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

[Dave Fielding]

I have registered on Pprune under my real name and am not hiding my identity. I am the BALPA rep who has supported and represented Jessica Starmer throughout this whole process. I have spent a large amount of time on the BA BALPA forum answering questions about the case, and it has been suggested to me that I come here to do the same.

35 pages of postings is a lot to wade through, so I have skimmed through a lot of pages. Forgive me, therefore, if a point has been made before. It is hard to know where to start in a situation like this, and I felt it more appropriate to start a new thread. Possible the first thing to do is to scotch the rumour that Jessica has rejected a 50% offer. I spoke to her only a few days ago and nothing was mentioned. Indeed, it would make no sense for BA to offer her such a contract when it is appealing the very point. Would you in their shoes?

As for the case, the sentiments expressed here are pretty similar - though slightly less politically correct - than our internal forum. Many opinions arise from insufficient information, a point I always find perplexing given that pilots are trained to get as much information as possible before coming to a conclusion. So, this is my job: to give you as much information as I am able given that the case is still sub judice.

BALPA has a set process for determining whether a legal claim should be progressed. If the Legal Advisory Committee, in consultation with our lawyers, deem that a case has greater than a 50% chance of succeeding, then the NEC would have to have an extremely good reason not to support the case. Accordingly, when Ms Starmer approached us last year after her appeal had failed, we took on the case because it met the required criteria.

BA initially rejected her 50% application on the grounds of resource. The same reasons were upheld at the appeal. It was only when we indicated that if a negotiated solution was unsuccessful we were taking the case to tribunal did the safety argument start to appear.

The basis for our case was firstly that the resource argument for a company the size of BA did not stack up, and secondly that notwithstanding the fact that the rules had apparently changed half-way through the game, this 2000 hour limit was arbitrary, had no basis in fact, and had a disproportionate effect on females as opposed to males. Hence the discrimination, as four times as many applications for PTW in BA come from females as opposed to males.

Whilst it is most unusual for BALPA to disagree with BA on matters of safety, we did on this one. Whilst it can be argued that the safe way to operate is to have the 2000 hour limit, it can equally be argued that the safe way to operate is to fly with as much fuel as the TOPL will allow every flight. This does not happen in reality, as the fuel for each flight is calculated on an individual basis. Thus we argued that applications for PTW should be considered on a case-by-case basis and not by blanket restrictions. Our expert witnesses, BA training captains, testified that it is possible to make such individual assessements based on the skill and experience of the BA training system. In addition, BA also has a mature and well-developed system of recurrent checks which are very capable of detecting any decrease in standards. Indeed, these very systems DID pick up some decrease in some existing 50% contracts, but interestingly the pilots concerned were all highly experienced.

The tribunal agreed with us that BA had not demonstrated any evidence that flying less than 75% was unsafe. We, on the other hand, presented the evidence of the Airbus in the 1990s, when there were only 10 aircraft and relatively little flying. The data we had gathered, which BA did not contest, showed that the brand new P2s, mainly cadet pilots, safely flew over a 10-year period averaging only 67% of what the average Airbus P2 flies today. Furthermore, BA recruited two of these co-pilots after only 2 years in the company and less than 1000 BA hours to be managers, flying at best a 50% roster.

BALPA are delighted that the tribunal found in our favour, and are disappointed that BA are appealing. PTW has only been in Flight Ops in BA for about 4 years and, like many of our policies, has grown organically over the years with the changes in legislation. There are many aspects to it which desperately need updating, particuarly when the changes to the CRA next year probably will have a dramatic effect on our seniority list. PTW may well be the only way to keep any form of movement on the list at all, and it is vital we get it right, both in terms of allocation and bidding / rostering. Cases like Jessica's help this process enormously, as they force all parties to sit down and examine the way we do things.

Why are only 2.9% of professional licence holders in the UK female? What is it about our industry that is so unattractive to females? Being a mother and being a pilot should in no way be incompatible. In years to come we as an industry will have increasing difficulty in attracting sufficient pilots. Alienating 50% of the potential workforce would not seem a particularly clever way of addressing the problem. Yet this case goes further than child care, as our General Secretary pointed out. By fighting and winning a case against crude and discriminatory blanket restrictions, it opens the possiblities for many more pilots to work part-time for reasons other than child care. The law dictates that Right to Request cases come top of the heap, and that females are most likely to be the primary carer, therefore require more adjustments to their working practices. To a lot of males, that seems positive discrimination, but that is what the law says. The statistics, if you read the judgement carefully, back this both in BA and nationally. Remember, however, that whatever is agreed at the top of a pile more than likely filters down in time.

Enough for one posting. I await questions and comment.

Regards

Dave

[moggiee]

Is Miss/Mrs Starmer not pregnant again? Does this not show a certain lack of intent to return to her job in any meaningful sense? Does that not perhaps suggest that this claim was more of a financial fishing expedition than a true discrimination case?

Surely time away from work at her relatively inexperienced stage has to be considered as well as just hours? If you are flying 67% of current hours but doing so consistently over 12 months of the year, that MUST be safer than flying at the standard rate and then taking 15 months out to have a baby and trying to then regain currency?

forgive my ignorance on these matters (being male) but at what stage in a pregnancy would the average mum-to-be cease flying and at what point after giving birth would the average new mother return to flying?

I dare to suggest that if there is a period of more than 6 months between those two dates then a serious amount of re-training would be required and a period of consistent and fairly intensive line flying required post re-training to attain the level of currency that would then allow a pilot to drop back to 50% PTW. 50% must work out at less than 350hours per year or under 30 hours per month and that, for a pilot who has been out of the job for a while having a baby, can not be enough.

[Dave Fielding]

Mr M.

Does this not show a certain lack of intent to return to her job in any meaningful sense?

No, it shows a wish to have her children close together. Nowhere to my knowledge is it written that you cannot do this simply because you are a pilot. Plenty of female pilots have had two or more children close together and thus have taken a large amount of time off and have come back at 50%. This is not a new phenomenon. What is new in Jessica's case is that Jessica's (and two other females who applied for 50% at the same time) application was denied on resource grounds when the department had made zero budget for Airbus P2s 50%. Then the safety argument arose half-way through. It was never considered at the time of the application nor at at the appeal.

As for the question of standards after time off, Jessica successfully completed her return course in 15 days to the high and exacting standards required by BA. The phrase 'cleared for line flying' is a powerful one and means one thing - you are good enough. The same phrase would apply if you had been off long term sick for up to 18 months and returned to flying. BA training has its standards. They are very high, and they will not release anyone on to the line unless they are satisfied that the pilot is capable of doing the job, regardless of how much time they have had off. Incidentally, there then follows a period of 2 months' full-time consolidation before the PT flying commences.

As for your query about when a female is grounded, in BA they are grounded as soon as they declare themselves to be pregnant.

Hope this helps

Dave

[bazzaman96]

Dave,

Thank you for your response. I would like to start the ball rolling with a few observations, but first: a question:

You said:

"BALPA has a set process for determining whether a legal claim should be progressed. If the Legal Advisory Committee, in consultation with our lawyers, deem that a case has greater than a 50% chance of succeeding, then the NEC would have to have an extremely good reason not to support the case. Accordingly, when Ms Starmer approached us last year after her appeal had failed, we took on the case because it met the required criteria".

I am unfamiliar with the inner workings of BALPA but perhaps you could clarify this: does this mean BALPA has an internal policy of supporting pilot's claims where they stand a 50% chance of succeeding? Surely (please correct me if I am misguided) there is an element of discretion, whereby BALPA can decide whether it agrees with the pilot's claim in the first place?!

You said:

"secondly that notwithstanding the fact that the rules had apparently changed half-way through the game"

Can you confirm this: other posts, many of them seemingly well-informed, suggest that the rules were not changed after the request - but in 2003?

You said:

"This 2000 hour limit was arbitrary, had no basis in fact, and had a disproportionate effect on females as opposed to males"

In law, as you may be aware, these are known as 'indisctinctly applicable' measures - where there is, prima facie, the same burden in law, but a different burden in fact. Surely the tribunal, however, has failed to recognise that there is an element of CHOICE in having a baby (most of the time)? If I don't like sunlight then I shouldn't apply for a job that involves me being in the sun - why should the onus be on my employer to find me a job working at night? Mrs Starmer made a choice in having a child - there is no discrimination based solely on the fact that she is a women. Thus, I would distinguish the argument that the part-time-hours rule is indirectly applicable on the basis that it only affects women after they have exercised their own discretion in having a child. The issue of gender is a red herring. What matters is - as has been argued without acknowledgment on the other thread - lifestyle discrimination. Presumably a male applying for 50% hours in order to look after his child will now be entitled to the same leave?

You said:

"In addition, BA also has a mature and well-developed system of recurrent checks which are very capable of detecting any decrease in standards. Indeed, these very systems DID pick up some decrease in some existing 50% contracts, but interestingly the pilots concerned were all highly experienced"

This seems to contradict the basis of BALPA's argument, surely? Firstly, the suggestion that the recurrent checks in place will detect a decrease in standards is irrelevant - because by that time the damage is done! If the standards have slipped then BA will have to spend funds on retraining before the pilot can resume service. There is no point claiming that these checks can counterbalance the decrease in the pilot's abilities, because by this argument fails to consider the commercial interests of the employer - something that the law leans against these days. Secondly, the fact that the decreases in ability were picked up in experienced pilots does not lead to the logical conclusion that they ability won't decrease in less experienced pilots - rather, it shows that if it can happen to the best, it is at least possible it will happen to those with less hours, even if BA hasn't produced empirical evidence to show this is the case.

You said:

"The tribunal agreed with us that BA had not demonstrated any evidence that flying less than 75% was unsafe."

I want to draw attention to this remark for interest, if nothing else. Surely the question here isn't whether it is safe or unsafe, but whether it is safe to the standards of safety that BA requires. Aviation is a tough industry and airlines rightly demand the best of their cadets throughout the training process. To argue that flying less than 75% is still safe is to argue that airlines aren't free to impose stricter requirements on their employees. Consider, for example, the case of an applicant to a flying school who wishes to embark on a sponsored fatpl. Why shouldn't that flying school impose very high standards of competence and ability, so as to ensure that their standards are the very best. What BALPA seems to have done (and I would be interested to hear your response) is say that as long as the minimum threshold is reached we are content - what ever happened to the idea of striving to excel?

You said:

"Why are only 2.9% of professional licence holders in the UK female? What is it about our industry that is so unattractive to females? Being a mother and being a pilot should in no way be incompatible."

I appreciate that many people will bring calls of 'sexist', but I think political correctness has distorted the situation here. You suggest that being a mother and being a pilot should in no way be incompatible. Yet these are CHOICES. You don't HAVE to be a mother. Consider the following: being fat and being an athlete. Or being blind and being a driving instructor. Some jobs are incompatible with some lifestyles, and rightly so! Of course it is important to strive for equality in employment, but the point is that there should be no ARBITRARY discrimination between men and women. If you want a 9-5 job then you don't become a pilot - simple as that! I find it tiring that the gender discrimination argument is confused with lifestyle discrimination. There is no discrimination between men and women - there is only discrimination between mothers and non-mothers. To assert that women are more likely to be mothers is to ignore the fact that this is largely a matter of choice - if a male pilot wanted to adopt a child, presumably you would agree that they ought to be given part-time working hours?

My summary is simple: it's not sexist to point out that having a child is a lifestyle choice. Clearly we want to fight to remove barriers to employment based upon gender. But to use the fact that only 2.9% of commercial pilots are female is to stoop to a very low level and bring in an irrelevant statistic to the argument. I am very sorry that there aren't more female pilots - there clearly should be. But first, all pilots - male and female - must show their dedication to the job and recognise that they are in a highly competitive industry and are lucky to be so. If they want to have children then to me that seems no different to deciding that they want to emigrate to Australia - some lifestyle choices are incompatible with some jobs. It is not sexist to think that.

I for one hope that BA's appeal succeeds. If Mrs Starmer is concerned about her children's welfare and is also concerned about equality, why doesn't her husband take 75% hours - between them they would have just as much time off as if she took 50%. Or is that because she thinks that raising children is a woman's job: perpetuating the very idea she is trying to combat?

[Argus]

Flying Lawyer

Thank you for a helpful and informative post. (Summary of the Tribunal's judgment on the other thread.)

IMHO, the question of what are 'reasonable requirements' is a matter for expert evidence, not only from pilots but also from others holding recognised qualifications in aviation management and safety.

You say some expert witnesses were called but only from within BA. A pity. Doubtless this situation will be reviewed on appeal. But from what you say, I have some difficulty in accepting that a lay tribunal can hold itself out as an expert finder of fact, citing a lack of "cogent evidence", when the expert evidence led by BA, albeit from within its own ranks, was to the contrary.

Seems like a case made in heaven for judicial review on errors of law including: failing to take into account relevant considerations, taking irrelevant considerations into account, the Tribunal misconceiving its function and BAs legitimate expectation that its legal liberty to manage its safety affairs as it sees fit according to law has been unlawfully interfered with.

Isn't the Asisminic doctrine still good law in England?

[Wiley]

Dave, forgive a layman adding his tuppence worth to this thread, but I think your drawing a parallel with low time ex-cadets being recruited into management (and therefore flying only the equivalent of a 50% roster) with Ms Starmer is spurious.

I wouldn’t argue for a minute that sitting at a desk in company head office, doing whatever company-related duties that might entail, is equivalent to flying the line. But those duties, whatever they may be, are company-related. The manager’s head is into whatever it is he is doing, be it re-writing a manual - or any one of the myriad other things the company finds to occupy the minds of its aspiring leadership.

Being at home raising your child/children cannot be compared with it. The person placed in that incredibly important position needs to have her/his head on a totally different plane (if you’ll forgive the unfortunate - and unintentional - pun).

Some will call me a Neanderthal for saying it, but in my opinion, the lady is taking the piss, and if the vast majority of comments on the other thread are anything to go by, it would seem that many other pilots hold a similar view. BALPA has fallen into the classic trap unions have suffered for too long now, of spending 95% of its time, effort and money representing the ‘needs’ of 5% of its membership - in this case, clearly to the detriment of the other 95%.

[poorwanderingwun]

Apologies if this has been mentioned before ( in this case I have to admit to not having read the entire thread ! ).... It would appear that BA and their legal advisers have been somewhat remiss in not bringing forward medical testimony relating to memory retention...there must be volumes of studies involving the brains' ability/inability to absorb and retain complex data over short and long periods.... The tribunal themselves must surely have been aware that any successful barrister would be able to demonstrate the ability to study over a short period extremely complex evidence and succesfully cross-examine an expert witness on their own subject...only to forget 80% of what they learned within a month....
The need for long exposure to new complex data for it to be retained over a long period is evident in many disciplines and surely must have been studied in depth over the past hundred years.... This need would appear to support BA's policy of flying for a prescribed concentrated period...

[stormin norman]

Dave you say

"BA initially rejected her 50% application on the grounds of resource"

Could it be that the management are trying to run a successsful and profitable business ?

[145qrh]

It would appear that BALPA are more concerned with the rights of
a few working mothers in BA, but are neglecting the rights of the rest your members .

Flagging out is one of the biggest threats to our industry in recent years, but BALPA spends vast resources on one case, that quite frankly doesnt seem to affect anyone other than female BA pilots.

I resigned from BALPA a few years ago because of cases like this one, and have no regrets about leaving, in fact a few more resignations might give them something to think about in HQ....

[virga67]

To all concerned,

It is funny to read some of the comments that you British pilots make. Be advised that in the Netherlands everyone is entiteled to part-time jobs. So at KLM we have pilots that fly 80%, 67% and even 50%. (The pay is according to the % that you fly) This applies to both genders. There are also rules in place that pregnant women are banned from flying during certain periods of the pregnancy and then they also get a long maternity leave. So what is your problem with your union trying to get some decent rules for your female pilots?

[slj]

May I make a comment on Bazzaman's posting where it is stated "Surely the question here isn't whether it is safe or unsafe, but whether it is safe to the standards of safety that BA requires"

It reminds me of another avialtion case Alidair Ltd v Taylor 1978 IRLR 82 CA where the Court of Appeal stressed that what was important was the genuine belief of the employer. Perhaps BA should have made use of this fact earleir in the exercise.

Reading the developing saga of Ms Starmer (in the 35 page version) I was rather uncomfortable at the failure of posters to stress the safety issue. There was , I seem to recall, mention that trainers fly few hours.

However, as a passenger I would be happier flying with a trainer who. one has to assume, has learnt the skills, experienced the problems and knows the answers.

I appreciate they may be exceptions to this rule but as a passenger I would be concerned about the ability of this lady to deal as effectively with an emergency as someone who started the same time as she did but have accumumlated the hours of experience that usually bring increased skills.

The outcome of this case will be (or should be) that airlines will carry out an exercise that anticipates requests from both sexes to fly or work shorter hours. The exercise should that form the basis of a response to the employee rather than a shoot from the hip type denial of the request which leads to trouble at the tribunal.

[Tallbloke]

Virga 67, are both male and female pilots entitled to part time work in The Netherlands when a family has a child?

As a mere wannabe I am less likely to join BALPA now than I was 3 weeks ago. How much support from ordinary members has there been for this case, or has the union begun to realise it may have shot itself in the foot?

[FlapsOne]

Tallbloke

Are you suggesting that Balpa refer every case to the members to decide?

Nothing would ever get done!

If you pay your fees, have a winnable case (and like it or not, she won!) then Balpa should go ahead.

Stormin

Which 'successful and profitable business' are you referring to? Not BA surely!

[Tallbloke]

FlapsOne
No, I am not suggesting members should decide on every case, but I personally would want any body that I paid to represent me to generally represent the views of it's members. Do most BALPA members think the union has done the right thing by them in taking this case to tribunal?

[delwy]

Tallbloke, if you found yourself in trouble after an incident and went to your union for help, would you not expect to get it in accordance with the relevant laws, rules, agreements and your legitimate entitlements as a member?

How would you feel if you then heard that "the word is out that you were more wrong than right in what you did" and that the union had decided that, since it would be unpopular with many union members, they were going to decline to fight your case? I suspect you would be rather displeased. You might argue that your entitlement to support should not be subject to a popularity contest! You might even argue that this is just the type of difficult situation you had in mind when you joined.

*******

To my mind Virga67's comments from outside the U.K. really put this matter in a proper perspective. He has the advantage of a bit of distance and experience of the long-standing arrangements in KLM.

Flying is now no different from a host of other occupations, in which more and more people want flexibility in how they arrange their work. Is there anything wrong with seeking appropriate arrangements for everybody in accordance with changes in the law?

[Never Trust A Manage]

Dear Dave / Dear BALPA

Although I am a cabin crew member with the T&G and non BALPA member, I as a female (and CPL holder) fully support what BALPA has done for Jessica and this issue, job well done.

Now its time to put some of these resources into crew health issues like contaminated air.

I fly on the Embraer and cannot understand why flight crew are scared to write these matters up when we tell them about the fumes and passenger comment.

Hopefully my days down the back are coming to an end but you can't work part time if you end up sick like so many are.

See:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=172223

[Capt Sly]

Dave,
Thanks for posting here and adding some balance to the debate. I've been keeping an eye on this ever since page 1 of the original thread, but have stayed on the sidelines for most of the time.
How much support from ordinary members has there been for this case, or has the union begun to realise it may have shot itself in the foot
I am an 'ordinary member' and I support the case, as do most of my intake. The Flight Ops department within BA need a PTWK policy. It needs a policy for those blips in your life where you need flexibility, for instance after returning from a long illness, caring for an sick relative, or having children. At the moment there is no such policy, and as we on the airbus are working flat out there is not likely to be any access to PTWK soon.

I personally do not want PTWK but I would like to know that if I needed it in a some time to come, then I would have access to it.

For those who want statistics, full time on the Airbus at LHR at the mo is approximately 750 hours, so 50% would be approx 375 hours per year (31hrs/month average). In those hours you are likely to do 20 sectors, so 10 landings per month. For that anyone would get paid 50%, would accrue leave at 50%, and would get 50% of the pension contributions.

It has been mentioned elsewhere that the cost of having someone at 50% are approximately 1%. So 2 people at 50% cost 102% of the cost of a full time pilot.

So Jess will cost 1% more than I do when she returns to line flying, but she will be more rested, more relaxed, and happier to be at work than 283 Airbus P2's at the moment.

Thanks BALPA - Jess needed you to fight POD and his crude attempts at crushing her. And thanks Dave for taking the time to post here.

[sammypilot]

The Tribunal fought shy of it and the BALPA representative, in his well written piece, didn't mention it but can anybody say why this young lady was absent for 19 months, way beyond pregnancy and maternity leave allowances.

[Tallbloke]

delwy,
I agree absolutely that after an incident I would want legal support etc. that a union can provide, I have no problems there.

[Lou Scannon]

Sammypilot:

If what you say is true (19 months off). This brings her dedication to the profession even more into question.

I appreciate her decision to have two (so far) children close together. Why did she not have the children then apply for a BA scholarship and employment ...or even pay for her own training?

This would have then enabled her to follow both ambitions without taking a place in the system that other girls and guys so desperately value.

[delwy]

Tallbloke, that does not quite answer my question. My point was, as many pilots have learned the hard way, is that the decision to support someone cannot be turned into a popularity contest - for either the issue, or the individual.

For example, there are often threads here suggesting that a lot of pilots are critical of decisions or actions of a fellow pilot in a particular situation. These criticisms rarely are based on having the full facts, but the majority of those commenting here might well be critical.

That's free speech for you. But when it comes to supporting the pilot, the decision cannot be based on the question "do a majority of the members feel we should support this individual". There are other criteria, which is all I was trying to say.

********

I'd like to add my thanks to Dave for his post and clarification of various issues.

[go_edw]

"Why are only 2.9% of professional licence holders in the UK female? What is it about our industry that is so unattractive to females? Being a mother and being a pilot should in no way be incompatible."

What BALPA have done is made smaller companies realise now that employing women is LESS attractive. If you had a handful of jets would you now employ a women who was likely to cost you time and money? No.

Typical of BA/BALPA to see how this will effect the real world.

[pontius's pa]

I have been away from the UK for a long time and am ignorant of UK law in these matters. Some no doubt will say just plain ignorant after reading this post, and an MCP to boot, although the latter would not be fair.

After reading this thread, I have just read the first posting of the 35 pages and the newspaper report to which the link lead. Having long experience of Prune threads I spared myself the ordeal of reading the 35 pages.

This strikes me as another sad case of "wimminism".

I congratulate Ms Starmer on her success as a mother, but would add that being a mother is her choice. Being a mother is not such a rarity in the world that her employer should be forced into giving her special treatment beyond that available to her colleagues.

"Equal", (ha, when was it ever that in the feminist movement), opportunity should work both ways. Apart from her statutory rights for time off just before and after birth it seems to me that she has no more rights to long term part time work at her convenience, if her employer does not wish to grant it, than a bloke who wants the same amount of time off to build, and then sail, his yacht.

