.

:ok:

[Capt Sly]

I also wonder how Mrs Starmer is going to feel going back to flying, knowing that her employer believes (or believed) that she will be operating in an unsafe situation. Wonder how long it will be before 'safety' issues start arising?
It is only one man (PoD) who thinks it is a saftey issue - unfortunately he is one of the higher people in flight ops and it is him that has been pushing the BA case. 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.

For me, therefore, the argument that one has flown a modern commercial jet for 450hrs/year for 20 years doesn't really justify the conclusion that this is best practise. And thats what I understand BA always endeavour to claim?
So what is the best number of hours to fly a year? Yes 10 is a bit low (recency etc), and I'm sure you'll agree 900 is too high (fatigue etc), is there really an optimum number of hours to fly in one year?

My 2p :confused:

[Genghis the Engineer]

So what is the best number of hours to fly a year? Yes 10 is a bit low (recency etc), and I'm sure you'll agree 900 is too high (fatigue etc), is there really an optimum number of hours to fly in one year?

I'll bet that if you look somebody's done research on it somewhere.

NATO define a minimum of 180 hours per year for full combat effectiveness in military pilots, so that's probably a good minimum to work with.


Of-course, the other issue here, not really mentioned, is financial. Medicals, sim checks, insurance etc. all cost money and have to be done per calendar year, not per flying hours. So, the less hours per year a pilot flies (even if paid pro-rata) the more expensive they become to their employer. I assume that BA doesn't want to set a precedent that could make employing aircrew massively more expensive than it is already.

G

[Flying Lawyer]

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? :confused:

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.

[Phoebe Buffet]

Sparkle: 'Jessica-rabbit' is a character in a movie, where is your mind................... in the gutter UGH!. You must be a bloke.

Airrage: I totally agree; the legal argument little Jess brought to the table was correct and she won not once but twice and will probably win again. It may have been a different case if BA got their act together but it they didn't it isn't and they lost.

However, personally I couldn't what JS has done as QDM says I would be happy to fly my butt off to gain as much experience and knowledge as possible in the early stages of my career.

Overstress: Of course I want a job on an Airbus or 747 doesn't every pilot?. Thanks for top tip abut BA recruitment at mo but didn't BA management just say:

'Clearly any airline might think twice about taking on a female pilot when a male candidate had equal qualifications if it was thought she might want to work parttime very quickly after she was recruited. That would definitely come into play and it wouldn't just be us'..........................doesn't sound too promising for me.

So all in all good for Jess but not so good for me - c'est la vie no one said life was fair or easy.

I have 4 options; return to my previous career, return to my previous employer flying 100hrs a month for $500 a month, hang around Uk doing odd jobs until the mood changes (not my fav as I've already spent £48 000 and several years studying training working) or start my own airline employing all those surplus female pilots - any/all suggestions welcome humorous ones preferable as I need a laugh.

[airrage]

Bronx
I just can't see how they can honorably let a pilot fly half time who they believe Right or Wrong ain't safe to fly half time.
BA don't believe JS is not safe. Nor do I imagine any of her training/SIM checks support this conclusion, or BA would have produced them. BA set an arbitrary min 2000hr figure as a precondition for 50% PTWK, after it looked like they were going to lose the case.

I quite rightly support any safety issue if it is was valid. If say BA received a request from a pilot for 50% who had a history of problems, then I would support their decision to reject such a request. Likewise if it was shown that a pilots performance had subsequently deteriorated to an unacceptable level once granted PTWK. Likewise if BA had statistical evidence to back up their arbitrary 2000hr limit.

PTWK pilots still have to pass the same 6-monthly checks that full-time pilots do. I would be surprised if there proved to be any correlation between one's performance and Time-in an airline, or FT vs PTWK. I have flown with both good and bad pilots, and this seems spread across the pilot spectrum, whether they have 35yrs experience or are on their first year. Is a 200-hr RAF pilot any less-proficient than an ex-RAF pilot who has been in an airline for the last 10yrs ? It's "complacency" that kills more airline pilots than "lack of experience", and complacency can happen at any time of one's Career.

Capt Filloscan, currency is not dependent on experience, or whether one is FT or PTWK.