BA is a business, not a social welfare organisation

[Tallbloke]

I do understand your point delwy however I think you may misunderstand mine. I expressed the opinion that I was less likely to join the union now than 3 weeks ago. Having read a little about the case I feel that the union has done itself a disservice in this case. If a representative organisation takes action which is not supported by the majority it's membership it has no mandate to undertake that action. There appears to be very little support from members for this particular action. Whilst the union can hardly take a vote on each and every action it undertakes, it should have a good idea of the views of it's membership.
Furthermore BALPA should be mindful of the effect the outcome of this tribunal may have for female wannabees, who may now find it more difficult to get that all important first job (not important in BA's case as it no longer takes on low hours candidates with the demise of the scholarship). The outcome of this judgement may be that less females are employed, not more. Personally, I think that is a poor outcome.

[Alex Whittingham]

Several posts on this topic and the longer one have talked about the 'cost to the airline' of maternity leave. There seems to be a certain lack of understanding about how the system works.

The maternity pay entitlement is 90% of salary for six weeks, then GBP106 a week for the next twenty weeks. Most employees can then claim a further 26 weeks unpaid maternity leave if they choose. Maternity pay is paid initially by the employer but reclaimed in full from the Inland Revenue, usually within a month.

The only cost to an employer that maternity represents is the inconvenience of hiring temporary cover. An airline the size of BA would/should adjust its manning to take pregnancy into account along with other predictable factors such as short and long term sickness.

PS BA choose to ground their female pilots in the first six months of pregnancy. JAR OPS does not require it.

[bazzaman96]

Argus - for one moment I had thought that I had seen the last of Anisminic! :)

I would suggest, based on the information on these 35 pages and also the remarks of Dave Fielding, BALPA rep, on the other thread, that BA simply didn't put forward a coherent defence. Clearly we don't know what went on in the tribunal, but it sounds like their lawyers were caught on the back foot - which is surprising.

Certainly BA have standing for a judicial review action, thought this would occur after the appeal, in the event of a negative outcome for them. However, the grounds on which they may appeal may be narrower than the ones that Argus has identified - don't forget that the onus is on BA to defend its stance and adduce evidence - a tribunal is not *not* taking into account relevant considerations if those considerations were not raised by BA in the first instance. BA's policy IS indirectly discriminatory - no-one denies that - but what is being argued is that there exists a justification for it. The burden is on BA to support the justification. The only point on which the 'not taking into account relevant considerations' ground may be raised is the safety argument advanced by BA, though if BA's lawyers weren't savvy enough to prepare this argument thoroughly (which is how it sounds to me!) then the tribunal's decision probably can't be challenged as it is sound on the evidence in front of it.

Argus makes excellent points relating to what BA *should* have done in the original hearing. If I had to represent BA then I would use those arguments and adduce the evidence you have suggested. It seems, however, that they did not do so - it's really peculiar. Were the lawyers unprepared? Or were BA complacent in thinking they didn't need to raise the safety defence? Or perhaps the commentators on this forum are simply wrong, and that flying at 50% is safe? In which case, ought BA to argue not that flying at 50% is unsafe, but that flying at 50% would undermine BA's credibility in the eyes of the consumer, who are likely to feel less safe when flying with them? That argument does not appear to have been deployed at any point.

Argus/Flying lawyer - one thing I'm not familiar with is the composition of tribunals - presumably those deciding the dispute are simply lawyers with no experience of aviation? Not that this is a problem - I'm just interested to see whether it is possible for BA to argue that such a decision has wide-ranging implications outside of the individual case, or whether the tribunal doesn't take that into account - the so-called 'floodgates' argument in the field of tort. In other words, is the role of the tribunal to decide the dispute as between the parties, or to decide the dispute taking into account the needs of society? If the former, the original decision makes more sense - if the latter, less so.

Who needs lawyers?!

[bazzaman96]

Alex:

Although you've raised some very valid issues, what you may not have factored in is also the cost to the airline or retraining the employee who has returned from maternity leave. Presumably Mrs Starmer, having been off for 19 months (can anyone confirm this) still needs to remain current on her ratings and so the airline would have had to pay for this even when she did not fly. Equally, upon returning to work the airline would have to pay for re-training sessions even though she would not be working.

Tallbloke and Dave Fielding:

I'm really interested to understand the dynamics of BALPA's duty, and who it owes it to. Dave F's original post suggested that BALPA will support ANY pilot whose case against their employer stands more than a 50% chance of success. This suggests BALPA owes a duty to individual members, rather than members at large. What if, however, the majority of members are against action, as in this case?

I would be surprised if BALPA didn't take their wider duty into consideration before supporting legal action - Dave, could you clarify this point? The logical conclusion of BALPA's stance (unless I am wrong) is that its internal policies may be inconsistent: what if BALPA supports Pilot A in one case and Pilot B in another, but the substance of both disputes are contradictory:

Consider, for example:

Pilot A: Female pilot, who wants 50% working hours to look after her child. Big Bad Employer won't let her.

Pilot B: Male pilot whose employer, having employed him in 2001, has his contract cut to 50% to plug a gap left after a female employee took maternity leave. Pilot B wants to take action on the basis that he expected more than 50% hours.

Both cases are pretty arguable - and stand a 50% chance of success. But if BALPA supports both then although they appear consistent with regards their duty of care vis-a-vis individual members, BALPA's stance really mucks up the interests of its membership base as a whole, who are now employed in an industry that doesn't have any logic to its working hours provisions. There is no guiding policy (such as safety, legitimate expectations) underlying BALPA's overall approach!

[Harry Wragg]

British Airways and Balpa, my two favourite organisations. I cannot believe Balpa is going against "the Master".

Some interesting points raised, some very amusing indeed. At least I now understand a bit more about Balpa's seemingly random support of the membership.

I think the subject raises a number of issues:

Economics and the financial viability of any company in Western Europe is decreasing due to increasing amount of employee legislation. People in the UK are very expensive to employ, so it is unlikely that any company that does not "flag out" will survive. Not that Balpa will have much stomach for that particular fight.

I'm glad that it has finally been proven that there is no correlation between experience and flight safety. Now maybe BA can do away with the 3000 hours rule for command and the ATPL requirement for long haul. Maybe BA could promote the first 200 hour 747 Captain.

Gender is irrelevant to this case. The percentage of female pilots, male pilots, or vegetarian pilots is not an issue. Just like you can't force the under 25's to a Tony Christie concert, or force inner city minorities to wander the hills of the Lake District. Maybe female have more sense than males, cos being a pilot ruins your health, your life, and your wealth. You have to be nuts to want to do it. Women are just too pragmatic.

Last point, when did BA start having high standards? I think you will find that the reason for the "unique" SOP's is that they cater for the lower end of the ability spectrum. BA has plenty of safety data which causes concern. I am dissappointed that Balpa holds safety in such low esteem.

Harry

[WorkingHard]

Alex Whittingham - sorry to say that the utopia you refer to does not exist. THE EMPLOYER pays the SMP and SPP and only gets a percentage back. As for SSP etc there is no refund at all. It should also to be noted that for smaller companies (not BA of course) the cost of employing substitute staff and training them etc is a very onerous and real cost which the "equalists" dont seem to want to know about.

[Alex Whittingham]

Sorry WorkingHard. I spoke from my own experience without checking as carefully as I should. Employers eligible for 'small employers relief' (me) are refunded 100% of SMP and SPP plus an additional 4.5% to cover NI contributrions. Larger employers are apparently refunded at a rate of 92% of the payments made. The point still stands, though, the cost of SMP to even a large employer is relatively small and should be calculated as part of the overall hidden cost of employment.

I didn't mention SSP. That's really a different issue.

[Airbus Girl]

I do sometimes think we are in the dark ages.
Women have children, yes. If they didn't, the human race wouldn't last very long.

Sometimes men want children, but of course its their wives who have to take time off from their jobs because most airlines have a regulation that grounds pregnant pilots. This has nothing to do with JAA or CAA rules or safety, because pregnant pilots can fly if medically fit.

So are we saying that only women in lowly jobs are allowed to have children?

Or that if a couple, both pilots, both want children, can't have them?

If a male pilot wants to go part-time to look after the kids, great.
I believe this kind of court case helps both male and female pilots to get part-time work if they need it. Why BA can't manage two pilots rosters to ensure that one is always at home I don't know. Perhaps they don't want to.

I think its a little bit harsh to say that Jessica is costing BA a fortune. I thought BA Cadets had to pay back their training through their lower pay scales. If BA were a bit more enlightened then they could have had a policy in place to allow for part-time working based on need, and this could be for a certain period of time, say the first 5 years of a child's life, so that when the child is at school full-time, the pilot can come back to work full-time.

I think its a bit chauvinistic to say that only women want children and that women must give up their careers for the next 30 years just because the employer doesn't want to give a bit of flexibility.

Perhaps someone can confirm whether BA's training costs are recouped during the period of lower pay at the start of the cadet pilot's career? It seems that many people here see the fact that BA have paid for the initial training to be the main factor. Jessica is still young. She will no doubt end up giving BA around 30 years, mainly full time with some part time. Surely that still justifies the cost?

On a final point, if you are a male pilot and you go sailing, or skiing, or wake boarding, or riding your motorbike a bit fast, and you have an accident and cannot work, is that your fault? I mean, it was your choice to do the activity, and why should your employer now have to fork out more training costs to train someone else in your position?

[Horace Batchelor]

Dave,

I have been a (male) member of BALPA for 34 years and I have to state that I wish to remain associated with an organisation which will stand up for those whose entitlements are not being honoured - well done.

[azdriver]

Food for though:

in ITALY we sure have the worst FTL (and flag carrier...) but at least we lead the way in this subject:

once pregnant you are not fit to fly, company has to pay sick leave and you can go on part time disregarding your gender for the first 5 years of the child.

Cheers

[facelac]

Airbus Girl

Agree totally ! All other is step a backwards towards stoneage ! Other industries take on the responsability to ensure future-asset number 1 of modern society , Airlines does for most jobs, but not Flight deck ... why?

[flapsforty]

In 1989 a KLM 747 got 4 engines stuffed by volcanic ash over Alaska. The Second Officer was the pilot flying. Visibility inside the cockpit and out was minimal. The engines stooped, the crew had to don masks. At 13000 ft the SO managed to restart 2 of the engines.
She had demonstrated great piloting skills and was the company hero.

When I met her some years later, she was a 737 Captain desperately trying to combine flying and raising kids toghether with her pilot husband. KLM made life as hard as possible for them, and in the end she gave up flying because of the company's refusal to grant part-time to either of the parents.

The kind of outcome many ppruners seem to advocate, if posts right here and on the other thread are anything to go by?

Since then, the law has changed in Holland. And KLM has understood that it's way of dealing with the issues of pilots becoming parents wasn't financially smart.
Too late for the girl that saved the 747 over Alaska though.

Tallbloke, both make and female pilots are entitled to PTW for a longish but limited time when they become parents. As Virga says, 75% or 68% or 50%. After that, and production allowing, they can opt for permanently working a lower percentage.
A very large percentage of our 737 pilots work some form of part time. Male and female, they like to see their kids grow up and choose to earn less for the privilege of spending more time at home. (short haul schedules being what they are these days all over Europe, a full time pilot or CC is home 2 days a week).

We haven't had a significant decrease in safety as a result, and we do have both female and male pilots who happily combine parenthood with being a short haul slave. ;)

[Pointer]

Isn't the clear problem as pointed out earlier; the fact that this whole part-time issue was fought out on sex-discrimination ? i am all for the fact that someone go's part-time but the problem is more...

[list=a]it should be equally possible for men and woman!
How come there is so much talk about equality while the grounds for the claim lay at un-equality

i can see that an airline could object when a pilot who is just about to earn theire share, is to abruptly "stop flying" there could be a clause that they should pay back a part of the training when pregnant within the first xx period

BALPA should fight for a industry wide ruling on these cases, clearly the victory of the mentioned female pilot was personal and gain oriented. (in my limited view)
[/list=a]

Pointer :E
All for One and None for All

[Dave Fielding]

Dear All

Some extrememly interesting postings and I think it is a credit to everyone that the debate is balanced and reasonable. All those rumours about Pprune appear to be unfounded. Well, in this thread at least.

To answer the points which haven't already been answered by others (apologies for not putting names to points):

management-related duties
I would be very wary of running this argument. The CAA makes reference only to hours of experience and the number of take-offs and landings in a given period. This was all the tribunal focussed on. To start arguing that a related activity counted towards recency / experience would muddy the waters to an impossible degree. Hours are as good a measure of experience as we have: our problem with BA was that they mixed up the absolute (number of hours) with the relative (percentage of a full-time roster)

the rights of the few
Such is the way advances are made in employment terms and conditions. It is necessary for a responsible association such as BALPA to recognise such issues and support them. This requires leadership, which sometimes entails opening the membership's eyes to what is possible. I give you an example: PTW is now accepted by most (at least) as a necesssary part of life. Enshrined in legislation and written into company policies globally, albeit in an imperfect way sometimes. BA Flight Ops has only had PTW since November 2000, if you can believe it, and in the early years very, very few pilots took up any form of PTW at all. They were in a tiny, tiny minority. It was BALPA who, in conjunction with a brave female member, sponsored, wrote, and negotiated that agreement which is now enjoyed by a significant percentage of th BA pilot workforce. Hopefully, post October 2006, it will be enjoyed by many more.

If we had run some form of consultative ballot on negotiating a PTW agreement which so far has only benefitted a small minority, would we have received support in 2000? Sometimes, you have to keep your eyes on the bigger picture. This case has veered occasionallly to the personal. It should not do. The principle of greater PTW access for all, plus intelligent and tailored working round of individual requirements, is what we are aiming for.

19 months off
This is correct, though it was technicallly 19 months off flying. BA grounds its females once they declare they are pregnant, and pays them an average of the previous 3 months' allowances on top of the basic wage. Very much hit and miss as to whether you were on leave, on a course, sick etc in those 3 months. The implications go further, as SMP is 90% of this figure. BA, along with all the other UK airlines as far as we can gather (unless anyone tells us otherwise) pays the bare legal minimum of 6 weeks SMP. This is despite the fact that you haven't a chance of seeing a CAA doctor about getting your ticket back for a minimum of 8 weeks after the birth, and BA Health Services themselves recommend that you do not fly for a minimum of 9 weeks after the birth. In terms of benchmarking, for jobs of comparable qualifications and remuneration, 6 weeks is way behind the mark. The RAF, for example, pays 14 weeks (from memory). Our european competitors pay even more, as I'm sure our colleagues will attest to.

Flying is in many ways one of the last bastions of male chauvanism. There is much work to do to drag its maternity handling up to levels of T&Cs enjoyed by our female pilot's peers in other jobs.

why didn't she have her children before joining BA?
Interesting: since when has BA - or any other employer for that matter - been into family planning? You can't have it both ways. Here, and elsewhere, the argument against Jessica is that it is her right to choose to have children, so she should just accept what she is given. Yet at the same time she is told variously to have her children before she joins, or only after a certain amount of time in the airline, or not at all (let's not go there) or space them out a bit so she can get lots of flying inbetween. We either let nature take its course and work round it, or we go down a road which to me at least seems faintly Orwellian. She either has the freedom to choose, or not at all. And do we really want the latter?

BA and BALPA ignoring the real world
The plight of the smaller companies is always a difficult one. It is far easier to absorb the disruption caused by maternity in a large organisation, particularly one where the job is not person-centered but rather seat-centered (ie exactly the same job is done but by different people. Most unusual in skilled professions). I have plenty of friends who either run or are part of small companies who have detailed to me at length in our discussions over the case just how difficult it is. All I can say is that case law hammered out in the big companies should make life easier for those in the smaller ones who perhaps do not have the luxury of resources or lack or persecution for sticking your head above the parapet and fighting these cases. Like it or not, BA is traditionally an industry leader, and we should not be shy of setting precedents which can be used by others.

Like I say, I have never worked for a small company and my exposure is restricted to my years of conversations and friendship with BALPA colleagues in the smaller carriers. I hesitate to tread in this area, as you can imagine. I am keen to hear how you all think what we are doing in BA could impact for better or worse on the rest of the industry.

paying back training costs
BA recoups much of the traning costs it puts into cadets in two ways:
1) by reducing starting salaries over the first 5 years, and
2) getting the cadets to pay back a proportion of their training costs out of their pay packets every month for the first 5 years. This is pro-rated for PTW, but from memory I think the upper limit is 7 years. Therefore, on a 50% contract, Jessica will suffer financially more than a more senior pilot changing to a 50% PTW.

"I don't see why women should be treated differently"
This is a common complaint and one I think is the most difficult for males to comprehend. As has been stated in this forum elsewhere, it is a universally-accepted fact in law that females are more likely to be the primary carer and that reasonable adjustments must be made to accommodate this. Jessica's ET, in their ruling, stated that:
we accept that women in our society generally have the day to day primary responsibility for childcare

Inconsistant BALPA processes
Bazzaman (? Go to IST a lot do you?) - the answer to your question is that the NEC are the ultimate arbiters of any decision as to proceed with a case. They are the ones who will take advice to ensure consistancy of approach. As has been helpfully pointed out in this thread, imagine the scenario flipped round. Under what circumstances can you see the NEC overturning the considered opinion of both our own LAP and also our lawyers? There would be a riot. I would suggest it would have to be a very special and politically impossible case for the NEC to refuse to take it. Can you imagine the fallout? I can't actually think of a scenario where they would refuse it, though I'm open to suggestions.

I'd also love to argue you point about the two cases, but I can't understand why a pilot would be forced to work less to cover for a colleague who was absent on maternity.

Finally, thank you to all who have expressed their support for Jessica and BALPA. Much appreciated, and I confess that the fears I had about coming onto this forum have proved unfounded. Thanks you. The debate that has flowed from the case has certainly been healthy and, I think, a good thing for our industry.

Best wishes

Dave

[Tallbloke]

Dear Dave,

Do you think operators are more or less likely to hire female pilots after this tribunal? What are the chances of getting to interview now? The outcome of this case has ramifications beyond present BA BALPA members.
Do you think that the outcome is supported by the majority of union members?

Personally I was actively trying to join BALPA earlier this year, a process I have put on hold, mostly because of this case.

[poorwanderingwun]

OK...let's put it in straight and simple terms...The pilot market is one of the toughest careers on offer...we undertake the training often at huge cost with no guarantees of a solid future....to get into the 'Flag-Carrier' a pilot has to be above average and totally commited...
The fact is that most males will feel ( I think justifiably ) miffed at a creature ( male or female ) coming into the industryand taking a seat from a pilot who would feel privilaged to have the job and needs to support a family....and then treats it as a convenience ....comes and goes as it suits them...

Airbus girl....If you think that getting pregnant equates to a motorcycle accident I suggest you get some advice on contraception before it's too late...

[acbus1]

IMHO.....

(1) -- Airlines, certainly those without the size advantages of BA, or their scruples, will now discriminate (though, obviously, not openly) against women. Men will be recruited in favour of women. Such practise is easily concealed under several categories of excuse.

(2) -- Existing female pilots (outside BA, as above) may now suffer discrimination. Again, easily concealed.

(3) -- BALPA will see membership numbers decline as existing and prospective members vote with their feet against this misuse of resources. Legal Insurance schemes will blossom, that being the only reason a vast number of BALPA members are in BALPA to start with.

[aaaaa]

Poor wun

What a good name you have chosen, you are indeed poor with an attitude like that.

If one has to feel privileged to get a job in the first place (which I disagree with), do you not think that both male and females feel the same, they have both gone through the same or similar amount of hard work and financial investment to get into one of the toughest industries in the world at the present time. It doesn't matter whether or not it is one of the two Flag carriers or a small cargo outfit.

I am not necessarily supporting all that has gone on here but I am sure it is going to make it even tougher for a female to get a job now. A bit hard on a woman who has absolutely no desire to have children, or for that matter is not able to have children. What does she put on the application form in order to even get to an interview now, 'I do not propose having children so I will not be asking for maternity leave'!

There is not meant to be discrimination but there surely is.

I go along with Airbus Girl's comment, lets face it the human race does need to carry on and if a woman wants to be a pilot she should not be denied that because she might get pregnant at some time. A motorcycle accident may or may not be looked on as a self inflicted injury but because of your choice of hobbie or life style the length of time off required due an accident maybe greater than that of maternity leave.

By the way you mention family and and the need to support a family, are you saying that females do not support the family because for sure, you a wide of the mark there. I believe that luckily most men appreciate the jobs their wives do in this day and age to share in the time and money involved in the upbringing of the family.

I didn't mean to get involved in this but some of the comments in this thread have just made me :mad:

Sadly I am not a piliot but go for it Airbus girl. :ok:

aa

[Decisive Attitude]

Airbus Girl wrote:
I believe this kind of court case helps both male and female pilots to get part-time work if they need it.
I don't agree with this. The case was, as Pointer rightly stated, fought and won on the basis that Jessica had been discriminated against due to gender, on the grounds that more women than men apply for part-time working.

Flying Lawyer's post on the other thread puts this more succinctly than I.

Clearly then the decision of this tribunal and the precedent it may set benefits, in a purely legal sense, the case of women in a similar position. A male would not be able to argue the same case in the same way and consequently it makes the statement quoted above, in a purely legal sense, utterly and completely incorrect.

While BA may feel 'encouraged' to create a new PT working policy as a result of this, but they are certainly not compelled to by any stretch and as a result, it may be inappropriate to make claims such as those quoted above.

[Heliport]

Dave Fielding

"I think it is a credit to everyone that the debate is balanced and reasonable. All those rumours about Pprune appear to be unfounded. Well, in this thread at least."
Thank you so much. Perhaps you haven't heard all those rumours (borne out by the figures) that PPRuNe is the biggest and most successful professional aviation website on the net.

You say "Hours are as good a measure of experience as we have."
Most pilots would probably agree with you but, according to the judgment, your side argued the opposite at the hearing: "The Claimant and the witnesses she produced in support held the view that competence and safety of a pilot could not be satisfactorily measured by reference to hours flown" and it was BA who argued that hours are a reasonable measure of experience: "BA’s witnesses view was that the number of hours flown was a necessary and realistic threshold which had to be achieved in a relatively concentrated period before a pilot could have a safe reduction in duties below 75% of full time.”

You add "Our problem with BA was that they mixed up the absolute (number of hours) with the relative (percentage of a full-time roster)"
No they didn't - at least not according to the judgement, which says BA considers a pilot should have achieved (in it's view) a "necessary and realistic" threshold of experience (measured in hours - as you say, as good a measure of experience as we have) before being allowed to fly less than 75% of full time.

The Tribunal wasn't persuaded that "it would be unsafe or in any way unsuitable for the Claimant or other pilot to fly at 50% of full-time."
Do you agree with that?
Regardless of the experience of the applicant?

"This case has veered occasionally to the personal. It should not do."
Why not? It's about one person's personal claim in which she relied upon her personal circumstances. Should people not express a view on her personal circumstances? Some people have praised her as a person for what they see as her courage. Others have been critical of her as a person for her behaviour. Should neither side make such comments?

"Let nature take it's course?"
You make pregnancy sound like an illness.
Your paragraph is a distortion of what people who hold a different view from you have said. No-one has suggested she shouldn't have the freedom to choose if/when to have children.

"don't see why women should be treated differently. This is a common complaint and one I think is the most difficult for males to comprehend."
She has had both support and opposition from both men and women in these discussions.
Do you assume that those who disagree with your views don't "comprehend" the issues?
Do you assume that, if they did comprehend, they'd agree with you? ;)

[cavortingcheetah]

:) Dear Dave Fielding,

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to put your head in The
Dragon's Maw in order to explain BALPA's point of views.
I for one am hugely pleased that you have found PPrune to be such a relief. I cannot imagine what rumours you may have heard.
Pprune is a bastion of cognitive freedom and moderation. Indeed, I would wager that much of Pprune's content is infinitely intellectually superior to that which may be encountered on other aviation websites.
A well seasoned misogynist, with an eye to the vicarious effect upon opportunities for future female flying aspirants could well derive a certain degree of satisfaction from the antics of your client. A cynic might raise an eyebrow or two at the intrusion of the judgement of laymen into a rather specialised field of operation. He might view it as analogous to a veterinary practitioner assisting a thoracic surgeon in the execution (probably the wrong word) of his duties.
We shall, of course, have to see what the appeal brings. I take it that BALPA will continue its present course of representation with your existing client. Any costs incurred in this are presumably paid for by means of membership dues?
Many thanks again. cc

;)

[Dave Fielding]

There are a few opinions and points of view written here which I can't really argue against because they are opinions on something which may or may not happen. I don't agree with them, and think that the laws are strict on sexual discrimination during recruitment & promotion. I know the EOC report found that a shocking number of employers openly flout the law with regard to pregnant staff. I certainly hope that BA will not do the same and indeed would be most surprised if they did. I'm not sure if the fact could be easily concealed: wouldn't a simple head count of the number of female pilots now and in a year's time reveal the answer? Or am I missing something?

airbusgirl's point is a belief rather than a stated fact or a claim. The point is correct about the law; what she is refering to is the industrial consequences of this judgement. For too long, PTW for both RTR and lifestyle have been denied for general and blanket reasons, mostly along the lines of "we can't afford it." This judgement allows us to approach the company with a platform to build a better way of doing things. From my perspective as a rep, this can only be positive.

Heliport:
1) I started to write a long answer here going into details about how we argued the case with regard to hours and I've scrubbed it. The case is still live, and with your forbearance, I would like to take some advice on just how detailed I can be in a public forum (is this classed as a public forum?). To date, I have only written what came out in the tribunal itself, which may or may not make it public knowledge. I'd better not go further without some advice. Sorry about that.

2) the 'personal' thing - fair play. I should have said "veered into personal abuse", for some of the things said about her have been inexcusable.

3) if you check on the previous page to this, lou scannon asked why she didn't have her children before entering the airline.

4) as for comprehension, I wrote this because I think it is the single biggest beef I have come across in all the months of advocating Jessica's case. And in a way I kind off understand, because discrimination laws are on the face of it supposed to make things equal, and this case seems to be doing the opposite. It is not until the crucial fact about it being assumed that the female is the primary carer and therefore suitable adjustments to working conditions should be made, does it make more sense.

Maybe "comprehension" has connotations I hadn't realised in this debate. I would certainly never intimate that anyone who didn't agree with me was blind and mad, nor do I agree with Madonna, who stated that "everyone is entitled to their own opinion, as long as it is the same as mine", though it would be useful sometimes...

cc - thanks for the kind words. Yes, to the best of my knowledge BALPA will be supporting Jessica through the appeal. The usual mechanisms will be in place.

Best wishes

Dave

[ornithopter]

Dave,

A few points.

Ms Starmer apparently said "all I want is to be able to care for my daughter" or words to that effect. Now correct me if I am wrong, but she is based in London doesn't exactly live near to where she works. What part of the tribunal took account of the fact that travelling time was time wasted that could be used looking after her child? Why should BA pay for that?

Is her husband not part time already? What stopped her presumably more experienced pilot husband from getting 50% and looking after the kids? Surely then all she needs is 2000 hours then she can go 50% and spend more time with the kids. Not perhaps first choice, but my parents gave up an awful lot to bring me up - it seems she wants her cake and a full tummy.

Sexixm - BA presumably has written a policy. Where in this policy does it say it is restricted to women? How can it be sexist if the policy is applied the same way to both sexes?

Evidence of safety - if there is no proof in the fact that 50% is dangerous (based on a very small percentage of pliots), then what do we wait for? Do we reduce working hours until it becomes dangerous (ie we have proof that danger has occurred) before we stop it - or do we make a reasoned judgement. What if someone wants 30%, or 10%? Will you say "we have no evidence that 10% is dangerous" - well of course not as no one has done it!!!! If hours is as good a measure of experience as we have then come for an aerobatics and spinning session with me. If have a significant number of hours flying aeros, but none for about 5 years. Would you trust me to recover from the spin properly? (I'm attacking the logic of your argument here, not suggesting airline pilots spin regularly!)

Women pilots - great, lets have more, and lets give them time to do what humans do and be paid maternity. Also, lets look at why there are only 2.9%. Women and Men are fundamentally, and scientifically provably different. Flying is largely a spatial task and females are provably not as apt at these as men. They are much better than men at a lot of other things. One reason there are not many female pilots is that it simply does not attract them as a task. Much the same as a teaching/nurturing role does not attract as many men. This is no refelction on women - I love flying with them, but it is provably true.

Grounding during pregnancy - one can't criticise BA for grounding someone during pregnancy. BA has a duty of care to it's employee's and passngers. BALPA would be the first to take the company to task if a pregnant pilot kept flying at the company's behest and gave birth to an abnormal baby. BA are doing themselves and the pregnant pilots a favour.

We do need to support a good way of bringing up kids and letting people be pregnant and have a family. But this case seems way over the top to me. Where is BALPA's support on other very important things? What about the attendance management policy? Sometimes it is a real shame we as members cannot take BALPA to a tribunal, because I am sure you would lose.

Bidline - why are you a strict defender of bidline - it is clearly "seniorityist" and one of the reasons that the lady in question could not guarantee time off in opposition to her husband. Surely this is a major part of the case. It is not "BA rostering systems" it is "BALPA forcing BA to roster in a certain way". I would be much happier to have "pregnancy lines" in the bid pack than take the case to a tribunal and spend a lot of hard earned members cash on a questionable case. It wouldn't be hard. Assign trips at the training stage for both partners in sympathy with each other and chuck the rest into the normal bidline pot.

Oh and one more thing - you told us in your first post that many people are judging without getting all the facts. Maybe your judgement is impaired regarding your initial thoughts about Pprune? Was this same impairment the thing that got you to sign up to the attendance management programme? Perhaps you should be in posession of the full facts before you make descisions which effect others lives...

[Heliport]

Dave Fielding

Thanks for your replies.

Hours: Nothing you say in discussion, even on this public forum, is going to influence the result of the appeal but, just like everyone else here, you're entitled to answer or not answer points - and dodge them if they're a little tricky. ;)

It's true there have been some strong criticisms of her, but nothing IMHO "inexcusable." If people are disgusted by her behaviour (as many clearly are) why they should not say so?

Lou Scannon asking why she didn't have her children before entering the airline isn't the same as telling her when she should have children. Numerous people have suggested if she wants to be an airline pilot and a mother, she should have organised her life a little better. Is that point of view unreasonable? :confused:

[ATRIXO]

Nevertheless we cannot ignore the conclusions of the court. No doubt BA will deal with the safety aspects and apprpriate training accordingly.
I have to say that it is vey easy to esculate the difficulties in retraining post child female pilots


.

[RatherBeFlying]

Women take the career hit in many professions when they have children. Also many women and their husbands have sadly discovered that putting off children until well established in a career puts them past the time when they can conceive or exposes them to problematic pregnancies and poor outcomes.

Provisions for maternity leave and PTW is all about supporting the human race.

[Wiley]

In Ms Starmer’s case, I’m reminded of the classic Joe Heller novel ‘Catch 22’ – (which, coincidentally, was about a character who didn’t want to fly). When Yossarian tells the USAAF shrink (and anyone else who’ll listen) that he doesn’t want to fly any more combat missions, he is asked: “But what if everyone thought that way? We wouldn’t be able to fight the war.”

Yossarian replies “Then I’d be mad not to think the same, wouldn’t I?.”

Transpose this purposely absurd situation to BA and today and ask yourself “What if everyone wanted to fly a 50% roster? The airline wouldn’t be able to operate - at least economically.” (I’m standing by for the protests from those who don’t seem to care about the last word in that sentence as long as they have their ‘rights’ protected and improved. My reply to such protestations would include the words ‘golden goose’ and ‘cooked’.)

Many may not understand the depths of feeling this topic has brought glaringly to the surface in so many of us. Most of us, (even those who were the incredibly lucky ones – like Ms Starmer – and were sponsored), feel we worked very hard to be accepted into a flag carrier airline. Along the way, we all knew far too many incredibly hard working and committed people who put in as much if not more effort and did not make the grade – (and not always because of lack of ability). We also know too many people who, if given the opportunity Ms Starmer has been given, would grasp it with both hands and give their employer a fair return for his investment.

Given the expense of initial – and continuation/recency – training, I wouldn’t think there’d be too many who believed the company’s demand that the employee gain 2000 hours - approximately three years on the job – before being granted a 50% roster was unreasonable.

[Ghengis Cant]

I haven't read such a wealth of PC drivel in ages.

As a part time pilot with a fifty percent roster and a substantial load more hours than this young lady I know exactly how rusty you get......and how quickly.

It is amazing and indeed quite scary that functions you perform without conscious thought when you are "in the groove" often quite unexpectedly become unfamiliar. My brief to my coopilot after any break of more than ten days or so includes the invitation to "watch me like a hawk as I may be rusty" and I generally do not act as PF for the first sector.

Add inexperience to sleepless nights, hormones and worry about the childs nappy rash or child care arrangements and you have one hell of a cocktail.

BA were dead right and I hope for the safety of all who travel that they win the appeal.

Balpa need to take a reality check and concentrate on representing the interests of all their members, not going off on expensive politically correct adventures .

I'd like to know how much this nonsense has cost.

Add an appeal and BA's costs (for which they will be liable if they loose on appeal I believe ) and you are looking at the thick side of a hundred grand.....................Not what I pay my subscriptions for.

[Hand Solo]

I'm only doing six sectors this month, two of them will be as the heavy pilot, and I'll have a continous stretch of 12 days off between them. Thats on a full time roster. Does that make me unsafe?

It is amazing and indeed quite scary that functions you perform without conscious thought when you are "in the groove" often quite unexpectedly become unfamiliar

I presume from this you fly short haul? Perhaps you should pay a visit to BAs long haul fleets where recency and handling practice can be in such short supply that nothing is performed without conscious thought first. You seem to have confused being slick with being safe.

[cavortingcheetah]

:) GC
Your words of wisdom and sound advice are irrefutably spot on.

'Watch me like a hawk.' always used to produce wry amusement upon the faces of the F/Os when I was a 50%er. Perhaps they did anyway!
I wonder whether someone seemingly as full of themselves as JS would appear to be would have the common sense and indeed, humility, to adopt such a course of action.


;)

[wiggy]

Dave F

Thanks for joining this much maligned forum, its not that bad and indeed judging by the writing styles this thread appears at least appears to be, how shall I put it, "rage free":ok:

You mentioned early on the fact that the existing PTWK contract was in part drawn up by a brave female pilot a few years back. Now IMHO the agreement was very cleverly drawn up, because as I understand it BA Part Time Workers undertake no reserve/standby commitments, and can gain some advantage over their senior colleagues at one of the stages of work allocation/award (back to bidline rules, sorry chaps/chappesses)

It is no surprise, IMHO, that many of the full time workers feel they are being disadvantaged by the part time workers and is certainly not giving equality for all. Perhaps a rewrite of the PTWK contract to correct these apparent anomalies would reduce some of the "anti' feeling we are seeing here and in "the other place"

[Airbus Girl]

If flying a 50% roster with low total hours is unsafe, why do the CAA not regulate against it? Why do the CAA not change the rules and have a figure of more than 350 hours per year as a minimum to stay current?
Presumably because they do not feel the need to, from a safety aspect.

[African Drunk]

Out of interest does BALPA feel part time crew should gain senority at the same rate as 100% rostered pilots?

And secondly if the pilot in question was male, wanting to look after his children, would this ruling help them?

[Helli-Gurl]

As a female commercial pilot I can only feel that Jessica Starmer has set back the cause of us females that wish to work as pilots in the world of commercial aviation by years if not decades.

If this case sets a precedent, what credible employers are going to give us girls a serious look?

[HZ123]

Quite. It seems that many of these comments are clearly directed at her sex. I suppose if this had been a male F/O we would all be fully supportive of him.

[Aloue]

Genghis Cant says:As a part time pilot with a fifty percent roster and a substantial load more hours than this young lady I know exactly how rusty you get......and how quickly.
Am we to take it then that you have therefore stopped being a part time pilot? If not, what are you trying to tell us?

[Harry Wragg]

I suppose the main thing an employer looks for in an employee is the ability to actually be at work, to do the job they were hired to do. Not much point having 50000 employees, all of whom are not there!

I'm off to write a letter to BALPA to see if they will support my case for every Sunday off. After all can't someone be a pilot and a Christian.

Lifes not fair, and BALPA are there to ensure that it stays that way.

Harry

[MikeGodsell]

My BALPA membership is cancelled from today.

Should I or any member of my family travel by BA airbus, we will off-load ourselves in the unlikely event of the aircraft being flown by Jessica Starmer.

MG

[Helli-Gurl]

suppose the main thing an employer looks for in an employee is the ability to actually be at work, to do the job they were hired to do

Precisely Harry, after this case thanks to Jessica employers are going to see us as a liability and when we go to interviews for jobs and don't get them are BALPA going to be there ensuring we're not being treated unjustly? Do BALPA monitor companies interview/selection to ensure everyone is treated fairly?

I don't think so!

Next they'll be taking the vote off us!

[wiggy]

African Drunk

" If the pilot in question was male, wanting to look after his children, would this ruling help them"

I think the official answer that has been peddled "elsewhere" is that one day it may:confused:, indeed in his first posting here DF stated the effects of such rulings "more than likely filters down in time".. ......... so that's alright then.

What is needed now of course is for a case such as you describe to present itself immediately. I'm sure we would then see BALPA backing it with all the enthusiasm it backed the "Jessica" case, making sure TV cameras were present at New Road when the verdict was announced, etc :hmm:

[CaptainFillosan]

This thread, and the other one, are getting true feelings emerging again. And why not? We are each entitled to an opinion - for what its worth - and I am seriously concerned, and I hoped FL would answer it, that this tribunal was made up of non-flying non aviation 'experts' with an opinion! I cannot stand back and like that.

I think it is bang out of order and, as far as I know, they were in NO position to understand the scene in which we live. Being represented by BALPA has not much credence either because my senses tell me that the tribunal were swayed toward M/s Starmer - via BALPA. BA have many rights to sanctify here too and I reckon that BALPA have come out of this very badly.

I truly believe that this case was badly thought out and should not have been bought - my opinion you understand. But I hope BA win the appeal because they deserve to.

[Cruise Alt]

The easy soloution for BA:

The way it was done while I was instructing to get the hours required for my CV to be even read by an airline (just about the same as JS's total now) and, I believe the way Low Costs want to do it:

1: Pilots paid by the hour for their duty (allowances) + flying equivilent to current salary at say 800 hours flown.

2: Pilots pay for all their check flights / sims.

3: Pilots pay for their own training.

4. Pilots pay for any recurrent / additional training needed.

5. Pilots pay for their own benefits ie health care.

6. Leave Pro rata on hours flown.

7. Seniority based on hours flown in the company.

This solves the problem completely. BA pays a high enough hourly rate so that at, say, 800 hours a year the pay remains the same take home as before. It is then entirely up to the pilot how much they wish to work. No one is disadvantaged by someone not working as much as they are.

[Dave Fielding]

hours
I'll still be careful, but I haven't come here to dodge tricky issues. That would be defeating the object of being here. Our point about hours is that whilst they are as good a measure as we have, they should not be the only one. For example, there are minimum hours requirements set down for command, but merely achieving the hours does not guarantee you the LHS. You have to pass the course first, which comes down to individual ability.

Now, you could argue that the logic of the 2000 threshold says "achieve the hours and then we'll make an assessement of whether you are safe." This is a position not without logic. However, our argument is that BA have produced no data to back this figure up, and neither, incidentally, has anyone on any forum I have participated in. The whole safety argument revolves around one thing: a judgement call. And a call based on no data.

Two vital points flow from this:

1) for 10 years in the 1990s, BA quite happily had its brand new cadet pilots on the Airbus averaging an annual total of about 470 hours, or roughly 67% of what the co-pilots are flying now. That's a lot of data which actually proves that it would appear safe to fly at less than 75% at under 2000hours. BA did not challenge this evidence in the tribunal

2) in its findings, the tribunal noted (para65) that "a larger proportion of women than men within the pool work at both 75% and 50% of full time. The difference increases to be a considerable one as the further one moves from full time through 75% to 50%". In other words, when you get into the 50% zone, the proportion of females to males is very large. There are approximately the same number of males as females on 50% contracts in BA, yet there are 18 times more men than women.

THEREFORE, any restriction on the granting of 50% which does not have sufficient justification (and the tribunal said the BA had not produced any evidence to justify it) must have a significantly bigger impact on females than males, and thus is discriminatory.

Hope I haven't dodged any tricky areas there....

personal attacks
Hmmm. of course people have a right to express their feelings, but when they become rude and insulting I have to start questioning it. On this page of the thread alone we have two comments:

a) "[Yossarian] coincidently was a character who didn't want to fly"
b) "someone as seemly as full as themselves as JS"

Now, have either of these people making these comments met Jessica? On what basis are they making these personal attacks? What is it adding to the debate? I wonder how these people would feel if someone else made such comments about them in public based on a small slice of the story without, apparently, thinking a little more about it. And by that I mean, has anybody on this forum ever taken their employer to court? Have any of you any idea what a trauma it is? Does anyone seriously think that Jessica woke up one morning and thought "I fancy a bit more than 75% so I'll take BA to court"? She did so because she was staring down the barrel of having to give up the job she loves and has dreamt about and worked for since she was a little girl. If she really doesn't want to fly and isn't committed, why didn't she just walk away? " I resign" are two very easy words, and a lot easier than everything she has gone through over the past year.

This is as near to emotion as I will get on this forum, because long experience has taught me that data wins arguments and emotion loses them. I am breaking no confidences when I tell you that the layout of the tribunal room meant that when you sat in the witness seat and answered questions from BA's counsel, over their shoulder was sitting the ranks of the senior management in BA Flight Ops. You are 26 years old, the nation's media are outside and indeed inside the tribunal, and you are looking your big, big boss in the eye and taking them to court. It is stressful beyond belief. Believe me, I sat in that seat after Jessica to give evidence.

Contrary to certain opinions, Jessica is not a silly little girl, nor is she greedy and self-seeking. She is a highly-intelligent, quiet and unassuming young lady who would far rather not be doing this. She also happens to be a very good pilot, as her training record in BA plus her status as a national standard glider pilot shows. She is doing what she is doing to save her dream. Taking your employer to tribunal is no cake walk, and there has to be a very good reason to do so. BALPA's stringent mechanisms would not allow us to support any case which does not have a greater than 50% chance of winning. I would ask you to bear this in mind when coming to any judgement about Jessica's character, and furthermore ask what such judgements bring to the debate.

PTW / reserve
You are correct. Work is ongoing to look at this issue, as an ever-increasing reserve burden is falling on an ever-decreasing pool of full-time pilots. This is a situation which cannot be sustained.

PTW / seniority
All arguments about the rate of moving up the seniority list as a PTW are, I'm afraid, irrelevant. You cannot be disadvantaged in your status by being PT, and moving up the list more slowly would deny you promotion opportunities, which is illegal.

Setting back the cause of females in the industry
This statement has been made several times, and I think it is probably worth expanding this argument. Can you detail please exactly why this case will be to the detriment of females, going into as much depth as you can, and we'll try and have the debate around these points rather than broad opinions. This isn't a dig - it is a genuine attempt to work through the issue because I think it is important.

OK, off to have a day in the garden (it's Bank holiday, the sun is shining, and I'm inside defending Jessica. What does that tell you? Yes OK, I need a life...)

Dave

[sammypilot]

Dave,

In Flying Lawyers summary of the judgement, it was mentioned that Mrs. Starmer was away from flying for 19 months using leave and, to quote, "other means" to extend her period of absence. I have asked this before but it hasn't been answered. Are we ever likely to know what those "other means" were or do you feel unable to disclose them?

[Tallbloke]

Can you detail please exactly why this case will be to the detriment of females Come on Dave don't be so naive. It is well known that recruiters get sent hundreds of CV's and that a great many of these are sorted in a fairly arbitrary way ie by school, modular / integrated, young/old etc. none of which have anything to do with experience and ability. Who is to say employers are not now more likely put applications from women on the same pile as the older modular applicants? It might well be as illegal as the ageism but how would you prove it is taking place? I agree it will probably have less effect on female BALPA members, but if an environment is created where employers are less likely to hire women in the first place, then the number of female members will decline, which is the opposite of what everyone would want.

[Omark44]

Having myself experienced being off work for nearly six weeks due to illness, following twenty four years of continuous flying, I would have thought that after nineteen months away from work such an enormous break in continuity and consolidation, following an obviously very limited overall experience of flying, Mrs Starmer would have required complete retraining, starting at just a little on the up side of first solo.

[Heliport]

Dave

People will hold different views on whether it's necessary to actually meet someone in order to form a valid opinion about them, or whether an opinion can reasonably be formed based on their behaviour. The old adage 'actions speak louder than words' may have some force. It's true there have been some strong criticisms of her, and it's obviously a matter of opinion whether they are justified, but you might also concede that some of those who condemn her have been commendably restrained in not commenting upon Captain Starmer's personal circumstances when she met him.

Not giving an opinion on the case itself, just setting the record straight on one point -
"You are 26 years old, the nation's media are outside"
The "nation's media" didn't just happen to be passing through Watford. There was no media interest in the claim until BALPA, presumably with the agreement of the (undoubtedly) highly-intelligent and (allegedly) "quiet and unassuming" Mrs Starmer, chose to create it.
BALPA's own website triumphantly gives details of how it very successfully managed to manipulate media coverage, giving the story to the Press "only on the Sunday before the Monday hearing, so that it hit Monday morning’s papers and Monday morning television and radio programmes."
BALPA's Press Release gave Mrs Starmer's side of the argument. Mrs Starmer gave interviews to the Press, and so did the BALPA Officials fighting her case - including you.

BALPA's timing gave BA no chance to give the other side of the argument to the Press before the tribunal started - even if they'd thought that was the right way to go about things.
What would BALPA's reaction have been if BA had released details of her claim and her personal circumstances, and BA's side of the argument, to the Press on the day before the hearing was due to start?