Lets face it, not long ago a FT pilot flew 450hrs per year, not the current 900hrs. A 50% pilot would fly the same annual hrs a FT pilot would just 5yrs ago. If PTWK for a pilot is unsafe, then I suppose we should also prevent;
- Pilots taking holidays longer than just a couple days.
- Mgmt pilots who spend time in the office.(union Reps likewise)
- Make LH pilots return to SH every few months so they can increase their number of landings.

With the exponential rise in annual flying hours of the last few years, and the gov'ts increased push on "right to lifestyle", it is encumbent on the airlines to decide if Safety is an issue. If safety is proven to be an issue, then it is up to the airlines to instigate procedures to eliminate those risks, not just ignore the human rights of it's pilots. There is one other alternative, VOTE BNP next election and ask them to reverse human right policies back to the dark ages. :D

[Genghis the Engineer]

or start my own airline employing all those surplus female pilots - any/all suggestions welcome humorous ones preferable as I need a laugh.

The first thing that'll happen is an equal opportunities class action from lots of unemployed male pilots !

Assuming that you, say, set it up in the IOM where they don't care about equal opportunities, you'll still be stuck with male groundcrew. I doubt that there are enough women engineers in the UK to run a whole airliner!

G

[Carnage Matey!]

Three (or so) BA managers have said they don't think JS is safe to fly. None of them prevented any evidence as to why they think JS is no safe to fly. Their training department, and the trainers who conducted the sim checks, have presented no evidence as to why JS is unsafe to fly. In fact the training records indicate exactly the opposite. If BA could ground any pilot simply because a manager thought they were unsafe to fly, despite all evidence pointing to the contrary, then we'd be in a lot of trouble. The simple outcome would be that the manager who's ego has driven this case would resign, having been judged to have no evidence to support his case not once but twice. We live in hope.

[MarkD]

all this fighting... don't you know that Willie W will just put her in a tacky uniform and she'll resign of her own volition? (See the Aer Lingus quit or be pushed thread)

[SR71]

Scenario:

In-experienced FO climbs out of sim with skipper and TRE/TRI and TRE/TRI says:

"How do you think that went?"

FO says:

Like a dogs dinner. Wish I could spend a bit more time in the sim to ensure a better performance. Once every six months isn't enough.

How many times have we all heard it? How many times have you heard the skipper say the aforementioned! How many times does the TRE/TRI disagree?

Its easy to leave the speedbrake out during a GPWS manoeuvre. Not serious? Thats a killer.

So why don't we? Nothing to do with safety and everything to do with economics.

However, lets run with the notion that if you meet the CAA LPC/OPC requirements, you're good enough. (We'll forget about the fact that these details are predictable - I mean an EFATO on T/O, to a OEI ILS to DH, followed by a OEI GA for a OEI NDB/VOR/LLZ to minima to land...)

Why don't we let two guys/gals up the front then with 200hrs on their ticket?

Normally the occupant of the LHS has enough hours on his license (albeit there probably isn't any evidence to justify the generally accepted belief that 3-3500hrs is good enough to see you knocking on the door of a command assessment - in fact that figure is probably the result of a clause on an insurance policy somewhere and it is this that dictates the policy more than anything else...I stand to be corrected. It does spring to mind, though, that the skipper of the DHL A300 that got hit by a missile out of Baghdad had only slightly more than 3000hrs TT...) to guarantee that, if on the day you have a EFATO and you're both a little complacent, his/her wider breath of knowledge and experience is going to get you through the experience.

Now maybe BA pilots, being the diligent bunch they are, take advantage of their freely available sim facilities prior to their sim checks (I certainly know a few mates who exericse this luxury I don't have but would certainly like!), but, generally, a 2000hr FO has only done ~3 LPC/OPC's!

The bottom line is that safety isn't about time in the seat when everything is going right, but how you react when everything is going wrong.

The reason we don't have a monkey in the flightdeck with us, is because although a monkey could be trained to execute our various SOP's, the most important and significant part of claiming a safe operation is what happens when something non-normal occurs. An in-experienced monkey at this point, isn't much use.

Airrage believes that having met the CAA requirements and in the absence of evidence to suggest the contrary, JS is a safe pilot.

I suggest not half as safe as she/we could be.

Bloody bean-counters.

:ok:

[Brakes...beer]

"freely available sim facilities prior to their sim checks"? News to me - what fleet are they on?

[airrage]

Elegant post SR71

But I draw you to your own conclusion....

The bottom line is that safety isn't about time in the seat when everything is going right, but how you react when everything is going wrong.
Experience alone, or whether one is FT or PTWK also doesn't dictate how one reacts in the seat when everything is going wrong either. I would rather have a ****-hot junior PTWK pilot with low hours, than a more Senior, high-hour pilot who has been known to have trouble at various times throughout their Career. Anyone in training will tell you, they know who the marginal pilots are, and they can be found in both seats, with various experience levels, and irrespective of being FT or PTWK.

The reason we don't have a monkey in the flightdeck with us, is because although a monkey could be trained to execute our various SOP's, the most important and significant part of claiming a safe operation is what happens when something non-normal occurs. An in-experienced monkey at this point, isn't much use.
A monkey is a monkey, experienced or otherwise, PTWK monkey or a FTWK monkey. The reason we don't have a monkey in the flight deck with us is because a monkey doesn't have the intellectual ability of critical thinking required to do the job, no matter how much experience you give them. There are some pilots who are more like monkeys, fulltime or not, and there are others who could never be called a monkey, even if they flew only once a year.

In every profession there are those who just barely make the grade, and seem to trundle through their entire Career just getting by. Experience can help them disguise this fact, but the underlying fact remains. There are others who seem to have no difficulty in overcoming whatever comes their way. Anyone who has spent time in aviation knows that there are good/bad pilots in any airline, and it is not just a case of reversing the Seniority list to list the bad ones.

All this debate boils down to is one's personal opinions on Safety. Things like PTWK, fatigue, experience on type, etc are all factors sure, but I think one needs to review each individual on their own merit before passing a blanket judgement on what someone can/can't cope with. Saying all PTWK's are more likely to be unsafe ignores the mutlitude of other factors that constitute a good pilot. In my opinion, if you want to improve Safety, all marginal pilots should be given more training/access to Sims, wherever, and in whichever seat they occupy, and regardless of how much time-in/experience they have.

[Harry Wragg]

Its a real shame then that she is never at work to demonstrate this brilliance. What is the point of an employee who can't work?

Harry

[thegypsy]

I think BA made a big mistake going down the "not safe route" as being short haul she will still be pretty current as and when she eventually returns to work.!!

Far better to tell young Jess. Look here dear you have only been in BA five minutes. We have invested a lot in you and we would like to see some return on our money. You knew full well you would be short haul yet you chose to live in the wilds of Dorset thus exacerbating your child care problem. She is all take and no give. I feel BA's offer of 75% more than reasonable at this stage in her illustrious career as I believe she has jumped the queue??

[Wiley]

'thegypsy', thank you for saying - (at last!) - after 24 pages on this thread and almost as many on the earlier thread, in one succinct paragraph, what I suspect the vast majority of pilots feel about the lady's stance.

I can't help but feel that there are many aspiring young women aviators out there who'll be sticking pins into JS dolls as they review what this lady had done to their employment prospects - and I can't say I'd blame them one bit for doing so.

I see this case as a sort of 'Enoch Powell moment' for women pilots. (I think most people old enough to remember the reactionary stance taken by many old and bold male pilots when women pilots first started appearing in our ranks will understand what I'm getting at with that comment.)

Thanks to her exercising her rights far earlier than many would feel is reasonable, there will now be some recruiters who'll convienently forget the 99.99% of female pilots who've put in the not so pleasant years with a a low seniority number and worked as hard as their male contemporaries, and remember only one, the redoubtable Ms Starmer.

[Flying Lawyer]

airrageIf we agree that she was legally in the right, then people here should aim their negative comments at the government who pass such laws, not question the integrity of the person who had to actually battle with her company, simply to get them to comply with the law. By all means question the legitimacy/economics of such laws, but that is not what is generally being commented on here. Thank you for answering my question, and apologies for my delay in responding – work intervened.
With respect, I think it’s unrealistic to think there could possibly be a discussion of such a high profile case without comments being made (critical and supportive) of the actions of the person who brought the claim. Mrs Starmer’s claim was based entirely on her personal circumstances so IMHO it’s not unreasonable that people should express views on all those circumstances and the person’s conduct.
eg You see her as someone who “had to actually battle with her company, simply to get them to comply with the law” and think her integrity shouldn’t be questioned. Others disagree. Even in these days of ‘all rights and no responsibility’, there are those who don’t respect people who won’t (in their view) 'give and take' – even when the law doesn’t require them to give anything. Others criticise her behaviour given how little she's actually flown in the years she's been employed by BA since they sponsored her training - regardless of what the law says. Surely they are respectable points of view - whether or not you agree with them?