The Press are fickle, and they rarely miss a chance to criticise our industry.
Will the same Press be quite as generous if there's an accident in which one of the pilots is inexperienced low hours part-time - even if the accident has got nothing at all to do with inexperience, low hours part-time?

[Helli-Gurl]

Dave,

I agree totally with Tallbloke, infact wouldn't have put it any differently myself, applications from women now are very likely to be put into the undesirable pile illegal tho this may be and I am sure BALPA wont be monitoring the situation to ensure this doesn't happen, to be honest this really isn't for BALPA to do but having lit the blue touch paper with case BALPA are now involved.

Also how do you plan to take this issue up with the smaller companies ? where this sort of thing is rife.

Not all companies are large enough to tackle this issue like BA, nor do they have large PC HR departments that make sure a cross section of society are interviewed when they apply and in fairness to BA they do go out of their way to ensure they are seeing a selection of candidates from different backgrounds.

In small companies, the CV lands on the bosses desk, he's having a hard day, his one female pilot has called in sick with period pains, he's been reading this thread on PPrune and if the CV he picks up is from a woman, then it gets filed under 'B' for Bin.

I Fly for one of these small companies and have seen it happen , CVs just get dumped in the bin due to age, race, country of origin and sex, withouttheir ability to fly the aircraft or past flying experience ever being taken into account.

The only reason we have two female pilots on the books is that customers sometimes ask for us,it's as simple as that otherwise we would not be there.

It's hard enough getting into flying when you're a woman as by it's nature it's a very male dominated profession and now employers have been handed on a plate the perfect excuse to ease their selection worries.

[bazzaman96]

Dave,

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to reply on these forums: it's good to see BALPA engaging with their members.

I wondered if I could pick up on a few of the points made in your last post, which don't appear to have been addressed in my earlier questions:

1) Setting higher standards

You said "Our point about hours is that whilst they are as good a measure as we have, they should not be the only one. For example, there are minimum hours requirements set down for command, but merely achieving the hours does not guarantee you the LHS. You have to pass the course first, which comes down to individual ability."

BALPA seems to have approached the tribunal with the argument that BA have not adduced evidence that flying 50% hours is unsafe. Whether it is or it is not, can you clarify whether airlines are therefore no longer free to impose stricter standards on their staff than are necessary? Aviation is a career where high standards are expected at all times - does BALPA's argument now mean that provided you meet the minimum criteria, you ought not to be discriminated against? As I asked previously, whatever happened to the idea of striving to excel?

The point is simple: the international consumer sees BA as a flagship airline, with an outstanding safety record. BA sets its own high standards internally. Now that BALPA has stepped in, does this set a precedent indicating the airlines cannot impose stricter requirements over and above the basic threshold required to do a job safely? BA wanted Jessica to work 75%. BALPA said that 50% is just as safe. For BA to impose their super-safe regime it discriminates against Jessica. In other words, BA cannot demand more than others demand, from their staff. Why shouldn't they be able to, given that many people fly with BA because of their image as a very safe and well-regulated airline? I would argue that BALPA's argument hasn't made flying less safe, but has removed the opportunity for airlines to make improve safety by demanding more from their pilots.

2) The Gender Argument

I'd like to stress again that surely this argument isn't a question of men v women, but a question of pregnant women v women. Could you clarify, if I (a man) wanted to adopt a young child, would BALPA support me in requesting 50% working hours? Surely this would be answered in the affirmative: demonstrating that this isn't a gender issue, like others on the forums have argued, confusingly.

Interestingly (and this is purely for interest - it has no bearing on the dispute here!), you may recall that about 8 months ago there were a series of articles in the national press about a UKIP MEP, called Godfrey Bloom, who had got into trouble over remarks he made at an after-dinner speech for Cambridge University Womens's Rugby Club, where he argued that women suffer from discrimination from employers who are reluctant to take them on, knowing full well that many will become pregnant. While I disagree with his and UKIP's position, it's interesting how the entire frenzy over his comments is exactly the subject matter of the discussion here!

3) Helli-Girl's argument: cynicism against women

One final question, more hypothetical. Some people have argued here that this result will harm women in the long term because employers will approach their CVs with cynicism, knowing that many women will, inevitably (if you accept your own comments earlier) have children and therefore take time out. There is no way to know if that is true or not. As a note of caution, however, there is surely the possibility that in 5, 10 years time, when looking at the major airlines in Britain, we see that only 2.9% of pilots are female, and some people attribute that to employer cynicism, when that is not the case. The danger is that if we try and identify the reason why such a low percentage of women become pilots it is easy to mis-identify it as being due to employer cynicism, and by trying to take action against the cynicism of employers, by clamping down on those that do not take enough female pilots, you are in fact employing reverse-discrimination against men and women with no intention of having children. Note that this is a hypothetical situation, but not an altogether unlikely one.

Clearly men and women should have equal rights and more should be done to encourage women to move into aviation, but I just wanted to show that some of the arguments used in this discussion, namely that this result will cause employers to lean towards hiring men, if true, have the potential to actually discriminate against men if organisations such as BALPA take a firm line of preventing employer cynicism, if it doesn't actually exist.

[Harry Wragg]

Dave is obviously an idealist which is very commendable in this day and age. The points he make are perfectly valid and hopelessly unrealistic. In the real world (which seemingly exists outside BA) things are very different. The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions.

I think the fact that BA employees tend to live in this deluded "bubble" world is one of the reasons it has so many problems. Employment legislation, rules, and regulations make BA virtually unmanageable.

Going outside to enjoy the sun is only thing that has made sense so far. So I'm off out.

Harry

[shortly]

Dave, thank you for being game enough to dip your toes in the water here. No real ogres on site, more a group of professional aviators most of whom do not agree with the course Jessica and Balpa would have us take. Now there are only 2.9% ladies in the seats, this issue being so up front at present can only ensure that figure gets smaller. That's one issue, a lawyer would probably recommend legislating in some form of discrimination against men at the selection point to ensure the percentage of females chosen for employment gets larger. Maybe set a minimum % of females in the job by a certain time. It's been done elsewhere. Down go standards. Notwithstanding a couple of earlier posts to the contrary, a professional pilot needs to stay in practice and fly regularly to stay safe. I don't know what that figure in % hours terms would be, and it would vary depending on experience, type of operation and locale, to suggest but a few of the issues involved. Jessica is inexperienced, apparently not really motivated towards flying and has been off the scene for a large chunk of time in the near past. her needs for exposure to operations are probably far higher than say 50%. Balpa has decided to continue pushing this barrow, I don't agree that this issue is so important as to require the expenditure of the resources needed. There are far more important issues in aviation which should be taking up your valuable time. Can I ask you a question, are you a pilot? Would you consider someone without a suitable professional background could really understand what is going on here?

[Hand Solo]

Dave is a short haul Captain with BA.

[Boy]

Approximately 100 years ago in my home city it was extremely rare to see a female studying medicine (too “hysterical” for the job). Now a significant majority of first year medical students at a local university are female. In the U.S. there is a growing problem with encouraging medical students to take up various specialisations that demand too much in terms of time and irregular hours. It is both males and females that express a strong desire to have a family life. They want their lives organised differently and they see this as a lifestyle issue, not a gender issue.

As for aviation, well here it’s apparently back to attitudes of more than 100 years ago. It is 20 plus years since the first of many female pilots joined my airline. I remember the captains who vowed to resign from either the pilots association or airline rather than fly with females who, in their view, were clearly going to be sub-standard pilots. There was much talk of “political correctness” and kitchen sinks. There is simply no doubt that for many pilots this was a step too far. Sincere perhaps, but it was simply a prejudice. This was made clear when it began to dawn on some that many of the ladies were more competent than many of their male colleagues. The reaction of some was far from gallant. The cockpit behaviour of some of the more diehard captains continued until they retired and the stories of very bad behaviour came out later. ( I guess the presence of the females “made them do it”).

Then, of course, there were the inevitable pregnancies and, in this wonderfully male world, we saw the total inability of most pilots to comprehend that women sometimes have babies. Worse, they do so in a manner that is often rather inconvenient from an operational point of view. “I mean, they want time off!” Or, if their airline insists on grounding them, “there they are, at home doing nothing and I am picking up the work”. My observations over this period suggest to me that no data, no rational argument and no discussion of the realities will ever work to persuade those who are just, well, offended - for want of a better word - that women might want to fly AND bring order to their personal lives. No, say the men, if you chose aviation you MUST suffer. You must have your children at a convenient time, you must take the employers needs into account, you must live closer to the airport, etc., etc. Then there are those who say, quite seriously, “if you wanted to have a family you should chosen another job”.

Let’s get real here. This is about basic ignorance, or prejudice. Arguments about minimum hours of flying, distraction, etc. are advanced by those who frequently seem to forget that absolutely similar arguments can be made about male pilots who, for example, engage in various non-flying duties. In fact, many of the arguments made against female pilots have a parallel with analogous situations in which men find the arrangements acceptable. For example, we have pilots in many airlines operating 50% flying, half a line, or whatever. Make that a female pilot flying 50% so as to have time with her children and we suddenly have a safety argument. We even have professional pilots in this thread announcing that 50% flying is unsafe and one stating that he and his family will never fly with a particular pilot, whom he names … I mean what kind of nonsense is this? Not EVER? Are there no questions to be asked? Is this the attitude of someone who is in the slightest interested in facts, or what currency arrangements have been made to take account of the situation? In fact is it the attitude of someone who is actually interested in anything other than his point of view? (perhaps a distant echo of the female medical students at the turn of the century who were allegedly hysterical?).

As things stand females are seriously under-represented in airline flight operations. The law of the land makes clear that discrimination on grounds of gender is unacceptable. These are the key facts. It will take time, but ultimately these are the facts that matter. Whether it be BALPA, other organisations or individuals who pursue their entitlements, those entitlement will remain - namely that they not be subject to adverse treatment on the basis of gender.

I admire Dave’s commitment to seeking a fair and rational debate. I wish him luck in dealing with representatives of a profession in which everything from ab initio cadets, low-time pilots to “locals” and females have been deemed “unsuitable” on the grounds of, let’s be honest, prejudice masquerading as safety. As has been demonstrated in the past few decades, if you have a will, such safety issues as arise can be dealt with in any operational area. Dealing with pilot attitudes is clearly somewhat more problematic.

[PPRuNe Pop]

Hand solo I think your comment is inappropiate and therefore irrelevant. Dave Fielding has been good enough to join the debate and is entitled to anonimity in regards to his day job and you, I suggest, were wrong in displaying it here. Perhaps you would be good enough to reconsider your post.

[Big Hilly]

Hand solo, I agree entirely with PPRuNe Pop's post. Your post contributes nothing to the argument of the case. Dave does a great deal of work for Pilots Ts & Cs within BA and a great deal of other work that many on here are unaware of.

He stood up for a fellow employee and has chosen to do so once again on here. . . Maybe, just maybe he deserves to be cut a little slack?

BH

[Dave Fielding]

PPP
Thank you for your kind concern, I appreciate it. However, the fact that I was quoted in the press during the tribunal as being a BA captain, kind of gives the game away. I have no problems with revealing my title and day job. I'm new to this forum, so maybe you tell me if contributors who use their real names regularly get dead rabbits through the letterbox...?

Some very interesting posts since my last. We seem to be drilling nicely into the real issues of the debate - thank you all. I would love to respond in detail but I have a very early report in the morning, so can I leave you for the moment with one question to our female rotary colleague, who makes some very pertinent comments:

given that this case has made headline news across the world, and the situation of female pilots is squarely under the spotlight, do you think that the employer you mention will think twice now about filing that female application in the bin?

Gotta dash

Dave

[Argus]

Boy
We even have professional pilots in this thread announcing that 50% flying is unsafe...

And, pray, why not? If that's their professional opinion, then so be it. And I'll have regard to that opinion.

So why, in your professional opinion, is 50% flying safe?

[ornithopter]

Dave,

You miss the point in 2000 hours. It is not just an hours figure. In the same way you argue that this case is discriminating against women as more of them are part time, the 2000 hours is not a single figure. It is 2000 hours as a full or 75% pilot, which indicates and implies a certain amount of currency and hours per month. This of course excludes leave and sickness, but they are unlikely to be a major factor.

Consider this all those who think 50% is safe. If you have 2 weeks off a month and put those back to back, it equates to month on, month off. Its not nescessarily working 50% of the time. Those guys on the Airbus a few years ago were working thoughout the month, they weren't working in fits and starts. This ensured they had some continuity. Having a month off at a time for 6 months of the year, means you turn up to work for 30ish% of your work very rusty.

Lack of handling and continuity in the longhaul fleets is a problem, that is why the pilots often have to go back in the sim and stay current. This is true industry wide.

I had 2 years off flying a while ago and it is amazing what you forget. The 19 months JS has had off are significant.

As for going to tribunal for the job you love, I do have sympathy with that view. A tribunal is not something you do lightly. However I wonder how much is JS and how much is BALPA pushing and advising. BALPA gave advice to a pilot in the past that led in part to his suicide. That is not something you do lightly either. It can be argued that the advice BALPA gave was a contributory factor in that case. I wonder how the current advice has affected JS. I may well be wrong, but as I state above, I am wondering not judging.

"I resign" is not easier to say than go to a tribunal however. "I resign" deletes 25 years worth of cash, a tribunal even if lost, may only delete a few months cash. Resignation is forever, a tribunal while stressful and unpleasant is a passing thing.

[woodpecker]

Inconsistant BALPA processes

Dave, you talk of the relationship between the NEC and the "legal advisers".

When 50 retiring captains lost their Christmas Bonus a couple of years ago (even though they all had a letter from their Chief Pilot guaranteeing payment) they approached BALPA for legal support.

BALPA refused to take on the company on behalf of the few (with total time in the company approaching 1700 years,)

Not even a letter was forthcoming from the legal team or the NEC to explain why!

Perhaps the fact that they had retired and would not be offering their 1% to BALPA played a part.

Returning to the thread regarding ONE pilot with three or four years in the company....

Your defense of why she had 17 months off is not convincing. Nine months (assuming she informed the company on the day of conception and was taken off the roster on the same day) plus nine weeks plus a bit of leave falls short of 17 months

It has been far too easy for her. What a shame she doesn't have to pay for her training (the present cost for a frozen ATPL is approaching £85000 plus the odd £15000 for a type rating). That equates to £20,000 after tax each year for five years. Are you really saying that CEP's are paid £20,000 (plus tax) less than the market rate?

I understand she is pregnant again. Another 17 months off. Perhaps she will then ask for your support for a company run creche... Where will it end?

[Flying Lawyer]

Boy Let’s get real here. This is about basic ignorance, or prejudice. No, it's not.
It's about an exchange of views by people holding different opinions with some excellent contributions by well-informed people on both sides of the divide in both threads on the topic - only occasionally spoilt by people claiming those who don't share their views are ignorant and/or prejudiced.

BTW, part-time working itself wasn't an issue at the Tribunal, according to the judgment. The safety or otherwise of part-time working by relatively inexperienced pilots before they've achieved a certain threshold of experience was. I make no comment on that. If I did, I'd be speaking from a position of ignorance.

[Boy]

And, pray, why not? If that's their professional opinion, then so be it. “Professional opinion” implies a measure of professional skill and experience upon which a judgment is based. It does not, of itself, guarantee correctness – especially if the professional strays into territory for which he or she is ill-equipped, such as airworthiness, aeromedicine, minimum currency, etc. I suspect that what you mean is “if that their professional opinion and mine are in agreement then so be it”. Would you be so quick to use the expression to express agreement with what I said? From your comments, I think not. So then we have two professional opinions pulling in different directions. So how does one work out which is correct?

An opinion unsupported by facts, logic and argument is worth very little. The sterility of a discussion on this “50%” business is given by the simple question: “50% of what?”. Look at the problems of currency for Ultra Long Haul pilots, or of management pilots, or of those involved in projects, or F/Os in some long-haul airlines who rarely get to handle an aircraft. In some of these cases the big issue is when last did you do a landing, while in others it is when last did you fly. In others it is did you fly in the last 28, 36 or 45 days? In fact is the requirement in the U.S. not to have conducted a Take-off and Landing in the last 90 days? Are the people working in such a fashion unsafe?

In actual fact there are pilots flying a lot, and I mean a lot, less than 50% of the average in their organisation. What also of those airlines with a seriously depressed winter schedule where keeping currency is a problem in the slump months (less of them around these days, but they exist).

In other words, in my eyes your question is not too much different from asking “in your professional opinion how long is a piece of string?”. You need criteria, you need context and you need practical examples to test the guidance you produce when viewed from various extremes. This is no more or less than any Aviation Authority does, or the JAA/FAA do when contemplating regulations.

So when I react to those who say “50% flying is unsafe” I am just saying that half a piece of string is a meaningless measurement. KLM is one of several airlines that has had 50% flying for quite a long time. In your professional opinion have they been unwise for all these decades? If so, what makes your opinion of greater value than their experience?

*****

Flying Lawyer. I accept that there is indeed an argument to be had on the merits and that many contributors have done so. I may also have imported some prejudices to my contribution above from reading the other thread on this subject. That being said, I believe that I could cite quite a lot of material that indicates prejudice – pre-judgment - rather than argument. I don’t think that would be worthwhile or productive but I don’t believe I am mistaken. I hope you might agree. As it appears you are a lawyer perhaps you might care to comment upon the sustainability of some of the arguments here in the light of the relevant legislation? It would appear to me that they would not get very far, especially when you look at how such matters have fared in various businesses outside of aviation.

As regards setting a threshold for part-time working I have no argument.

[Hand Solo]

PPRuNe Pop and Big Hilly. If you read the last two sentences of shortlys post you'll see the relevance. As Dave himself points out, his day job was well publicised in the press and is well known within BA. In my opinion his day job only adds credence to his assertion that BAs safety argument is groundless and thus is relevant to the discussion.

[Ranger One]

Flying Lawyer:

BTW, part-time working itself wasn't an issue at the Tribunal, according to the judgment. The safety or otherwise of part-time working by relatively inexperienced pilots before they've achieved a certain threshold of experience was.

My reading of DFs posts and the tribunal report from yourself leads me to believe that this isn't the whole story; AFAIK 'part-time working itself' *was* the core of the initial refusal of 50% and appeal - BA argued that they had to refuse 50% on grounds of lack of resources. Safety was not mentioned, the safety argument was introduced by BA at a later stage as a makeweight, it was *not* the primary reason for refusing 50%.

Is my understanding still defective?

R1

[HZ123]

Leave Jessica alone if she sees any of this she can only get more stressed. BA management have only themselves to blame for this as there are far to many examples of favouritism in the past, many examples of the old pals act and such inept managememt now has to pay the price, as half the airline wants to go on 50% not including FC. I wonder how the shareholders feel about this.

[Argus]

Boy

I used the term “professional opinion” to establish a baseline of specialist knowledge that enables a person to give evidence of a fact or a state of affairs.

As a now non practicing aviator, I will pay respectful attention to the views so expressed; and weight them accordingly.

However, this should not be confused with an expert opinion which is admissible whenever the subject before the Court (or a tribunal) is such that competency to form an opinion on the subject can only be acquired by special study or experience.

It is evidence adduced through the latter that will be relevant to the Court’s deliberations.

But opinions proffered by the former are the subject of argument on this thread.

While you take me to task on semantics, you still don’t proffer an opinion on why you think 50% flying is safe.

And your profile is silent on the extent of specialist knowledge and qualification you possess to support any assertion you make that it is.

[maxy101]

HZ123 So does JS's case make it easier or more difficult for the other BA staff /FC wishing to go part time? Time will tell, but IMO, it will make it harder for all those that don't have the statutory right under Right to Request. Will BALPA be taking BA to court on behalf of the rest of us? Somehow, I think not.
BTW, did BALPA ever find the allegedly missing money that disappeared from the BALPA legal fund?

[Flying Lawyer]

Boy
I agree there has been material which "indicates prejudice – pre-judgment - rather than argument" but IMHO it has been on both sides. eg Some on the 'pro-Starmer' side show little or no sign of having considered with an open mind either BA's safety argument, or the practical implications of their ideals, the adverse effect on other pilots in the fleet etc.
I also suspect some on the anti side may have been more supportive in another instance, but not in the particular circumstances of Mrs Starmer's case which might appear to some as 'taking all' but being prepared to give little, expecting BA and her colleagues to accommodate her wishes but doing little or nothing (herself or husband) to organise their own life to allow for ther life-style choices.
Some might have been more sympathetic if she hadn't so recently been sponsored by BA and/or had worked a little more before expecting her application to be granted ahead of others who've worked for the company for longer:-
Recruited from university and trained ab initio by BA.
May 2001: Employed as First Officer on a full time contract.
Feb 2003 onwards: Pregnant/unable to fly.
October 2003: Began maternity leave.
March 2004 (while still on maternity leave):applied for a contract variation to 50%, having flown only 970 hours with BA in almost three years employment.

I'm not qualified to answer your question about the sustainability of arguments advanced here - I'm not an employment specialist. As an unqualified layman in this context, I think some of the legislation is unfair to men and women who don't have young children - and I prefer a balance of 'rights and responsibilities' to simply 'rights'.

Ranger One
I was responding to just one point. As you say, there were other issues.
"AFAIK 'part-time working itself' *was* the core of the initial refusal of 50% and appeal.
"No, part-time working in itself was not an issue at any stage. BA had a policy of actively attracting and recruiting women pilots and, in 2000, had introduced a PTW system to help those with child care difficulties. It recognised that working mothers were most likely to need to take advantage of the system.
The issue was part-time working in a particular case. Applications weren't granted as of right, but considered on a case by case basis taking into account fleet resource/budget, recency etc
eg Five pilots on the LHR Airbus fleet applied to work part-time in Feb/March 2004 - four women and one man. The four women applied for 50%; the man applied for 75%. One of the women was allowed 50%, the other three (incl Mrs Starmer) were offered 75%. The man's application for 75% was refused entirely.
At that time, Mrs Starmer's application for 50% (and I assume those of the other two women who wanted 50%, and the man who wanted 75%) could not be granted for fleet resource reasons. She was given that reason for the refusal.

"Safety was not mentioned ..... it was *not* the primary reason for refusing 50%."
You're right. Mrs Starmer's application couldn't be granted anyway (regardless of her recency/experience) for resource reasons - so the safety considerations didn't arise. I don't think anyone suggested that, had resources been available at the time, BA wouldn't have then gone on to consider her recency/experience before concluding whether her particular application could be granted. I'd be surprised if such factors weren't considered by any responsible operator.
With the benefit of hindsight (always a wonderful thing) it might have been better if BA had gone on to consider whether, even if resources had been available, it would have granted her application. If the answer to that was 'No' because she was inexperienced, hadn't flown at all for 19 months and, in their opinion, needed more experience in a concentrated period before being allowed to work part-time, and the safety reason had been included in the formal reasons, then the result might have been different. I say 'might' because the Tribunal didn't accept there was any problem with [u]any pilot flying only 50% - regardless of his/her lack of experience.