Furthermore, let’s not forget it was Mrs Starmer who chose to play the ‘poor little me’ card in the public arena by involving the media. When people do that, they open up their character and motives to discussion, and run the risk of people pointing out that’s not the full picture. Those sickly photographs of her holding her ‘darling Beth’ which were published in the press were nothing to do with legal argument. She could simply have taken her claim to the Employment Tribunal and allowed it to decide if her claim was valid under the relevant law. It wasn’t by chance that representatives of the world’s press turned up at Watford on a Monday morning. The well-organised media campaign may have been on BALPA’s advice, but it was her choice to agree to it. She's clearly a determined and tough person who knows what she wants, and can’t be made or persuaded to do something she doesn’t want to do – as BA found out to its cost.
Frankly, I think those on her fleet who strongly disapprove of her behaviour (and there are, despite the impression her supporters here try to create) have been very restrained in not drawing attention to matters they consider cast doubt upon her claim to set such store by the importance of family life.

IMHO, just because someone is legally entitled to get what they want doesn’t mean doing so necessarily demonstrates integrity – and may even be regarded as lacking integrity when all the circumstances (including the consequences to others in general or to another person in particular) are taken into account.
In a professional context, I’ve used the law to win cases for people who, in my personal opinion, had little or no merit on their side and whose behaviour showed no integrity. I don’t choose my clients (any more than professional pilots choose their passengers) and it doesn’t necessarily mean I respect or admire them or the way they’ve behaved.

thegypsy
While many people (certainly the overwhelming majority on the two Starmer threads) would agree with you and regard it as entirely reasonable, BA would have handed her a cast iron claim if they’d said that. BA lost anyway, but they wouldn’t even have had an arguable defence.

great expectations
No-one so inexperienced had applied to work 50% before. As you say, there wasn’t a formal policy in place at the time of her application. "So really on one single little cadet, they arent going to lose very much money in the grand scheme of things are they. All they need do is implement whatever policy suits them from here on in and be done with it all. Learn from this one case and move on." I doubt if the first proposition is correct, but the second certainly isn’t. It’s not as simple as that. BA can’t just “implement whatever policy suits them from here on in.” If challenged, the policy will be subject to the same scrutiny before a tribunal as the refusal in the Starmer case. ie BA would have to be able to justify the policy.
Of course, BA will be forewarned and so may be better armed to deal with the experience/recency issue than they appear to have been on this occasion. BA’s Personnel department (or ‘People’ as it was called when I last heard) will undoubtedly have learned a few harsh lessons, but I have some sympathy for those who have to avoid the pitfalls of a legal framework which few employment lawyers would claim is intuitive.

[Flying Lawyer]

GE
Err, no. :confused:
When I said "It’s not as simple as that" I was referring to your assertion that BA could implement any policy that suits them in the future. They can't.


BTW, you said something on another thread which seems rather similar to one of the points many of those who don't admire Mrs Starmer's behaviour have been making on this thread."Making a commitment to aviation is i guess like making a commitment to a person. Your personal options become very limited. But every great dream has its price." Was that by any chance at a time when you were thrilled BA had selected you to be a cadet? Apologies in advance if I'm on the wrong track, but I noticed you'd been training with BA at Jerez and assume that means you were a cadet. If I'm right, it's interesting how quickly after being sponsored to become a pilot by one of the world's top airlines such a positive attitude becomes: "Often wonder myself what BA look for in a pilot considering some of the skippers I have had to fly with. " Funny old world.

[normal_nigel]

In a professional context, I’ve used the law to win cases for people who, in my personal opinion, had little or no merit on their side and whose behaviour showed no integrity

The law is most certainly an Ass.

Just great if you can earn a fat pile of cash playing the game I suppose.

[Flying Lawyer]

n_n

The law can indeed be an ass. The overwhelming majority view in discussions here has been that, on this occasion, it is. I happen to agree.
Arguments about the actual law aside, no objective observer who knows the facts and understands the relevant law would suggest Mrs Starmer wasn't quite lucky with the original tribunal.
The Appeal Tribunal has an important, but nonetheless very limited, function - to review the decision and decide whether the orignal tribunal was entitled to reach the conclusion it did. Unless the original tribunal made a mistake of law or came to a decision which was "perverse" (the legal test), an Appeal Tribunal has no power to interfere. ie The question is not 'Would we have come to the same conclusion?' but 'Was the original tribunal entitled to come to the conclusion it did?'

Re earning 'playing the game'.
I don't see it as a game, and those most directly involved in court cases (the parties) rarely do.
When I defend a pilot, it's no part of my job to believe or disbelieve his defence, and I don't allow any personal views I may form to influence the way in which I do the case. I don't try harder if I believe a client and 'throw the fight' if I don't. My opponent presents the prosecution case to the best of his ability, and the jury decides. SOP in the criminal justice systems of all civilised countries.
Similarly, when I'm instructed on behalf of someone wishing to bring or to defend a civil claim, my professional function is to advise whether they have an arguable case in law and, if so, to present it - not tell them what I think personally of the morality (or otherwise) of their bringing or defending the claim.

We aren't permitted to pick and choose briefs depending upon our personal views.
The barristers who appeared in the Starmer case may or may not have been sympathetic (on a personal level) to the side they represented. I have no idea. They are both employment law specialists so could just as easily been acting for the other side.
I'm preparing a fatal accident (aviation) case at the moment. A couple of days after receiving the brief, I was asked by solicitors on the other side if I could accept a brief or had already been instructed by their opponents. Had the solicitors asked in a different order, I'd have been on the other side. Some might see it as a game. I see it as doing my job as an advocate.


As for 'a fat pile of cash', I know many successful barristers doing all criminal work who would be delighted if their annual income matched that of a senior BA captain - and be in danger of hyperventilating at the thought of retiring at 55 on his/her BA pension. ;)



(I hope we don't side-track this very interesting thread, but I couldn't let your comments pass without a response.)

[normal_nigel]

FL

Sidetrack I know but thanks for your comments.

Whilst I appreciate the principle and right of legal representation I still find that the actions of a defence lawyer defending what is to everyone else the "indefensible" quite stomach churning, especially as (if I am correct) Defence Barristers command far greater salaries than their colleagues employed by the CPS.

If this is true it surely leads to the higher achievers being employed largely on the side of the defence and therefore giving the lesser desirables in our society a greater advantage in court?

Is it any wonder that the Police and CPS seem to have grave difficultly in securing convictions in what, on the face of it, seem pretty safe cases for the prosecution? Or is that symptematic of the make up and nature of our juries particularly in the Inner Cities? (source friends who are Police and one CPS Solicitor).

As for pay, the only Barrister that I am familiar with earns in excess of £250000pa. He defends mostly criminals involved in organised crime.

I'm told he does rather well! Good luck to him but the sour tatste remains in many peole's mouths at the though of such high rewards for ensuring our streets are populated by criminals??

Happy to recieve a pm if required.

Best wishes

NN

[Argus]

Ah, NN, you fall into error when you assert that Defence lawyers command far greater salaries than their CPS colleagues

I'm afraid it's just not so. Most criminal defence lawyers are remunerated via the Legal Aid cheque. As a recipient of same from time to time, I can assure you that what Legal Aid pays doesn't even cover the costs of opening the office door in the morning. The only compensator in my experience is that Legal Aid, unlike some clients, does pay accounts promptly.

[Phoebe Buffet]

It doesn't matter how much lawyers get paid for doing their job.

It doesn't matter that JS didn't read her T's and C's to discover she wasn't automatically entitled to 50% PTWK as a mother.

It doesn't matter that she lives in the middle of nowhere.

It doesn't matter that she 'leapfrogged' over more senior colleagues .

It doesn't matter how few hours she has.

It doesn't matter that she has no respect or feels no obligation for the employers who gave her a cadetship.

It doesn't matter how she became the second Mrs Starmer or her 'family values'.

It doesn't matter what she chooses to do next in her career; there are plenty of Airbus operators who will snap both her and her husband up - doubt if BA will ever employ their daughter(s) though.

................at the end of day, and yes it galls me, she brought an argument that was correct; in this country it is legal to have a career and a family irrespective of age or professional experience.

So legally correct but in my opinion oh so morally wrong but that is just my sense of british fair play; I've never seen the employer/employee thing as an US and THEM but more of a symbiotic relationship where trust and respect are earnt on both sides and not automatically given.

Nice girls finish last and JS is def winning!.