"the safety argument was introduced by BA at a later stage as a makeweight"
That's certainly the spin Mrs Starmer's side put on it, but it's not how I read the facts. (See above.)
Her lawyers tried to persuade the Tribunal it should not even consider the 'safety' aspect because it wasn't included in the formal reasons for refusal. (I'd have done the same because I'd have been worried I might lose if the safety aspects were examined, given Mrs Starmer's inexperience and lack of recent flying.)
The Tribunal rejected that argument, heard the conflicting safety evidence/arguments, and said it wasn't persuaded there was a safety issue - no doubt to the relief of the Starmer side!

HZ123
If I was a shareholder, I'd be very unhappy with the Tribunal's decision and hope that it would be over-turned on appeal.

maxy101
If the decision is upheld on appeal, I also think it will be harder for those pilots who don't have the statutory right under Right to Request. Funds aren't unlimited, regardless of the size of a company and, if the decision stands, priority will have to be given to those who come within the statutory provisions.
I also wonder how long BA will continue it's voluntary policy of actively recruiting women pilots - the legal requirement is only not to discriminate against women.

[Alex Whittingham]

I'm missing your general point Flying Lawyer. Are you saying the Tribunal's decision was incorrect or that BA's barristers didn't present the case properly?

[Flying Lawyer]

You haven't missed anything - I haven't made a general point.

I've been trying in my summary of the judgment and other posts to help people understand the issues the Tribunal had to decide, and the reasons it gave for the decision it reached.
I emphasise 'understand' the Tribunal's reasons - people can decide for themselves if they agree with them.

Because of a position I hold in the legal system (in addition to being a barrister) it wouldn't be appropriate for me to express my opinion of the Tribunal's reasoning or ultimate finding.

The finding re the safety aspect was a matter of fact, not law. There are many people here more qualified than me to express informed opinions on that aspect.

As for the lawyers' conduct of the case .... I wasn't in the case so I'm not in a position to comment.
Sometimes, when you lose, you can't help wonder whether a different approach might have worked. On other occasions you feel the court/tribunal was so favourably disposed to the other side that it wouldn't have made any difference to the result whatever you'd done. ;)

[Alex Whittingham]

Ah, I see. I noticed you hadn't said either of those things, maybe I was reading between the lines too much.

[Ranger One]

Flying Lawyer - thanks for the full explanation, I'm clearer now.

WRT to the safety argument, as lay people, I'm pretty sure the tribunal would have looked at the regs, on the grounds that if there was a real safety issue here the CAA would have regulated it. 'Was there anything in CAA regs to prevent JS from resuming her flying career at 50%? No? So what's the problem...?'

R1

[Boy]

ArgusThe sterility of a discussion on this “50%” business is given by the simple question: “50% of what?”. Sorry that my statement, quoted above – joined by an argument to my concluding question for you regarding 50% flying in KLM (also Braathens and other operators) did not clarify the fruitlessness of a debate in which somebody declares “50% flying is unsafe” and somebody else says “50% flying is safe”. Both statements are meaningless without criteria (and therefore are not just a matter of semantics).

I was just trying to point out the practicalities of the matter; practicalities which any authority, ops. manager or legislator must consider when drawing up minimum requirements for any particular operational situation, whether it involves management pilots, part-time pilots of various descriptions, ad hoc corporate pilots, instructors, pilots mixing long and short haul, mixed-type/variant flying, etc.

Also in many cases in real operational life an acceptable level of flying is often much less than 50% of the norm. Is it appropriate to ask you how you would justify the argument that less than 50% is unsafe? I would have thought you could immediately spot the multitude of existing exceptions that could be cited to rebut such a claim.

If your desire is to engage me in a debate about a particular pilot, I am not willing to do so for reasons that are, I hope, apparent to you from the comments of a moderator above.


Flying Lawyer

In your post you say, for example,“… which might appear to some as 'taking all' but being prepared to give little …” “… doing little or nothing to organise her own life to allow for her life-style choices …” “Some might have been more sympathetic if she hadn't …” All of these make it clear that we are dealing with perceptions and judgments about a particular individual whom I don’t know and about whose situation I am reluctant to make judgments without a lot more information than is available here. I have been more interested in the principles that apply because I am unwilling to discuss an individual case, especially if this involves deducing or assuming motivational dispositions such as characterise your comments above. (Though I do note that all of the above citations could easily be applied to somebody who has suffered an above average sickness record).

I will comment on the safety argument. A pilot was returned to flying status in the last two weeks by a court in what I believe to be an aviation first. As I understand the situation, the operator declared his suspension was on safety grounds – but only after they got to court. The original letter of suspension said nothing about safety, but lots about other things. Unfortunately for the airline the judge took the view that if it really was about safety it would (a) have said that in the letter, (b) the pilot would have been interviewed first about the safety issue, and (c) it would not have been necessary for the chief pilot to swear an affidavit on the day of the trial saying he agreed with the original decision – made by a non-pilot - to suspend the pilot.

The lesson is clear: if you have safety grounds for a decision, then you should make them clear and have your evidence to hand. To introduce safety grounds after a decision has apparently been made on other grounds is, at a minimum, careless and incompetent. The safety argument is powerful, and IMHO much more powerful than any other argument. All the more reason that it be properly supported and advanced with proportionality and strict impartiality.

[Heliport]

Boy

Mrs Starmer had 'flying status'
she was never suspended
the operator didn't declare suspension was on safety grounds
there was no letter of suspension
there was no judge
affidavits didn't come into it ..... etc etc

Just as well you don't want to comment on the specific case. :D

(Understand your point that BA might have been wiser to go on to consider the safety factors, even if it was all academic because of the fleet resources/budget problem.)

[scroggs]

I'm not going to get involved in the specifics of the debate other than, to reinforce Boy's point, as a military pilot I regularly averaged around 300-350 hours per year - and many miltary pilots had to get by with far less. Despite the low figure, I was far more current, confident and skillful than I am now as a 750-hour-per-year A340 pilot. The context of the hours is far more relevant than the figure itself.

[Boy]

Heliport, well you seem to have really got the wrong end of the stick. I apologise for failing to be clear enough.

If you re-read carefully, you may conclude that I was attempting, apparently to little avail, to make the general point that to introduce a safety argument after the fact is rather unwise. I obviously failed to make the point clear. The specific matters you cite are thus of little relevance to the general point I made.

[cavortingcheetah]

;) What Ho! scroggs.
Isn't your point about how little you flew as a military pilot an absolutely perfect justification for the government to cut back on armed forces personnel and thus save all us poor tax payers a fortune?
:p

[Anti-ice]

I think the one thing that has cheesed off many people in this case was the fact that she had been with BA such a short space of time, before dragging them through the courts over this issue.

BA staff have had to endure cost savings for 8 years now, way before Miss S joined the company , and many appreciate that just one individuals actions can impact on the rest very easily.

There is such a thing in life as 'waiting your turn' and many in BA have waited years in BA just for a 75% contract which she seemd to get so easily before 'demanding' even more....

It's not so much the issue, it is the way she has gone about it.
After you have done alot of hard graft , you may expect to be able ask for special circumstances in return, but as she has already done less than half of the hard work of her hard pressed contemporaries, it is very hard to find any reason to identify with the way she has behaved.

Citing her 'tiring' (worrying) long 240 mile round trip drive (her choice) and her sudden lack of desire for 'early mornings' 'trips' and a full time job are not going to win her much sympathy in the airline world with those who are being worked off their feet ......

[Flying Lawyer]

Boy
In many ways PPRuNe can be a tough forum because there are lots of very informed people about. Harsh it may be, but errors in basic facts don't help credibility when trying to make a point here. It's best to not to react quite so seriously when someone tweaks your tail - particularly when they add a :D to show it's done in a friendly way. Only an opinion, offered for you to consider.

In regard to your 'general point', it may not change your view but you may wish to read my summary in response to Ranger One.

You may well be right that the flight safety argument was more powerful than the other arguments - I'm not an airline pilot so I'm not qualified to express a meaningful view.
However, if I was an F/O on the Airbus fleet already working the maximum hours agreed with BALPA, I might not be pleased that Mrs Starmer persuaded the Tribunal to dismiss this ground as "a voluntary agreement between BA and the relevant trade union and no more.”

Similarly, if I was waiting my turn to transfer fleets, I'd be worried about the consequences to me of Mrs Starmer pointing out that BA could alleviate fleet resource difficulties exacerbated by part-time working by refusing pilots' applications to transfer. As the Tribunal said in its judgment: “BA has a practice of allowing pilots to transfer to other fleets when possible. This …. is a matter within BA’s control.”

With BALPA's help, Mrs Starmer undoubtedly achieved a superb result for herself. If the decision survives the appeal process, she's got what she wanted and others with child care difficulties will probably benefit. However, pilots who don't come within the legislation (children under 6, or under 18 if disabled) may well find themselves worse off.

[niknak]

Whilst not denying that Mrs Starmer has an equal right to BALPAs services, take a look at the post on this forum about one MR Peter Bush.
Thats the sort of case BALPA should be giving maximum publicity to, regardless of whether he's a member, because it could happen to any of us.

I would be astounded, but in a cynical way, not suprised, if BALPA claim never to have come across the case.

[HZ123]

As ground staff with BA I do not think that BA staff that have endured various cut backs during the last 8 years will in anyway be suprised at the outcome. We would have expected her to get better and far more equal treatment than ground staff.

With regard to this decision surely the 'safety' issue would be a factor in respect of maternity leave which will last for about a year I believe.

Of more concern for the ladies is as a result of this outcome future recruitment might have to be closely looked at in regard of ladies. Although it is has to be equal there is no doubt that the predominantly male recruitment / interview body are going to be more circumspect of potential female employees.

On Jessicas' return to work she will also have to be treated with kid gloves as it is easy for her to feel a victim or harassed by her colleagues or management. As a number of us have said liberation / employment laws will come at a large cost to all of us.

[slj]

The problem with sex discrimination laws and especially those relating to part time working is that the law is such as to allow those who want to take maximum advantage of the law to do so. It is fortunate that most employees, both males and females, play a fair game, do not take “advantage of their rights” and act in a totally responsible manner both to the employer and their colleagues.

Many applications to work part time are from single parents (not those with two good incomes) and others who have an urgent need to work part time.

However, Mrs Starmer has acted within the letter of the law. Most large companies will have advisers etc priming them on how to make a more effective and defensive response to claims re part time work, and a response which might well be to the detriment of the applicant whose application is seen to be more justified than the claim of Mrs Starmer.

[cavortingcheetah]

:) I think it inconceivable that JS will not allow herself to feel victimized or harassed. Everything I have read about her would indicate, in my opinion, another law case against BA, funded by BALPA, for unfair work place practices.
But, if she were to be treated with kid gloves; would that not be discriminatory in itself? Poor old BA.;)

[Dangerman]

Bit off topic, but I will include it here because I think it is reflective of the "I have lots of rights but no responsibilities" attitude shown here, as well as the fact it also involves BA.

Evening Standard article (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/18329380?source=Evening%20Standard)

Basically, a mother left her baby behind in London FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER to take a trip to New York (now, you or I would no doubt have had a "trial run" first, staying with parents or similar for a couple of days to make sure everything would be OK, but anyway ...). Baby refused to drink while she was away, so she had to fly back again. She now expects BA and/or her insurance company to pay for this!!!

The one bit of good news for us Brits is the reason she was flying to the States was to attend an immigration interview .....

[Wiley]

Following on from sentiments expressed by a couple of recent posters on this thread, allow me to throw a very large rock into the pond - one that will possibly stir up a whole new debate and, I suspect, passions equally as deep as some we've seen already expressed on this and the earlier thread.

Is this case a good illustration for the argument to drop the whole sponsored cadet idea? Does it prove that something a person doesn't pay for him(her)self is not as valued as something a person sweats the proverbial blood to achieve? (I'm reminded of children who inherit money and squander is versus those who earn every penny they possess.)

I'm not for one moment saying a sponsored cadet doesn't work hard to achieve the required standard, but asking, in effect "Is the successful self improver more likely to value his(her) position in an airline than someone who is 'in the system' from Day 1 of his(her) initial training?".

In many other parts of the world, airlines place a high value on a prospective pilot who has done it the hard way, showing commitment by working in sometimes dreadful jobs - usually in dreadful places - building up considerable hours on a wide variety of equipment before he (she) is even considered for employment in an airline. That same applicant has had considerable command experience, (granted, on small aircraft, but that hardly makes any differeence), and has had his (her) share of frights - a very necessary part of the learning curve for any aviator in my opinion. Many cadets might not experiences his (her) first real fright until he (she) has 150, or maybe 450 passengers down the back - and given the reliability of our modern airliners, he (she) may even be the captain by then.

In my current airline, we have a number of pilots who have made it to the left hand seat of a widebody and have never once done a diversion.

When I started in airlines, every pilot on my intake has considerably more hours than Ms Starmer has now, how many years into her employment with BA?

Standing by for the incoming.

[bazzaman96]

It's certainly a fair comment. I think the point is that that however you get there, you will still have the same rights irrespective of whether you got there from a cadet scheme or from your own blood, sweat and tears. There will always be those that want to demand more: sometimes with justification, sometimes without.

I take your point, however, though I'm sure Jessica Starmer hasn't been given the free ride that people may think. It will undoubtedly be difficult for her to re-integrate herself back into work given the publicity on her case, and as has been pointed out if she has put others' noses out of joint then she will probably received the cotton-wool treatment.

[prop jocket]

I know nothing about this case except what I have read in posts here and in the press, so I acknowledge that I may be factually lacking, I’d like to make that clear.

I also have no axe to grind, and am trying to look at this objectively.

I would like to share a true story with you to illustrate just how well off you tin tube drivers are with your T&C’s and your union representation.

A couple of years or so ago, a colleague of mine working for the engineering department of a well known carrier was in a similar set of circumstances to Ms.Starmer, in as far as he and his wife decided to start a family.

His wife died three days after child birth due to complications. Having used all of his annual leave and the two weeks compassionate leave to which he was entitled in order to care for his son and to try and arrange child care for him when he was at work, he applied to come off permanent nights and go onto a more child friendly flexible arrangement. He was refused, on the grounds that child care issues were not the company’s responsibility. He then offered to work twelve hour days to satisfy his contractual requirements. This was again refused, on the grounds that if they let him do it, they’d have to let everybody do it.

His union wouldn’t fight the case on the basis that they thought they couldn’t win on contractual grounds. He couldn’t sue for sexual discrimination (well, he was the wrong sex for a start), nor for constructive dismissal.

Being a man of integrity, he stood by his commitments and his life choice to have a family and resigned in order to take a more stable, less time intensive job whilst looking after his new born son.

Ms. Starmer, on the other hand, has a living partner who is well paid, and has done nothing more that thrown a tantrum and spat her dummy out because she can’t have it her own way. Frankly, to the outsider it stinks of “I’m a pilot, so gimme gimme gimme”. This lack of acquiescence on the part of BA, apparently, is as a result of sexual discrimination. Too right it is – she can do it, my colleague couldn’t. The difference is their respective sexes and places of work. She is a pilot, therefore the world revolves around her, and what’s more BALPA will flex their muscles to make sure everybody else acknowledges it. He was only an engineer, and therefore lower in the food chain than a snake’s belly in a wheel rut.

I hope that Mr. and Mrs Starmer can live with themselves, and that BALPA are proud of their achievement. All this case has done for the non-flight deck rest of the airline world is to reinforce the view that flight crew think they’re a special case and woe betide anybody who thinks otherwise.

For this reason, and this reason alone, most of the under classes in the airline business hope that BA win the appeal. Unless the rest of the pilots out there wish to be grouped along with her, I would recommend that you join us in condemning her actions.

[Heliport]

prop jocket

Interesting post, and a very sad story, but isn't it a bit unfair to tar all pilots with the same brush?

If you read the comments on this thread, and the other thread on the same topic (Click here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=158593) ) you might be surprised by the reactions of pilots to Mrs Starmer's claim and BALPA's role in it.

[BBT]

prop jocket, would it not be more appropriate to support legislation designed to meet the needs of cases such as you describe? All the more appropriate since in this case the employer and union seem to have been particularly unhelpful. And on it goes ....

[Aranmore]

I will be cancelling my BALPA membership, as a result of BALPA's role in this case. I think Jessica is completely wrong. I hope she loses her appeal, which I think she will.
I am also very sorry BALPA has wasted so much money on this affair.

[Big Hilly]

prop jocket,

That too is a dreadful and very sad case, however, as BBT said, the legislation that has come into effect which provided Jessica with the opportunity of PTW is, ironically, the very same legislation that would have offered your friend protection. Can I reiterate though, that it's nothing to do with being a Pilot. As Heliport pointed out, most Pilots appear NOT to have supported Jessica's efforts. . .

Aranmore, Cancelling your BALPA subscription is an extremely courageous move. I only hope that you never find yourself in a position where you would have needed their support which will, of course, be unavailable following your ‘gesture’. . .

BH

[teapea]

Ah well - rant over. Haveahappyday.




Post edited.

If you want to describe people you disagree with as Nazis, find another website to air your rant.

People may have used 'weasel words' in your opinion. We prefer to think of it as courteous discussion on a professional pilots forum. If you'd read through the "turgid" posts more carefully, at least you'd understand what the discussion is really about.

Heliport


For the record: The post was pro Mrs Starmer's claim.

[prop jocket]

Having reread my previous ( admittedly hastily scribed post ) I'm suitably embarrassed by the apparent tone of it. Apologies to one and all if the tone caused offence to anybody.

Just to clarify a few points, those of us in the dirty trades who have jumped through some if not all of the hoops you guys had to negotiate to get where you are today hold you in high esteem. We know how difficult it is to get there. There are a few out there who think you have it easy and have everything thrown at you at the cost of others, but I'm happy to say they are few and far between in reality.

I related the true story of my colleague to illustrate that, as George Orwell put it, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".

Ms. Starmer would be heeding wise counsel if she was to wipe that smug "I've won" look off her face if she has any desire for a future career. I'm comforted to see the strength of opinion against what she did, too.

The colleague whose story I related earlier, just as a matter of interest, had 2,500 hours total time, 2,300 of it as P1, with turbine time that he'd paid for himself, a multi rating and an IR. He did it for fun.

[Ranger One]

prop jocket:

...the two weeks compassionate leave to which he was entitled...

<double-take>

Two WEEKS??!! And this was only a couple of years ago you say?

Even here in the USA, either of those circumstances (birth of child, death of spouse) would have entitled him to three MONTHS leave(1), by law, under the Family and Medical Leave Act. I'm astonished and surprised to find UK law less socially-conscious.

(1) Admittedly the FMLA leave would be unpaid - employer under no obligation to provide paid leave - but employee would be entitled to return to same job as before after the three months.

R1

[SR71]

Those of you who believe that the CAA's silence on the safety of 50% rosters justifies the practise, might like to re-consider their position after consultation with: CAA Paper 2004/10, Flight Crew Reliance on Automation, Simon Wood.

I thoroughly support a position of increased training beyond the legal minimum for modern commercial pilots who are obliged to interact with increasingly complex systems via a flightdeck interface.

23 days since my last sector...

;)

[er82]

I haven't read all the posts, so apologies if it's been mentioned before............

Don't all BA crew sign a contract that says they won't go to the press about anything?? Hasn't she therefore breached her contract by going to the press, and perhaps once this is all over will be fired for that reason??

[Anti-ice]

Good point - BA crew are told during their training that they are not allowed to discuss company issues with the media.

They are also told to be discreet at all times when involved with sensitive issues and people of importance and celebrity status.

[Mac the Knife]

Hmmm... I've been following this discussion with some interest because we have recently had an analogous situation. Female surgical trainee (nice lass) with well-off husband (and full time maid) gets pregnant half-way through her training. Everyone very nice about it but it did mean that our small department was one person short for 6/12. When she came back, due to child-care and breast-feeding demands she really was only working at 70% capacity. Now, with the kiddie bigger, she's often late because she has to get the child off to nursery school and early because she has to pick her up afterwards. Everyone is very nice about it mind, but I can't help observing that none of the male trainees with small kids had anything like the same concessions made. I certainly didn't with young Tom.

I guess surgery is a bit like flying, in that first you have to build up a basis of experience (after graduation) and then keep your skills honed by regular exercise.

As for the future, our lass has unequivocally stated that she doesn't ever intend to work full-time after graduating. Was choosing her over a man who would have worked full-time after training fair? I trust that she will gain and retain her proficiency, but I can't see her ever attaining the skill-level of a full-timer, simply because she will always be behind in experience.

There's no doubt that a woman who want to have a family and a career has a difficult juggling act - it's no coincidence that most of the top woman surgeons who I work with are childless. I don't think that it's a matter of prejudice these days (apart from a few idiots), but more a matter of biological facts that are essentially unsurmountable. The GMC (our governing body) is currently frantic because so few women end up as full-time surgeons (they view this as a distinctly un-PC failure and an indictment of themselves) whereas it actually just reflects the realities of the situation. Women know that the job isn't really compatible with raising kids.

For the life of me I can't see an easy answer to this vexing situation and realistically, I don't think there is one. I have sympathy for our lass and for Ms Starmer - both had rights granted to them in law, fought for them and won. Was it fair? Is the law fair? Is life fair? I dunno. And I don't know whether I'll be brave enough to appoint another woman who is likely to have children during her training.

[7x7]

Sadly, for the 99% of females who do the hard graft with minimum complaint along with 99% of the other gender, the last sentence of the previous post says it all. ...I don't know whether I'll be brave enough to appoint another woman who is likely to have children during her training.

[NigelOnDraft]

AI...

You are making some strong statements about JS speaking to the press.

In my recollection she has not done much speaking at all. Most of the "speak" has been from BALPA, some pretty snowy baby pictures, and some statements via lawyers / at the tribunal probably vetted / cleared with BA.

Indeed, post the "result", there was a statement I believe from her saying "in accordance with my contract I cannot say any more...".

[overstress]

As NoD says, JS does not comment, in fact she received a handful of calls from the press after the ruling which went along the lines of: "We know you can't say anything, but will you anyway or shall we call BALPA's press dept?" the answer of course being, call BALPA.

The source of this info was a conversation I had with SS, her other half.

[moggiee]

Dave - did you ever get around to answering the question of whether or not taking 19 months off to have a baby confirmed that Ms Starmer was not serious about returning to her job? 19 months is really taking the p*** as has been said elsewhwere.

I can not help but feel that this whole exercise has been a mickey taking, financial fishing exercise on her part and that she has struck lucky.

[NigelOnDraft]

moggieeDave - did you ever get around to answering the question of whether or not taking 19 months off to have a baby confirmed that Ms Starmer was not serious about returning to her job? 19 months is really taking the p*** as has been said elsewhwere.I'm not Dave (thank god!), but your question is really taking the p*** as to your basic knowledge of UK / EU law and biology.

From the DTI website:Length of maternity leave

The length of ordinary maternity leave is increased and pregnant employees are entitled to 26 weeks’ ordinary maternity leave, regardless of how long they have worked for their employer.