[Jetstream Rider]

Airrage - its legally OK to do all sorts of things that are not RIGHT. Are you suggesting that the law is the only arbiter of our world - that the law makers have thought of every possible thing?

Its not illegal cut your own leg off with a saw, but it doesn't mean because it isn't against the law you should do it without any recourse to morality or common sense.

Starmer has "cut the legs" off of future women pilots and of the company she works for. This was supported by BALPA, and paid for inpart by me:yuk:. Morally and decently it is wrong. Playing the law for an individuals advantage to the loss of all others in this case is not morally winnable.

[Lord_Flashhart]

I have been saying for sometime that BA will regret employing so many Cadets who have had no RAF experience.

Couple the cadet employment with the PC policy of employing women, in a profession that they clearly are not suited to, and look what happens.

[Bumblebee]

ROFL at ^^^^^^^^^^

Took your time eh Flashy?

been waiting for that....:}

[Lord_Flashhart]

My Dear Chap

I am thrilled that my attitudes amuse you but I can assure you they are genuine.

I have nothing against these dear ladies, but not in the flight deck, especially one who has not "earned her crust" in Her Majesty's Armed Forces.

[Bronx]

If you check out Lord F's posts, he don't think guys should be in the cockpit either unless they've been in the military first. Extreme minority opinions like that don't do no harm, nobody takes them seriously.

It's women like Mrs Starmer that put the cause of women pilots back years. All take, no give. Compromise? Forget it. They make it harder for women to get sponsored training, worry companies about employing them and give ammo to the folk who're prejudiced against women pilots.
It's rough on women who ain't like that.
Just my two cents.

[Paterbrat]

Lord F_H is merely a passing angler casting an opportunistic fly. JS not a nice girl using the law to it's maximum with scant regard for anybody else but herself. Sadly also representative of a great number of the new generation.

[BOAC]

Indeed, a 'passing angler' but one with an excellent fly which has hooked many large fish.

[Flying Lawyer]

Oh dear, Lord FH won't like you saying that. :eek:
He says he always means everything he posts.

Course he does. ;)

[kotakota]

If anyone thinks the Starmer story is bad , wait another couple of years. I have always been happy to fly with female pilots , they are no different to males - some good , some bad , some keen , some bored.
I do , however , think that BA got it badly wrong with the male/female balance of intakes in the late 90's. There were a disproportionate number of females being taken in. Surely noone can honestly claim that more of them were applying than males ?
However , that is all water under the bridge now.
The problem lying dormant at the moment is that , like J Starmer , most of these ladies will naturally want to start families at some stage. Nothing wrong with that , of course , but the demographics make it a little more complicated. There are over a hundred in the same age bracket , and they will mostly put off the kids until well established in BA , either as SFO's on long-haul or even captains on shorthaul.
It may not happen , but chances are that at least 30-40 will be pregnant at the same time , and all will be instantly grounded.
BA is used to dealing with large numbers of intakes/training , but I think this particular hiccup will provoke much soul-searching and finger-pointing. The politically correct brigade will not, of course , get it in the neck. The pity of it is , that BA were very slow to employ their first female crew , and, if my memory serves me correctly , it was not until the late 80's that they pinched some Direct Entry girls from Dan Air and then splashed them all over the papers as their own little triumph!They have mismanaged the PC thing ever since.

[Phoebe Buffet]

Kotakota: ~ CAA UK figures ........ 11 000 male and 500 female

~ BA figures............... 2980 male and 152 female


Looks to me like BA hiring policy was a reflection of what was happening in the industry.

Looks to me like women don't have a 'toe in the door' never mind a foot.

The difference I believe between JS and most women pilots is that JS didn't establish herself in the company before taking maternity leave and then demanding 50%PTWK........as someone posted earlier 'all take and no give'.

[Human Factor]

Phoebe,

How old are your BA figures? At the last count we had 2996 pilots (M & F) total....

The 152 F sounds about right though.

[Carnage Matey!]

Not to mention that almost any article featuring flight crew in BAs in-house newspaper features a picture of a female pilot. Also the in-flight magazine 'pilot of the month' section features a woman every other month. BA, and one manager in particular, have been pushing the female pilot cause for at least 5 years and now its come back to bite them:=

[Phoebe Buffet]

Human Factor: Sorry - the figures I managed to source seem to be 16 pilots off your stats....................I did cover myself by saying they were approx (~).

Apologies.