Ordinary maternity leave is normally paid leave.

Women who have completed 26 weeks’ continuous service with their employer by the beginning of the 14th week before their EWC can take additional maternity leave. Additional maternity leave starts immediately after ordinary maternity leave and continues for a further 26 weeks.

Additional maternity leave is usually unpaid although a woman may have contractual rights to pay during her period of additional maternity leave. So that's 52 weeks = 12 months, + BA's grounding her the moment she things she's expecting (7-8 months) + a little leave + some BA faffing to sort her "return to work" sims etc. = errrr.... about 19 months !

[pontius's pa]

Oh dear

Looks like we are heading for another 35 pages.

I live in Asia, (no applause expected for that), where the basic economic facts of life require in many cases both parents, including the professionally qualified, to work to survive.

Paid time off for pregancy is short, even in the more enlightened society Asia wise in which I live. In most other places it doesn't exist.

Here they get auntie, or grandma or sister or a paid maid to look after the kid. Maid paid out of Mums salary.

I realise that maids are more expensive in the UK but can not the Starmers get an au pair, since they are both earning decent salaries.

I cant remember Ms Starmer's specific motherhood requirements and I certainly can't be bothered to go back and look.

Ms Starmer, if you want to be a full time mother, play the game and retire.

If you want to be a part time mother and part time pilot, then pay for some domestic assistance and accept BA's terms or find another job.

Otherwise, one can only wonder if your "motherly instincts" are driven by less commendable motives

I hope I am being unfair.

[Martin Alder]

This is not to add any comments or thoughts, someone somewhere has probably said it already whatever it might be !
However, I think one ought to commend Dave for both using his real name and honestly fielding answers to these questions etc. We all have views or opinions on the subject . We pilots are fixers and doers so we have a solution. Unfortunately, we are sometimes less than knowledgable about the law as is, rather than as was! One can be surprised at just how impossible some of those solutions may be to impliment, even if one wanted because national legislation will not allow or, will require it to be done another way. Sometimes we may personally see it as in our favour and sometimes against. Life was ever thus and it is hard to see it being otherwise.
One can only hope that from this forum thread that there is an increased awareness and appreciation of the environment we now work in and why that is so and how that applied to this case.

[nurjio]

Mac the Knife, interesting post. By the way, a few years ago I had a right nephrectomy and the surgeon was a part-timer! By his own admission, he was a little rusty and during the op he gave me an inadvertant pneumothorax. Agony.

[jokova]

. . . . your topiary skills (see 'profile') should have meant a keen-eyed briefing afore the knife and a neat and proper stitching up to finish off.

Then again you can't always tell who's stitching up who. Isn't that the truth?

Besides, you got off a lot lighter than my little sister. They wheeled her in for an appendectomy and not long after the young anaesthetist wheeled her down the aisle. Appendectomy? Slipadicktomy?

(And this Joe ran a racehorse with the odd name of 'Caesarian'. It never ran too well, so why on earth did he keep telling us "She's a cut above the favourite, mate." ?

. . . . and if you don't stitch you up me darlin's. . . . nothing will.

[Flying Lawyer]

nurjio

Just out of interest, did your part-time surgeon who was "a little rusty" tell you he was part-time and a little rusty before or after you allowed him to remove your kidney?

:eek: :confused:

[acbus1]

......did your part-time surgeon who was "a little rusty" tell you he was part-time and a little rusty before or after you allowed him to remove your kidney?
More to the point, will a pilot tell us if they're part time before or after we allow them to remove our entire being to 35000ft and 0.8 times the speed of sound?

[L337]

will a pilot tell us if they're part time before or after we allow them to remove our entire being to 35000ft and 0.8 times the speed of sound?

That is irrelevant.

You could have a full time pilot that has been marginal all his career. Or a part time pilot that is exceptional. Not all Pilots are equal.

You would be better off demanding his training record.

L337

[NigelOnDraft]

More to the point, will a pilot tell us if they're part time before or after With pleasure... do you want me to include it in my welcome PA (I am Part Time BA 320 Capt)? What will you then do - get off? Come up and quiz on my recency? See my Sim Reports ?!*! (you'd definitely get off then!).

Oh - and how about the CC? In fact, why don't we show you all our credentials / contracts, recency as you board, and then hold a vote....

[acbus1]

One aspect of the point I'm making is that even during normal ops part-timers will perform with less spare mental capacity than full-timers. I'm sure I don't need to explain that.

This situation is possibly all well and good in normal operation.

Not well and good if an emergency results in mental overload. Much more likely with part-timers.




You could have a full time pilot that has been marginal all his career. Or a part time pilot that is exceptionalSuggesting that marginal pilots who are also part time are definitely dodgy.




......do you want me to include it in my welcome PA
Before I leave for the airport, please. ;)

[7006 fan]

This will have no doubt been said elsewhere but...
I find 'society' in Britain today a bit namby pamby and employment law/legislation particularly weak.
We were interviewing for staff the other week and one female applicant wanted to know what the maternity arrangements were!!!
The buzz-word these days seems to be 'lifestyle choices'. People choose to have children, people choose to not have children, tax credits for married people, not for single people. baby bond, child allowance etc. When people have children it is a breeding thing. I doubt many people think '...ooh must go and pro-create, because if I don't the human race will die out...". No most people want children for various reasons; good or bad.
Why is it that not long after the baby is born so many 'loving mothers' hare back to work? I gather there is now a tax allowance for people to employ child minders/nanny so that the Mother of the child can deposit it elsewhere during the formative years and get back to work! To maintain the lifestyle they are accustomed to.
Having children is not a fashion accessory or commodity (although it seems that is what many seem to want/think).
My Mother stayed home to look after my brother, sister and myself. She did not begrudge not having a career, there were things in her life she would have done were she not a Mother, but she made a choice and stuck by that choice. As a family we were a single income household from 1945 until about 1974. The family produced a Grammar educated son who then took a degree, Further Education daughter, who now has two children and is a grand-mother herself (she followed in my Mother's footsteps), me Secondary Modern education and a degree.
We all have good jobs and a good relationship and love our families. Some may say this is a very Victorian attitude and out of touch with modern society, but a lifestyle choice was made before this pampering Maternity & Paternity leave idiocy was introduced.
Family is a responsibility, it requires sacrifice and commitment. If one is not prepared to accept that then don't go for it.
Would someone buy a puppy leave it with a stranger for up to 10 hours a day, play with it at weekends and as it grew up expect it to understand who was Boss?!

:*

[L337]

One aspect of the point I'm making is that even during normal ops part-timers will perform with less spare mental capacity than full-timers. I'm sure I don't need to explain that.

I am sorry to be so blunt, but that is just junk.

Capacity is a function of a whole range of things. Just one of many is recency.

L337

[NigelOnDraft]

One aspect of the point I'm making is that even during normal ops part-timers will perform with less spare mental capacity than full-timers. I'm sure I don't need to explain that. Try asking the BA Airbus (all working v hard right now) pilots who has more mental capacity - the Full or Part Timers they fly with...? They will tend to say the "Part Timers" - the "Full Timers" are all sh*gged out :)

[acbus1]

Capacity is a function of a whole range of things. Just one of many is recency.
I appreciate and agree with that.......but recency is a factor. That there are other factors is no reason to ignore recency or deny it's effects.

The other factors could be discussed on another thread.

Recency/part-time working applies to this thread.




.......the "Full Timers" are all sh*gged out
Hey, I'm right with you on that one!

As above, that's no reason to ignore the other end of the scale (part-time working) and it's effect upon safety.




Two red herrings...........two replies. Thank you. :ok:

[cavortingcheetah]

:eek:
Now who were those authors in the last century, that's the twentieth, who wrote that the human race should have baby farms?
Damned if I can remember; but the general idea was that selected females of a somewhat genetic pulchritude would be placed in rather nice surroundings in order to procreate for the continued fulfillment of the human race while everyone else worked hard to guarentee a future for us all.
There was some military chappie or other who had the same excellent idea.He always wore an Iron Cross, which he had, quite deservedly, won somewhere. Always thought that a darn good idea. Can't understand why it's never been put into practice. There seems to be ample justification for its initiation bearing in mind this last case of sexual vicissitude. Instigate then-Mrs Emmeline Pankhurst- please do. :p

[overstress]

I can assure those who are interested that last July when I flew 48 S/H sectors in & out of LHR for BA I didn't feel rusty at all, let alone a 75% part-timer. Commiserations to my full-time colleagues though.

[maxy101]

overstress So what happens when hypothetically ,JS achieves her bid to the -400 and gets to fly her 3 sectors a month ? BA , it would appear, are unable to stop her on the grounds of safety. A precedent has been set.

[Flying Lawyer]

"A precedent has been set"
Not in a legal sense. ie Other tribunals in the future aren't bound by the decision.
Indeed, Mrs Starmer may not have been so lucky if her claim had been heard by a different tribunal.

_______________

A few contributors appear to think the dispute was about the safety or otherwise of part-time working. It wasn't. BA has many part-time pilots, and introduced a system in 2000 specifically intended to help working mothers among the women it has been actively recruiting for some years.
The 'flight safety' aspect of the dispute was BA's view that an applicant should have a sufficient level of experience in a concentrated period before being allowed to work a 50% contract. (It was prepared to agree to 75%.) Mrs Starmer hadn't actually worked for much of the time since completing her BA cadetship in 2001, and some of that had been ground duties because she was pregnant with the first child. At the time she applied, she hadn't flown for 19 months.

This Tribunal wasn't persuaded that there was any reason why any pilot, regardless of experience or lack of it, couldn't safely be permitted to work a 50% contract. It doesn't follow that another tribunal would take the same view.

[maxy101]

I hadn't appreciated the lack of a precedent.Thanks Flying Lawyer

[overstress]

maxy:

not quite sure what you mean. If Jessica gets an ATPL at some point (I'm sure another Nigel will provide detail here) she will be OK for the -400. Then it will be a matter for the usual recency problems that everyone on that fleet suffer from.

There are plenty of (relatively) low-experienced pilots in BA on the -400. In fact at the moment BA are taking DEPs on that type.

[maxy101]

overstress Only that most of us cope on the -400 as full timers with 4 to 8 sectors (typically) a month. A 50 % part timer with JS 's lack of experience (in flying aeroplanes, not childcare) may struggle to maintain recency/SA/handling ability. I would agree it is less of a problem on BA's shorthaul fleets. It would appear though. that now BA have very little say on setting minimum hours requirements on safety grounds. i.e JS can now transfer to the -400 with 1000 hours or whatever siting that she doesn't have the minimum requirements that BA set for the -400 because she was discriminated against as a "working mother looking after beautiful Beth"

[Horace Batchelor]

<<...be permitted to work a 50% contract....>>

At the moment BA has defined 50% as (for the sake or the argument) 15 days on and 15 days off.

It doesn't have to be this way of course - it could be (approx) 7 days on then 7 off then 7 on etc.............

"Does the Team think" that safety would still be an issue in this case?

[sammypilot]

Flying Lawyer could in fact have extended his opinion by saying that if BA do appeal against the Tribunal decision then, as they move further up the judicial ladder, a precedent can be set at some stage. The decision for or against BA could then becoming binding on all future tribunals.

It might well be in their best interest to bite the bullet on this one and put rules in place which would preclude a similar situation in the future.

[woodpecker]

How many months has she put into her chosen career?

I presume she put in 100% while at college, but what about after joining BA... When did she join? Final line check completed? Grounded due pregnancy? Final line check following return to work? Grounded again due pregnancy?

Perhaps it would be simpler to establish when she has been at work.

I for one, having given 35 years to BEA/BA feel she has done nothing for any pilot, let alone the female pilot. I am sure I am not the only one.

Forget fellow pilots thinking she is "taking the p**s", the Cabin Crew community are livid, and they will take their revenge!

"We are not going out on this nightstop", "sorry didn't someone offer you a coffee", "Any First Class meals left? Sorry, No, but here's you crew tray" The list is endless.

I will be personally surprised to see her back after the latest sprog!

[Captain Airclues]

Dave

If, after the next round of maternity leave she was to decide that she could not return to flying because of her recent experiences, would she have a claim for constructive dismissal? Would BALPA support her in this claim? Has she already discussed this possibility with your lawyers?

Airclues

[HZ123]

I am sure she would and furthermore if she returns and in anyway recieves less favourable treatment than her peers she can take BA to court or if she in anyway feels she is being victimised for taking the action in the first place.

[Hand Solo]

"We are not going out on this nightstop", "sorry didn't someone offer you a coffee", "Any First Class meals left? Sorry, No, but here's you crew tray" The list is endless.

Well I think most full time BA pilots see that sort of attitude regularly anyway so I don't think Jess is going to be too bothered by the cabin crews childish behaviour. Besides, 37% of cabin crew are on part time contracts or job share so they can hardly criticise.

[3Greens]

I actually reckon she's taken a backward step in terms of helping more women into BA. There will of course have to be the bare minimum to please the pc brigade and the daily mail. Who are BA going to recruit in future? more types like her or the bloke who will give 35 unpregnant years to the company?

[Lucky Strike]

Who is in charge at British Airways, the management or BALPA?

The management solution is simple: Put her on the B737 or B757. With little opportunity in her career to gain or maintain the skills required to pass the course and/or recurrent checks on a conventional aircraft, sack her for lack of performance at work or with her agreement insist she goes full time in order to build the skills necessary to reach line standard.

[maxy101]

bat.man Every pilot in BA has the right to bid to change aircraft/seat every year , subject to certain defined freeze periods. I would suspect that if BA does what you suggest, JS would have a claim for constructive dismissal. People forget that everybody is equal in BA from the Flight crew to the bottom of the pyramid. Except that some people are more equal than others and frequently take advantage of their position if they think that they can get away with it. BA Staff travellers will know what I'm talking about.

[Justbelowcap]

The management solution is simple: Put her on the B737 or B757. With little opportunity in her career to gain or maintain the skills required to pass the course and/or recurrent checks on a conventional aircraft, sack her for lack of performance at work or with her agreement insist she goes full time in order to build the skills necessary to reach line standard

JS would have little problem flying any aircraft. She is a great example of the quality of the old BA cadet program. Like the vast majority of her cadet colleagues she is a very talented pilot. 50%, 25 %, LH or SH I suspect would make very little difference to the high standards that she sets herself. (Having flown both I'm slightly confused why you think that a 757/767 is any more difficult to fly than an Airbus......do you think JS might have trouble with pitch/power and trim....jeez!!!)

In the past cadets went straight out of Prestwick/Oxford onto the Tristar with no problems, that had much less flying than 50% of an Airbus roster.

This 2000 hr safety issue is a nonsense. There is not one Airbus Captain in BA who has flown with Jess (or any of her ilk) who would be even slightly concerned about her standard of operation on a part time basis.

[Andu]

I'm a bit surprised that "Wiley's" comment back on Page 8 drew no replies. ("Is this case a good illustration for the argument to drop the whole sponsored cadet idea?")

I'm guessing there'd be no prizes for guessing what the last poster, "Justbelowcap", thought of that suggestion.

[African Drunk]

A collegue of mine was speaking to a senior BA bod who expressed the view that there was no need to go back to sponsoring as there is a large number of type qualified eastern european pilot who would love to work for BA. Probably most are also male, so by recruiting already qualified pilots they could get round the issue of employing female's.

[Hand Solo]

Are these the same senior BA bods who thought there were a large number of UK ATPL holders with 744,777 or 320 ratings waiting to join BA? I've no doubt there are plenty of eastern european pilots, but whether they have the required standard of english (and lets be honest, it'll have to be nothing less than fluent, not just aviation terminology) remains to be seen.

[Decisive Attitude]

...in which case if Hand Solo is correct (and I've no reason to doubt he is) and there isn't a glut of appropriately qualified pilots out there, just who exactly is going to be drafted in to replace all these folks going part time?

(Assuming of course that EITHER the number of applications for PT from aspiring mums-to-be on the BA line does increase as a result of this tribunal AND/OR this becomes the catalyst, as Balpa claim they wish it to be, for getting more widespread PT working arrangements across the board at British airlines).

Either it means that the hours will have to be worked by those remaining on the line (arguably most likely, swapping one inequity for another?) or BA will have to recruit un-typed/un-experienced pilots.

If the latter option is chosen, then BA will incur additional training costs and face a significant lead time. And while the part-time safety issue might be irrelevant when it comes to Mrs Starmer, would the 250-hour newly-typed newbie that replaces her flying on a 50% contract be considered 'safe' by the travelling public?

Recruiting new staff also relies on BA being attractive to applicants, something which (based on a current thread in T&E) may not be as much as a given as it has been in the past. Did someone say no decent pension for new joiners? Not to mention the ever-increasing wait for command (especially if the number of pilots accruing the same seniority for doing half the work increases...)

:O

{edited to outwit the grammar police}

[MaximumPete]

Perhaps one should only get six month's seniority for six months work and make it across the board on a pro rata basis?

MP ;)

[brakedwell]

How would a 250-hour newly-typed newbie flying on a 50% contract flying with a lady Captain, worn out by her sprogs and also on a 50% contract, go down with the travelling public?

[Decisive Attitude]

Perhaps one should only get six month's seniority for six months work and make it across the board on a pro rata basis?
Too much like common sense, MP.

And, as Dave Fielding pointed out in an earlier post, illegal under UK employment law. We can't discriminate against people simply because they're only doing half the work, God forbid....

:p

[Yarpy]

How would a 250-hour newly-typed newbie flying on a 50% contract flying with a lady Captain, worn out by her sprogs and also on a 50% contract, go down with the travelling public?

How would a 250-hour newly-typed newbie worn out by flying 800 hours a year at Heathrow whilst looking after sprogs flying with a lady Captain, also worn out by flying 800 hours a year at Heathrow whilst looking after sprogs go down with the travelling public?

[maxy101]

Yarpie Better take it up with the regulators and write to your MP to reduce the legal maximum hours from 900hrs/yr. (Unless you're with Ryanair and then I gather they do what they want anyway.)

[Lucky Strike]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JS would have little problem flying any aircraft. She is a great example of the quality of the old BA cadet program. Like the vast majority of her cadet colleagues she is a very talented pilot. 50%, 25 %, LH or SH I suspect would make very little difference to the high standards that she sets herself. (Having flown both I'm slightly confused why you think that a 757/767 is any more difficult to fly than an Airbus......do you think JS might have trouble with pitch/power and trim....jeez!!!)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong.

The vast majority her cadet colleagues are average pilots, some are better than others – I’ve trained them in a former airline.

B737 v Airbus – I’ve flown both too. You don’t fly an Airbus; you operate it. To pass an LPC is hardly a demonstration of flying skill, more technical knowledge. To pass a B737 LPC does require flying skill, as well as technical knowledge.

But my point as not about the above average BA pilots or cadets, or the merits of Airbus v Boeing. The fact is an inexperienced pilot has taken has taken her employer to court over her ‘right’ to work less than the airline’s management consider safe. The employee won; perhaps this does not set a legal benchmark but BA is unlikely to contest such working time requests from employees in the future.

Who is in charge? BA, seemingly cannot dictate working conditions to its employees, the employees dictate conditions to BA. BA needs to regain control over its employees and costs.

To see the future, look to Willie Walsh’s past (see separate thread). Enjoy this nonsense while you can.

[Hand Solo]

The vast majority her cadet colleagues are average pilots, some are better than others – I’ve trained them in a former airline.

'scuse me? You're ex-BACX, you've seen a tiny minority of BA cadets in your previous airline. That really doesn't qualify you to comment on 'the vast majority' of BA cadets.

[Lucky Strike]

Your right. Would have been more correct to say:

‘The vast majority her cadet colleagues that I have seen are average pilots, some are better than others – I’ve trained them in a former airline’.

As far I’m aware, all the cadets went to BACX after Sept 11. So if the ones that BACX got are representative of the rest, they are average; some are better than others - unless BA kept all the sky gods to themselves after Sept 11 and sent the duffers to BACX.

[L337]

So what you are saying is that the BA cadets that you have seen in BACX are duffers.

I can hear an axe grinding.

L337

[moggiee]

From my experience training BA cadet pilots (and cadet pilots from other airlines), they are mostly above average in ability and achievement terms.

There are exceptions, as always, but by and large the BA cadets are ahead of the pack

[African Drunk]

When training BA cadets for IR's I would say the ability range was average to excellent. The difference between them and non selected students was that there tended to be no poor cadets but there were plenty of average ones.

[Gary Lager]

Yarpy - worn out after 800 hrs/year?

Don't make me laugh! Even if one was worn out after 800 hrs (:{ ), I dare say that that would generate a reasonable amount of overtime, which could afford to pay for extra childcare, which would mean that one wouldn't have to look after said sprogs as much, which would mean that one wasn't so worn out... ;)

Unless you're implying that 800hrs/yr wears out lady pilots and not men???

[thegypsy]

Worn out after 800 hours pa? Well if on Short Haul; and you live in Dorset then I am not surprised. Does she have somewhere to stay near Airport before her flights or does she drive all these miles prior to her duty????

[overstress]

Lager: try doing 800hrs s/h in & out of LHR and see how you get on.

[Bamse01]

How could most cadets be above average or average?
Isn't average supposed to be just that, average of a certain group?

[Send Clowns]

Forgive me if I'm being stupid here, and for going over old ground, but surely Mr Fielding has shot his own argument down in one sentence on the first page, second post....Jessica's ... application was denied on resource grounds when the department had made zero budget for Airbus P2s 50%In other words no men or women were being allowed to work 50%.

Now this lack of budget for 50% might be regretable. It might be argued that 50% should b made available, although I would see that as BA's choice. However it cannot possibly be sex discrimination. Sex discrimination is when men and women are treated differently. It is not when women are not given extra rights so they can bring up a child. In fact insisting that women should be allowed such extra rights not being offered to men is itself sex discrimination.

How can there possibly be an argument that this is sex discrimination when the representative of the person claiming such points out that men and women are being treated the same, all being denied the privilege at issue?

All the other arguments are asides to the definition of "discriminate".discriminate v. (-ting) 1 (often foll. by between) make or see a distinction. 2 (usu. foll. by against or in favour of) treat unfavourably or favourably, esp. on the basis of race, gender, etc.  discriminatory adj. [Latin discrimino: related to *discern]Pocket Oxford Dictionary

[GGV]

Send Clowns, in which case it is not "Mr. Fielding" who has shot "his own" argument, but rather a failure on the part of the Tribunal that accepted the case and thereby made a faulty - and hence challengeable - finding.

Either that is the situation, or you have got the wrong end of the stick. I suspect it may be the latter. Maybe this has to do with how your grounded your argument ... and perhaps it is more to do with subtlety than with stupidity on your part.

Try this: I employ 100 females and 100 males. But I do not make provision for maternity leave for either males or females due to a lack of resources. Have I discriminated? If so, why? (In replying use only one side of the paper and be sure to clearly use examples that support your case if you want to obtain maximum marks. Any topic drift will be penalised).

[prop jocket]

I have a pilot's licence and did the CPL's before just before 9/11, but have absolutely no experience of commercial flying apart from the unglamorous oily bits, so all you high timers out there please feel free to deride or belittle this as you see fit.

When I was doing my apprenticeship a few years ago (ah, BOAC!), we used to have time allocated to go into flight ops to see the effect that any shortfalls in our work caused to the operation - a sort of object lesson if you like.

One of the guys in flight ops whom took us under his wing was an ex RAF Lancaster driver ( we're talking early 1970's), full of wisdom and experience.

He said several things to us over the course of our time with him, but I think this could be relevant to the debate about Ms Starmer's recency and experience and what constitutes a safe 50% when it comes to flying time. It has stuck with me throughout my working life, and also into my flying hobby.

He said that all aeroplane types have their own distinctive signature smell when you get on board. If you notice it when you sit in your seat you just aren't current.

I wonder if Ms Starmer notices any odd aromas when she gets on board, assuming she can remember where the cockpit is after so long away from it?

[Final 3 Greens]

Bamse01
Isn't average supposed to be just that, average of a certain group Yes, but the "group" is the total population and the sample described is only part of that population.

Ergo, if you have very high selection/screening standards, you are representing an above mean performing sample of the population.

Thus in that particular sample, failure may well look like being at the 50% point of the total population.

Hope that this clarifies African Drunk's post - if you re-read it now, it should make sense to you.

[Send Clowns]

GGV

Isn't it a sign of stupidity not to read the rules of the site that relate to personal attacks within posts, or are they too subtle?

The example you detail is not the case in point. Maternity leave is to allow for the pregnancy and the recovery from the birth, and for initial infant care. That is a fundamental difference in the make up of the male and female staff, and quite rightly there is a law that forces companies to allow maternity leave. Not to obey the law as it applies to females when the company obeys the law as it applies to males is discriminatory, as is forcing female staff to leave a job when having a family solely due to the fact that they are the ones giving birth.

There is no law requiring companies to allow staff with children to work part time, although they must consider requests, which had been done and she had been offered 75%. Either males or females can look after children. Therefore not allowing either 50% work to do so is not discriminatory, it is treating them identically.

[Curious Pax]

SC,
That seems to be the heart of the issue as I understand it. It would seem that rules can be termed discriminatory if they disproportionally affect one sex. In this case it has been deemed by the tribunal that women are harder hit by restrictions in flexible working, and thus discriminated against.

As a lighthearted example, decreeing that all BA toilets must have stalls and no urinals could be deemed discriminatory, even though on the face of it this is enforcing equality. This is because males would be disproportionally affected by the removal of urinals. Sounds daft, but you get the idea.

Whether this definition of discrimination is right or wrong is a wider issue than just this case of course.

My own view is that it is another example of BA cutting costs too far (remember the chaotic summer last year at LHR due to check in staff shortages etc) and they have been forced down this route because the Airbus fleet is so short of staff. They aren't unique in this by any means of course.

In years to come flexibility for the workforce will be a very big point when trying to attract staff, as the pool of labour shrinks due to an aging population. Companies are going to need to start thinking about embracing it sooner rather than later if they don't want to be forced to by panic in the future.

[Tallbloke]

GGV

Unless I have missed something, what does maternity leave have to do with this case?

We have not heard much lately about what this case has done for future female recruits, I wonder if there is anyone who thinks that female wannabees are better off now than before?

[woodpecker]

Just been to the doctors. Notice on the wall suggesting that two doctors are on maternity leave. Dates given suggest they will both be off work for six/seven months.

I presume Jessica could have come back to her chosen career a little sooner that 17 months (or was it 19).

[Techman]

As the Me generation is reaching working age we can expect much more of this.

Who cares about the consequences as long as I get what I want.

This is only the beginning.

[GGV]

Send Clowns, you said:Isn't it a sign of stupidity not to read the rules of the site that relate to personal attacks within posts, or are they too subtle? However, you were not subject to a personal attack, but rather to an allusion to what you said in your previous post, namely: Forgive me if I'm being stupid ... What I suggested was that the point was subtle, but NOT a matter of stupidity. Which brings me back to subtlety ....

[Joetom]

lots of very good views on this item....but..

Rules is Rules, often used to fox the workers, but in this case looks like they Have helped the workers.

Well done and I hope others follow this path...

[Dave Fielding]

Dear All

Apologies for my absence. It's that darned job getting in the way again. I was going to say "getting in the way of pleasure", but that might be a little rash.

Many points have been answered by other contributers so I won't go over them again. To clear up some posts:

19 months off
There is no mystery or conspiracy here. Pregancies are generally declared when confirmed around 3 months. That gives 6 months grounded. 6 weeks (only) paid maternity leave plus a further 26 weeks' OML gives another 6 months. Under new legislation, mothers are now entitled to a further 26 weeks unpaid Additional Maternity Leave. That gives 18 months. Add on 4 week's worth of accrued leave and you have your 19 months, much of which is unpaid and in the vast majority of cases, all of what is paid is at a monthly rate of less than would be earned if flying.

Training Costs
From my recollection, cadets pay back 50% of their training costs over the first 5 years (pro-rated if PT) in the company. In addition, their salaries are on a sliding scale percentage of a DEP salary for the first 5 years, only catching up at pp6. Whilst is was a good deal, it certainly is not having everything handed to you on a plate as some have suggested. That accusation could better be aimed at my generation who had everything sponsored by BA. We were incredibly lucky.

Bad things happened to others, therefore why should JS be different?"
I think the substantive point of that post has been answered. However, I raise it because many posts I have read here and elsewhere revolve around the line of "I / my wife / my mother did it so why shouldn't she?" It's an interesting point. Do two wrongs make a right? Did the mothers of the suffragettes tell them that they shouldn't protest because they never had the vote? In the UK today we are working more hours than ever before, and females are achieving positions in business which were unthinkable 20 years ago. Our society is changing rapidly and, I think, is still trying to come to terms with itself over the concepts of working and parenthood. The pendulum hasn't finished swinging by any means.

Surely the only way to progress is to explore ways in which the maximum amount of flexibility is available to the maximum number of people. This is why this case is so important: it is not just about sexual discrimination. It is about opening up the possibilities for flexible working to all pilots, be they male or female, junior or senior. This is BALPA's aim. Does anyone think we should not be striving for this?

JS could go LH at 50%
Theoretically yes, but don't forget that BA can do what they like with a pilot in the first 5 years of their employment. In reality, most FOs have to see out those 5 years before they are allowed to move on. I fly with enough of them desperate to go on to the shiny LH beasts...

JS not returning and claiming constructive dismissal
Those are hypothetical questions, I'm afraid, and ones I am certainly not qualified to answer.

The cadet pilot quality argument
For information, the BA cadet scheme started in December 1987, so thinking it through nearly two thirds of the current pilot strength came through the cadet scheme. Indeed, a very high number of the trainers on the Airbus are ex-cadets. It is the best standard and consistancy of training I have ever found on any BA fleet I been part of. I don't think the argument as to the quality or not of the cadets really adds to this debate. Jessica reached - and continues to reach - the required high standard to operate a BA jet. I refer you to the opinions expressed a couple of pages ago concerning the opinions on the fleet as to her competence.

800 hours only on overtime
This is not true. We have pilots on planned rosters alone currently achieving over 800 annual hours on the Airbus.

"No budget for 50% PTW isn't discriminatory"
The answer to this one is in what the tribunal calls the PCP, or Policy, Criterion or Policy. It notes that once you move from 75% to 50% contracts, the number of them is going to be proportionally more female than male. This means that any PCP you apply to 50% contracts (in this case, not giving any) has a disproportionate, and therefore discriminatory, effect on females. Hope that makes sense.

There has been some comment that BALPA is supporting her just because she is female. This is not true. A member brought a case to us requesting support and the case fulfilled all the internal criteria necessary for us to support it. Therefore we did. If a case is brought by male which also fulfills the criteria, we will support that as well. Indeed, the last time BALPA took BA to an ET it was over unfair dismissal of a male.

I would finally like to ask again a question I asked some pages ago which never received a reply: would an employer, holding an application from a female pilot in one hand and a newspaper detailing the JS case in the other, be more or less likely now to throw that application in the bin, knowing that the subject is red hot and we are all looking at it very closely indeed? Female cadets will continue to come out of the training schools. If their male colleagues all found jobs and they didn't, then there is something clear and measurable going on. I sincerely hope that situation does not happen, but we will support any female who thought - and could provide reasonable evidence - that they were being discriminated against. As, indeed, we would support a male who found themselves in the mirror situation.

Best wishes

Dave

[millerscourt]

What exactly does it cost BA to train a Cadet?? Say £80000? Surely Cadets don't repay 50% ie £40000 back over 5 years? What exactly do Cadets have to repay BA?

[acbus1]

I would finally like to ask again a question I asked some pages ago which never received a reply: would an employer, holding an application from a female pilot in one hand and a newspaper detailing the JS case in the other, be more or less likely now to throw that application in the bin.....
I raised that some pages ago. Perhaps my post preceded your question.

To repeat, with emphasis.....from my experiences of employers outside BA, there will be no hesitation whatsoever in enforcing a policy (undocumented, obviously) of no heterosexual female pilot recruits. It'd be amusing to see BALPA prove discrimination by any company outside BA.

Of course, I stipulated outside BA. BA is a unique culture, circulating the sun on a different planet to the rest of UK aviation. I blame decades of taxpayer supported Nationalisation and a huge wad of Heathrow slots, but that's another subject.

[Dave Fielding]

To reply to the last two posts:

1) I'm afraid I don't know how much it cost(ed) BA to train cadets. Having done some recruitment at OATS last year I recall the cheapest course was around £51k, but that is probably out of date or wrong. No doubt others can answer this question better than I can.

2) I take your point. The only thing I would say is that you mention your previous experience. Do you think things would be different now? Do you think that as a result of Jessica's case females might feel empowered - with BALPA's backing - to stand up against this sort of thing?

I stress I don't know the answer and am speculating as much as the next man. The debate is, I guess, over whether the issue has taken a step backwards because of the case. I don't know. What I do passionately believe, however, is that ultimately we will take many strides forward because of the ground we have broken here. And I say again that these advances are not confined to females: all those who aspire to PTW for whatever reason now have a better chance than they did before the case.

Best wishes

Dave

[Tallbloke]

Dear Dave,

Employers are sent hundreds of CVs every week. There is anecdotal evidence elsewhere which states that some recruiters simply sort them by age, eg which side of 28 the candidate is. This creates 2 piles. Interviewees are then selected, when required, from one of the piles. Guess which one. (This is discrimination BTW and we all know it happens, but I guess age discrimination is not as sexy)

There is no doubt given the huge number of CVs received by companies that they all must use some form of arbitrary filtering procedure in order to reduce the number of CVs they have down to a managable size. I don't think employers are now going to look more favourably at female wannabees now than they would have done before this tribunal. I am of course refering to the world of the wannabees, not experienced plots, and obviously therefore I am talking about the world outside BA. I wonder if BALPA has had any support whatsoever from any female fATPL holders looking for their first job?

[Hand Solo]

millerscourt - A BA cadet course used to cost around £51K to £56K from day 1 to completion of the Jet Orientation Course. From then on the TEPs get a BA contract and undergo exactly the same type rating training as DEPs. According to the latest pay scales, in the first five years of their employment by BA the TEP will be paid £55056 pounds less than a DEP. Add to that the 25% or so BA avoid having to pay into the pension scheme by having a lower salary and you can see that the TEP scheme was very cost effective for BA. I might also add that a number of self sponsored TEPs who paid for there own ab-initio courses are employed by BA. Despite the fact that they paid for their own licences they are still paid roughly £40000 less than a DEP over the first 5 years.

[bazzaman96]

Dave,

As I commented back on one of the first few pages of this thread, the argument you gave (which, incidentally, I agree with) that by discussing this issue we are raising the profile of women pilots and giving employers food for thought when it comes to recruitment, may in fact found a case of positive discrimination against males.

As has been indicated previously, only 2.9% of commercial pilots are female (source earlier in the thread). If employers are now in a position where they are considering between a male and female candidate, then I am sure you will agree with me that you ought not to be selecting women JUST because they are women, to balance the numbers. Ability and suitability must prevail.

My concern is that the 'fight for equality' you believe this case has raised, if it makes employers feel intimated for rejecting women, raises the potential (note, this is a possibility only) that positive discrimination will take place whereby employers do not want to be seen to be discriminating against women and so take on a disproportionate quantity of women in relation to those actually applying, simply in order to quash gender discrimination accusations. Clearly we want to encourage women to get into aviation, but it is not BALPA's job to engineer the applications in the first place.

A rather practical illustration of this is at my university. Cambridge has an applicant make-up of roughly 40% Private, 60% state school, which reflects pretty accurately the proportion of applicants for those sectors. The government wants more state school pupils here, which I agree is an excellent thing. But to compare it with the case in question - we should be doing this by encouraging more state school applicants to apply initially, rather than discriminating in their favour when they do. In other words, we should work to ensure that women recognise that aviation is a viable career for them (which it is, provided they accept - as many on pprune believe - that it is not always 100% compatible with the lifestyle choice of having a child), but we shouldn't let the JS ruling scare employers into tinkering the figures in their favour.

[Hand Solo]

To play the devils advocate here.....

Cambridge claims to be promoting better access to state school pupils, yet simultaneously throws up barriers in their way by requesting additional exams over and above A Levels such as STEP papers or admissions tests. The additional coaching required for these is highly unlikely to be available to the average state school applicant hence they do not apply. Thus the university can claim to be supporting state applicants whilst really the status quo remains.

BA has made good capital for years by recruting female pilots. They feature in both in-house and external publications with a regularity which is totally disproportionate to their number within the whole pilot community. However BA wanted to have its cake and eat it. It wanted the prestige of advancing the cause of women pilots but without the cost of doing so. Now the tribunal has ruled that they must pay the price of that prestige and the management are looking rather red faced.

[bazzaman96]

Certainly I'm not sure that's true - because such STEP papers and admissions tests use the same syllabus and material as the students are already studying for their 'standard' A-Levels. The difference is in the difficulty.

That is, in itself, a good parallel. BA wants to set high standards of its staff and demands commitment in return. I see no reason why it shouldn't be disappointed by a woman's decision to put her career on hold in order to give birth.

Anyway, all this is very well and good...but what will actually be done about it? It seems (although one assumes this website isn't the best indicator of what public opinion is!) that the majority of pilots and those working in aviation are overwhelmingly against the tribunal's finding. In which case, is there a mechanism through which their collective grievance can be channeled? Petition to BALPA? Letter of protest?

Just seems rather unproductive to complain but not to do anything.

[er82]

From a female's point of view (mine!), I'd have to say that what she's done hasn't empowered me, it's actually quite embarassing and I would hazard a guess has allowed female progression into the flight deck to take a giant leap backwards....

Any low-cost/small operator will get hundreds of CV's.... There is absoutely no way to know how they filter them, but I'm pretty sure a female's cv will go to the bottom of the pile.....

If a female pilot with quite a lot of experience applies for a job with a different airline, when she's around the 30-ish mark, the new airline will no doubt be slightly concerned that she's reaching that 'Bridget Jones' age when she'll most probably consider having a few sprogs, and will therefore again put her CV to the bottom of the pile.....

Airlines won't want to take a risk on a woman who could at any point turn around and demand a cushy roster because she has a little one at home.....

[Hand Solo]

Assuming they were previously prepared to take a risk by employing a women who could be off on pregnancy/maternity for the best part of a year. How many people really believe there are employers out there going "Well I'm really cash strapped and need the most out of my staff. I was prepared to take a gamble by employing and type rating a women, in the knowledge that she could take a year off at any time, but now I have to give her part time as well, hey it just doesn't add up." If they're not going to employ women because of maternity issues after this tribunal I have grave doubts that they would have employed women before the tribunal anyway.

[CaptainFillosan]

If I may be so bold as to sum up Hand Solo's comments and those of er82 - I think this IS probably the thin edge of the wedge. In the managements door!

I think lady pilots are going to have to battle with the "Starmer Syndrome" for a long time to come. It ain't gonna be good for the girls who, I have to say, I support 100%.

[redsnail]

"empowered females". I don't think so.

There's not many of us female pilots around. I have been asked in an interview (Australia, Qantas regional airline)
"are you married?"
ans. No.
"are you in a long term steady relationship"
ans. No.
"are you planning any children soon"
ans. No.

Reason for those questions. 2 FOs were on maternity leave. They'd been with the company for quite a few years and they wanted to have some kids. (I believe they'd been with the co for ~5-8 years)

I did get the job. Now I am in the UK and with a new employer. They probably would have ~10-15 female pilots out of ~360+ pilots. (Not a UK company BTW)

If employers feel that female pilots will cost them a lot of money and loss of productivity then they will not employ us. Pure and simple. I would like to think that a female pilot "grounded" due maternity could return something to the company in the way of ground jobs. Such as interviews, manual revision/proof reading, conducting CRM courses or being sim buddies when required.

I am nearly 40 and no kids. I don't think it is morally right for me to start a new job, be paid to train and have a type rating paid for by the company and without a suitable return of service expect 50% roster and maternity leave.

I am very conscious that acceptance of female pilots is a comparatively new thing. We're still working on our passengers but they too will accept us. This decision by the courts has done nothing to help us be accepted as equals.

I don't know JS personally and perhaps there's more to the case than what has been written here. My view is a personal one.

There's no point in winning a battle if you're going to lose the war.

[dicksynormous]

What is the problem here. This young intelligent lady of breeding age wants to have kids. Good on her. There are enough government funded chavs and lowlifes breeding so the more the middle classes are encouraged to breed we stand a better chance of evening out the balance. The government should subsidise companies to keep middle class people in the sack and in work at the same time.

The bonus is that the taxes paid also keep the chavs in council houses and argos jewellry so its a win win.

dicks

[FO Janeway]

dyck, just tell it how it is.

redsnail and er82, you are right. I am trying to find another job, making a choice: IF I do get another job (yeah, I dream on) it would not occur to me to drop pregnant within the first 3 years of that new employment, being old fashioned somehow, I still have a sense of loyalty and honour, prob to my own detriment. ( as management don't show the same in return, but that's another story).
So, I am torn-between in the JS case. Sorry, but having everything shuved up your backside by your employer (ie cadet scheme ((and yes, of course I'm jealous, I would have rather had an easy ride, getting qualified))). Then work a little and then start the family so soon, is taking the mick. You could have waited just that tad longer.
On the other hand, JS will stay with BA until she retires, whereas a young boy-cadet, will leave for better things as soon as he can, because, let's face it: BA as an employer is no longer the cream of the crop these days. Working your a$$ off to the point of being unsafe, take note AMcL, is not exactly a cool prospect. (still undercrewed?hmm, wonder why)

Also: why is it such a big problem to work pt?? Do they begrudge parttimers the off-time? remember you also get only paid part-money (X-Trail rather than Cayenne), get part-leave etc. the fact about bidline is to be sorted, why the inequality, there?
What baffles me is Mr. Starmer's role in all this. What about him going pt? If both do 75% that'll be 150%, too. Or can't he be bothered?????

Captain Fielding, I admire you, and as a BALPA member thank you with all my heart for all your time, effort and sweat you put into this. There are clearly a lot of issues to be dealt with within our community and this is just the tip of the iceberg. (for all the whingers who get out of BALPA: good riddance, we don't need you)
It starts with the ridiculous amount of money we have to stamp up to become qualified: why does 1 hour of Aztec flying for your IR or 1 hour in a SIM have to cost £400? (somebody is ca$hing in big time)
A Uni-leaver these days has accrued a debt of £12,000 . My heart bleeds!! Ive just paid off my 60Grand debt this year after flying commercially for 7years: stupid, eh??
2.9% are women. prob because women aren't so stupid to fork out 60, 70 or 85grands worth to land a 20grand turboprop job!!!

Now, I'm getting carried away. I know I am ranting, and BRAKEDWELL, I'll answer your Q tomoorow, when I have flown with my fellow, knackered ladypilot to Timbuktu and back.

I always hated drawing the pc/sexist card: No boss/recruiter in their right mind is gonna look at a 20-40year old lady pilots cv in any more favour than before. It's a fact. I am surprised there IS 2.9% of us in the first place, as, with my growing experience with myself and my fellow girls, we more and more seem to get the stick.

right: flak jacket donned.

Capt Fillosan, thank you.

[brakedwell]

FO Janeway
Excuse me if my brain cells need renewing, but could you remind me what the question was I asked?
Yours Confused

[Flying Lawyer]

Dave Fielding"I would finally like to ask again a question I asked some pages ago which never received a reply. Would an employer, holding an application from a female pilot in one hand and a newspaper detailing the JS case in the other, be more or less likely now to throw that application in the bin, knowing that the subject is red hot and we are all looking at it very closely indeed?" IMHO, more likely.

If the extreme scenario you put forward for discussion occurred, it would be relatively easy to prove there was "something clear and measurable going on", but not quite so easy to prove it against a particular company in relation to a particular applicant - as opposed to proving the existence of a culture within the industry. If a major employer literally took no women applicants over a period it would be easier, but would a major employer in fact discriminating against women applicants be that transparent, or more subtle?

Doing the minimum to comply with the letter of the law is very different from complying with the spirit of the legislation. Which is a company more likely to do now?

BA has actively recruited women pilots for some years, doing more than than the law requires.
Is the Starmer decision likely to encourage other employers to adopt a 'positive action' policy, or make them wary that they will increase the risk of such demands/problems if they do?

Legislation has an important role to play, but the objective desired by those in favour of it isn't really achieved unless and until it becomes natural and normal - rather than an 'issue' to be considered out of fear of falling foul of the law.

Whatever the merits of Mrs Starmer's claim in law, the overwhelming majority of views expressed in both threads on this topic have ranged from unsympathetic to irritation that she managed to win what was widely regarded as a totally unmeritorious claim on the facts. And those are on a pilots' website.
Is it likely potential employers will adopt a more sanguine approach than pilots? Or, seeing a claim which few appear to think had any merit on the facts succeed in law, will they be worried that the risk of something similar happening to them would increase pro rata with an increase in the number of women employed?

Mrs Starmer achieved what she wanted - a better deal for herself. However, IMHO, her success has put the interests of other women pilots back a few years - at least until the memory of her win isn't quite so "red hot" in potential employers' minds.

[BusyB]

FO Janeway,

"let's face it: BA as an employer is no longer the cream of the crop these days. "

As a mere overseas pilot do tell me who is.

I thought the rest of your contribution from the heart with a lot of truth in it. Good luck.

[sammypilot]

F.O. Janeaway is being a little simplistic when she says part time means that you only cost the company 50% or 75% of your salary and leave allocation is pro rata. She overlooks the fact that the company will not pay National Insurance pro rata because pilots salaries are way above the maximum cut off for such payments. Similarly training isn't pro rata to the amount you fly nor are the requirements for sim rides. It is possible to go on identifying other areas where the split isn't even. The bottom line is that employing part timers is more expensive overall than having full time staff.

[FO Janeway]

sammy,
I might be wrong, but where I work
CRM (ha,ha)
Fire&Smoke,
LPC/OPC, etc are actually going partly onto your off-time. I don't know the %age, but not all is the "burden"of the company.

Yes: you're right. A parttimer will the company cost a little more.

NI contributions, eh? A HUGE chunk in the big picture.....
I'm sure it'll be offset by mindless rostering, incompetent day-to-day crewing and wasted taxirides.
Let's face it: the airlines try to squeeze every single last drop out of us, we are undercrewed, tired. Many of us sat in the cockpit, doors closed, ready to go just to state: **it, I can hardly keep my eyes open! And he offloaded himself!
What would you rather have? An utterly p***ed off, overstretched workforce or a happy bunch, some of'em part-timers?

I'm digressing.

BusyB
All is always relative from a different perspective. I doubt I have to tell you this.
If one's a wannabe you fly naked for food, and you think you've just died and gone to heaven. I know: I've been there.

If you have a family to support, you have say 4500hrs of Jettime under your belt, your kids are at school and you bought your house 7 years ago, then moving to London for BA Airbus at LHR, where you will work your **se off because there aren't enough pilots to cover the timetable, for the money and the now inadequate pension, and being threatened by your newish boss if the **it hits the fan for whatever reason, does NOT appeal.

Check out the jobsection in the Guardian or Telegraph or even the daily mail: 40, 50 or even 90Grand is not that high any longer.
How much does the average house cost?
For the job we do, the responsibility for people's lives we carry it's not enough any longer, compared to some council officer counting how many recycling bins he has to replace this week.

What other job do you personally have to fork out 60Grand for? Never mind the lost income during traning.
The airlines are taking the mick with MCC course, typeratings, bonds. They can only do that because we let them.

yet, another issue.

BusyB, I'm not gonna tell you which airline is the best to work for. Because I don't know. It depends on your own circumstances.
The only thing I know is: Once a whole workforce of one company is looking for another job and leaves in droves, there must be something wrong.

The companies WILL have to take heed and WILL have to offer pt to their people, never mind the reason, because a happy workforce costs less than a ***ed-off one.

edited to incl answer to BusyB

[Argus]

FO Janeway
What other job do you personally have to fork out 60Grand for? Never mind the lost income during traning.


Can't resist the opportunity for a lawyers' free kick. My LLB cost around $A40,000. My academic equivalent of articles cost $A7,000. On the McDonalds exchange rate, that's about £47,000. I had minimal income for 3½ years whilst a full time student. After admission, I took any legal work on offer, often for less than cost or legal aid rates. Some time later, business has picked up, but only after working long hours seven days per week and guaranteeing my house to the Bank. I’m only as good as my last win – and bad news travels fast!

Sorry, working your butt off is not the sole prerogative of pilots!

[FO Janeway]

Your eye is not as good as your name implies, Argus.

where exactly did I say that working your butt off was the sole.... etc,etc?

what my rant was really about was that our work is not honoured by the airlines anymore, compared to other professions.

How many actual lives depend on your professionalism each day?

I'm not interested in starting a slanging match to then be -predictably- accused of having a chip on my shoulder, bladeblah.
Heard it all before, at the end of the day: we ARE at the sharp end.


Argus, my rant was about our industry, I'm sure there is a Professional Lawyers Rumour Network.

[BusyB]

FO Janeway,

I wasn't casting aspersions as I'm sure you realise, but I do think you're a bit too close to your problems to see them clearly. Possibly can't see the woods for the tree.

Best of Luck.

[airborne_artist]

"let's face it: BA as an employer is no longer the cream of the crop these days. "

Some on pprune seem to like working for Virgin Atlantic, and joined VA in preference to BA - which may or may not mean something.

[Argus]

FO Janeway

The real issue here is flight safety. With great respect, you deviated from the thread theme by inviting a comparison of other jobs. I merely responded to your invitation.

[brakedwell]

Fo Janeway,
I am still in the dark over the questiion I was meant to have asked you.

[FO Janeway]

oh, brakedwell,
here it is:
10th of May 2005, 16:06

Argus, I think that's exactly what : "I'm digressing" means.

BusyB,
I didn't think in the slightest you were casting aspersions, until you accuse me of not seeing the wood for the trees.

remember chaps: I'm just a woman: A completely hysterical, illogically reasoning postmenstruating quotafiller. Hence I'm flattered that anyone is even attempting to answer my posts.

joke aside:
It boils down to this: We and that means everyone, not just pilots (Argus) should argue for better working conditions, not begrudging each other, trying to drag each other down: well, if I can't have it, why should anyone else? That's the wrong attitude and it plays into managements hands. If somebody wants to go pt, well, if they can afford it: Good luck to them!

I sincerely hope you can see my point.
Balpa are fighting for this case so everyone can benefit from its outcome, it is unfortunate the pc card had to be pulled, but in the long run it will pave the way for more pt work in the pilot workforce.

Unfortunately, it's a fact that it HAS put back the lady pilot's cause by at least a decade.

[Banzai Eagle]

Any female Pilots been taken on by BA since this ruling, or any by other UK Airlines. Any been rejected by BA recently?

[christn]

Whilst it may be argued that it is every woman's right to have children I do not believe that it is every woman's (or man's) right to be a pilot. With any profession invariably there comes commitment and often sacrifice. If one cannot or will not give that commitment or make that sacrifice then do something else. It should not be for others to subsidise one's lifestyle choice!

[MrBernoulli]

christn,

Thankyou! Nail on the head!

[maxy101]

So does anyone know if Mrs S. took the 50% contract ? It would be a real waste of BALPA members contributions if they fought the case only to have her maintain the status quo because she may be better off financially.

[ORAC]

The Independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=646530)

Ruling on mother's hours will ground female pilots, warns BA's chief executive -

The newly knighted chief executive of British Airways has warned that a sex-discrimination case won by one of the company's pilots will deter airlines from taking on female flight crew. Sir Rod Eddington, who is also the Government's most senior adviser on transport, told The Independent that his airline would fight the judgment "all the way" to the European court.........

[CaptainFillosan]

No surprise at all. The "Starmer Syndrome" I suggested would soon shut Manager's doors to women pilots is about to happen I fear. The airline's will not tolerate it, and I while perhaps Jessica Starmer MAY have won the battle (we'll see what happens at the tribunal appeal) I reckon she has lost the war - for herself and her fellow women. Let us hope not but who would take a bet on it?

You cannot make an airline employ women.

[megan78]

This is sad. Did she not know that a pilot's hours aren't 9-5?

You don't like the rules, so you have to change them. Women who expect separate but equal don't help the rest of us.

[RevMan2]

.....You cannot make an airline employ women........

But you can't arbitrarily exclude a qualified applicant purely on the grounds of gender.

[Tallbloke]

But you can't arbitrarily exclude a qualified applicant purely on the grounds of gender. How would you prove it had happened? When there may be hundreds of qualified applicants for a single job, how could you prove that a female did not get the job because she was female? You can't.

[Heliport]

RevMan2
Employers would be that stupid these days, but there's more than way to skin a cat.

I doubt if Ms Starmer will be concerned about other women. She may be many things but she isn't stupid. She must have realised the potential damage to other women when she set out to get what she wanted for herself.

[Carnage Matey!]

I doubt Ms Starmer was particularly concerned about the plight of other women, or of men, or had any sort of moral crusade in mind. She thought BA had treated her unfairly, the tribunal agreed and BA got their fingers burned. Now they are reduced to appealing and running a new 'dirty tricks' campaign of their own through management sanctioned slurs in the press.

[thegypsy]

I am with BA Management on this issue. This wretched woman has spent more time off work being pregnant than she has at work. No Business can sustain that kind of paid time off.Is she on 50% Salary whilst pregnant or 75% or 100%??

Why is nobody looking into why she lives in Dorset yet works Short Haul out of Heathrow?
Where does she stay when she is on an early start or does she drive all that way prior to a long duty day??

[Carnage Matey!]

BA pay the same percentage of your salary as you work. Work 50%, get 50% salary. BA clearly can sustain that kind of paid time off (ie maternity leave, which is the only paid time off JS received), and they also have very generous part time provisions for several thousand cabin crew, but not for pilots. Where any BA pilot stays on their days off is no concern of BA. You are contracted to arrive rested and fit for duty. How you achieve that is not their business. BA ay pilots to do a job, they don't own their lives. When you say you're with the management does that mean you support their anonymous smear campaign in the press?

[Heliport]

Carnage Matey! When you say you're with the management does that mean you support their anonymous smear campaign in the press?
What anonymous smear campaign in the press? :confused:

BTW, for information:
Talking of using the press, if you look at BALPA's website you'll find an account of how
"we deliberately held back the story, releasing it only on the Sunday before the Monday hearing, so that it hit Monday morning’s papers and Monday morning television and radio programmes."
"The press coverage on the Monday was enormous, with seven of the nine nationals and most of the regionals running the story. A television crew flew in from France. The coverage, and the interest, built up over the three days of the tribunal hearing.The opening of the case was covered by BBC TV, ITV, Sky, ITN, and national and regional radio stations."

You'll see that BALPA had two objectives:
(1) To prevent any interviews with Jessica Starmer apart from the two BALPA sanctioned.
(2) To persuade the media that Jessica Starmer was bringing the case not only for herself but on behalf of all pilots, male and female, who wanted part time working.

"David Fielding explained that BA has, in recent years, taken on a number of young women pilots, and they are now having families and they need special consideration. BA had not thought this through and had not prepared itself for this eventuality."

There was no time for BA to respond - as soon as the hearing began they couldn't.
The media largely fell for BALPA’s spin - "and this resulted in sympathetic reporting, not least in an excellent feature by Bel Mooney in the Daily Mail."

[Re-Heat]

Clearly when the management behind the move to prevent 50% part-time embark upon condemning the ruling as being detrimental to women in the workforce, what they mean is that they cannot allow part-time workers in their workforce.

The logical reason behind this is that they have an intrinsic inability to adequately plan for sufficient levels of staffing to man the flying program. Hence the use of 'forced draft' and higher levels of planned flying for staff than ever before.

This is detrimental to the cause of women, since if they show an inability to cope with a workforce that is 1% female, how will they ever be able to cope with a - now suppose for a moment it occurs - 40-50% female workforce.

It is irrelevant that (1) she was pregnant - since *shock, horror* - she is female and that is bound to happen at some point in her career; (2) that she lives in Dorset: since much of BA's workforce is able to live in varied places with the - up to now - highly stable roster; and (3) whether she was committed to the job or not.

Facts are that: BA appears unsupportive of family considerations where many other companies cope, BA changed the goalposts after she had applied according to the rules at the time for 50%, and that adequate support at little extra cost can exist to allow that level of work (and indeed has in the past).

For BA to resort to unwarranted media comments strikes of poor sportsmanship. If they are unwilling to allow for family considerations and intrinsic biological differences, then one would expect them to get what they deserve.

Bottom line is however that they are unable to attract and train enough pilots to fulfil requirements and have resorted to backtracking on promises - in this case of part-time work - to fulfil their requirements.

Shame on you all for supporting Piss Poor Planning on the company's behalf.

[Hand Solo]

Have you read the facts? BA pilots here say there's a whole bunch of them working part-time and more waiting their turn to go part-time.


A whole bunch? Not really, and there are many times more waiting to go part time who have had their requests refused. Compare and contrast with the vast amount of part time, jobshare and gardening leave available to almost every other employee group within BA. Don't forget that BA insist that all employee groups must be treated equally. Except when part time working is involved.

"that: BA changed the goalposts after she had applied according to the rules at the time for 50%"
That's an opinion not a fact

No thats a fact, not an opinion. There was no requirement to have 2000 hours when she applied. BA introduced the requirement when they realised the issue was going to a tribunal and they didn't have a strong case. Just to remind you, 5 years ago BA were happy to have 200 hour cadets flying 450 hours per year on the A320 and they considered that safe. Now they say that flying 400 hours per year is unsafe. Meanwhile managers of very limited flying ability do 200 hours per year and thats safe.

What unwarranted media comments have BA made?

This one:

One BA source said: " If a BA plane went down and a pilot was working 50 per cent of the time a couple of months out of training, we wouldn't come well out of subsequent investigations."

The pilot in question had spent a year working full time in a 4-5 sector per day short haul environment.

Ever wondered why most of the folk who work for the company and know the true facts don't support her.

Most of the folk who work for the company who have posted on this thread don't know the true facts. Dave Fielding is the only poster who knows what happened at the tribunal. JS started her flying at a regional base. There was a gulf between the flying standards at that base and the companys main base. The safety argument is entirely bogus. The disagreement is entirely down to personal politics and has no grounding in safety.

[Flying Lawyer]

Hand Solo
I appreciate from your posts on both Starmer theads that you're an enthusiastic supporter of her claim, and your previous reference to 'Jess' suggests you might know her personally, but isn't it going a little far to suggest that "most of the folk who work for the company who have posted on this thread don't know the true facts"?
Could it be that they know the true facts, but simply don't share your views?
Isn't it a true fact that even the majority of pilots on her own fleet don't support her?
There have been two long, and IMHO interesting, threads on this topic. Do you suggest there are any facts that haven't yet been posted and which, if they were, would give those who don't support Mrs Starmer reason to reconsider their views?
If so, what are these 'true facts'?

"Dave Fielding is the only poster who knows what happened at the tribunal."
It's true he was there, but are you suggesting that only his views should carry any weight? Or that they should carry more weight? He and his colleagues clearly did an excellent job for Mrs Starmer, but I doubt if Mr Fielding would claim to be neutral. He was one of those who gave interviews to the media even before the hearing.

"The safety argument is entirely bogus."
That's a matter of opinion. It's not one upon which I'm qualified to comment, but would you agree opinions are divided amongst those who are qualified? Do you really think a pilot's total hours, the period in which those hours were achieved, and recency should be entirely irrelevant when applications for PTW are considered?

'Unwarranted media comments'
Do you agree that, justifiably or otherwise, it's likely there would be adverse media comment if there was an incident and it emerged that one of the pilots was a relatively inexperienced part-timer? I emphasise 'justifiably or otherwise.'
IMHO, it's not limited to media comment. I've been involved in a number of fatal accident cases where the relative inexperience of a pilot (including professional pilots) was a central issue in the claim.
I think BALPA did a superb job managing the media (or manipulating, depending upon your point of view) and their timing, too late for BA to respond even if it had wanted to, was very clever. (Whether it was appropriate to involve the media is a separate issue.)
If you read BALPA's website, you'll see that creating bad publicity against BA was a deliberate tactic in the hope that adverse media coverage would induce BA into backing down and giving in to Mrs Starmer's claim. It didn't work. Even if it's true that BA management is now trying to use the media to get BA’s side across, can you really blame them?

Re 'moving the goalposts'
If you mean a formal ‘hours’ policy was introduced after Mrs Starmer’s application for PTW had been refused, that’s correct.
However, if you mean BA attempted to apply that formal hours policy retrospectively to Mrs Starmer, that's not correct. (See below)
Pilots were entitled to apply to work part-time contract, but applications were considered on a ‘case by case’ basis and would not necessarily be granted.
"There was no requirement to have 2000 hours when she applied."
True. BA didn't claim there was a formal policy requiring minimum hours.
But, had any pilot of similar level of experience/inexperience to Mrs Starmer previously applied to work a 50% contract? I think from recollection, not sure, the answer is no.
There was no evidence that BA had granted an application by someone else of similar experience level.

"BA introduced the requirement when they realised the issue was going to a tribunal and they didn't have a strong case."
That's the 'Starmer side' interpretation of BA's reason. I don't have the judgment in front of me but my recollection is that her lack of experience was given as a reason at BA’s internal 'review of refusal' stage. Either way, step back from the fray for a moment and consider:
In light of an application for PTW by a relatively inexperienced pilot, was it not sensible of BA to set out a formal policy making it clear to all pilots that hours would be amongst the factors which would be taken into account when considering applications for PTW?
Would BA not have been at risk of the same problem arising again if it didn't?
NB:
BA did not suggest there was a formal policy regarding experience levels in existence when Mrs Starmer made her application.
BA did not claim it was entitled to rely upon a formal 'minimum hours' policy in her case.
BA argued it was entitled to take into account what it regarded as safety issues relating to a particular pilot’s experience when considering his/her application for PTW, but that's a different matter.

"The disagreement is entirely down to personal politics"
Are you suggesting BA's decision to refuse Mrs Starmer's application was 'personal' in an inappropriate sense?
Or that the refusal was motivated by some personal malice towards her?
Let's consider the facts.
BA offered Mrs Starmer a 75% contract (ahead of more senior F/Os who'd already applied and had been waiting a long time).
Despite fleet resource difficulties, BA offered to allow her more experienced husband to change from 75% to 50% in order to assist the couple with their childcare arrangements.
Both offers were rejected and Mrs Starmer complained to the Employment Tribunal that BA were discriminating against her.
Disagreement entirely down to personal politics?? :confused:
Whose personal politics?

[L337]

Hand Solo:


Please explain.

JS started her flying at a regional base. There was a gulf between the flying standards at that base and the companys main base.

L337

[Argus]

Flying Lawyer

Good post. You correctly identify the difficulties that finders of fact face when weighing up the relative merits of assertion dressed up as fact, bias (intentional and otherwise) and evidence purported to be expert, but in the non legal meaning of the term.

[overstress]

FlyingLawyer:

Could it be that they know the true facts, but simply don't share your views?

I had a long chat with Dave Fielding recently and it was his view (which I share) that most BA pilots don't know the full facts and cannot grasp the reasons why BALPA was OBLIGED to take on this case.

But I'm sure he'll speak for himself...

Also: "The safety argument is entirely bogus."
That's a matter of opinion. It's not one upon which I'm qualified to comment, but would you agree opinions are divided amongst those who are qualified? Do you really think a pilot's total hours, the period in which those hours were achieved, and recency should be entirely irrelevant when applications for PTW are considered?


Opinions are divided by those 'qualified' to judge, yes, but BA's argument was inconsistent with its previous policy on the same Airbus fleet but a few years previously. That's one of the reasons the tribunal threw ou BA's arguments, thereby, incidentally, stopping BA senior management right in its tracks.

A pilot's total hours and recency combined can give an outward indicator to the casual qualified observer, but this does not give the whole picture. Each case (for part time) should be considered on its merits and clearly, imposing a blanket (2000hrs) policy is not achieving that.

Declaration of interest: Male BA pilot who has been PTWK for childcare reasons.

[mrshubigbus]

Although you can't get away from the facts of this case I believe that one of the major issues here, if not the major one, is that this lady and her husband decided to make their home in the "beautiful" village of Corfe Castle in the Purbecks of Southern Dorset! For those of you who don't know where this lovely quaint setting is located, it is approximately 120 miles or two and a half hours driving time (on a good day) from Heathrow. Most of us understand that if we choose to work for an airline that we must be located within a certain distance / timescale from our main operating base to enable us to comply with our company terms and conditions. In other words there is no way on earth that this particular lady could use her home as a base from which to do this. Assuming she was working on a 75% part time deal and was doing a three week month, she would be spending many days in digs closer to LHR to carry out her short haul rostered duties. Away from her child of course! And what about those SBYs? She would have to be located closer to LHR to carry these out. Where did she stay? Again away from her child. Whose choice was this??? In these circumstances it would leave two options.

1) Move closer to LHR so she could get home each day to see her child and of course be able to carry out SBYs from home

OR

2) Push for a 50% part time deal with BA

So she choose the latter and BA screwed up!!!

If BA couldn't get it right, i.e moved the goalposts, then how can they win on appeal?

It was a grave error of judgement on their part when it was crystal clear that this lady knew that she couldn't win by any other means other than by moving closer to her base airport like the rest of us ACCEPT goes with a job of this nature!!!

[Heliport]

I had a long chat with Dave Fielding recently and it was his view (which I share) that most BA pilots don't know the full facts and cannot grasp the reasons why BALPA was OBLIGED to take on this case. Before the hearing, BALPA did a fantastic job making sure there was enormous international press coverage of Mrs Starmer's side of the dispute, her complaints against BA, and 'sanctioned' interviews with certain newspapers etc. The media only had one side so they published that and the coverage was very favourable to Mrs Starmer.
After the hearing, there was again enormous international media coverage of her triumph against BA, and Mrs Starmer supplied the press with those pics of her holding "my beautiful daughter Beth" etc etc.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40705000/jpg/_40705479_snow_pa_203.jpg http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2005/01/10/nba10.jpg

Since then, Dave Fielding has set out Mrs Starmer's side of the argument and argued that what she did was to the benefit of all pilots in the long term. I think most people would agree he's done it very articulately and clearly, in 8 posts amounting to almost 7,000 words.
In contrast, BA said nothing to the media before the hearing and said nothing after it except they were disappointed by the result and would be appealing.

Despite all that coverage of only one side - the overwhelming majority of people on both PPRuNe threads still don't support her Dave says the sentiments expressed on the BA BALPA forum are "pretty similar" to here despite him spending a large amount of time answering questions on that forum. (Dave's first post.) most pilots on her own fleet apparently don't support her "most BA pilots" don't support her. Your view (apparently shared by Dave) is that's because "most BA pilots don't know the full facts".
How can that be?
Does it mean that most BA pilots don't look at PPRuNe, don't look at the BA BALPA forum, don't read newspapers and don't look at television news?
All the people who've criticised her might be completely wrong in their thinking (I'm not expressing an opinion on the issues) but can it sensibly be said that, after all that coverage in the media and on at least two pilots' forums, they still don't know the facts?

When we feel strongly about something, many of us have a tendency to think if people don't agree with us it's either because they don't know the facts or they're unable to grasp the reasoning - if they could, they'd agree with us. ;)


BALPA's role:
Until now, people might have thought BALPA agreed with Mrs Starmer and was enthusiastic in its support for her. You say you agree with Dave that "most BA pilots .... cannot grasp the reasons why BALPA was OBLIGED to take on this case."
People might find that comment very interesting because it puts a different complexion on things.
You emphasise "OBLIGED".
If BALPA only took on the case because they were obliged to, people who've criticised BALPA might withdraw their criticisms of the union - even if they stand by their criticisms of her.

[LightTwin Driver]

Heli.

Very well put.

Couldn't have put it better myself.


I suppose the only good thing to have come out of all this is that BA will be less inclined to take on female pilots in the future.

Now I've got nothing against them,and have flown with some fantastic girls.But for some reason some do tend to be workshy and a surprising number seem to always be off LongTermSick.

[bobs61]

We have to remember one small but vital factor. BALPA as an organisation has to be seen to be politically correct. If their lawyers were of the view that JS had a good case in law, then BALPA had no option but to support it, despite all of the misgivings detailed on this site.

I wouldn't mind betting that a significant number, if not the majority of BALPA reps are hoping that BA's appeal is successful - regardless of what they say in public.

My money is on BA winning the appeal.

[Flying Lawyer]

You may well be right, but I wouldn't risk my money on it.

In most areas of law, even those outside my own sphere, provided I knew the facts I'd be prepared to forecast the result on nothing more than basic legal principles and experience - and have a better than sporting chance of getting it right.
There are two areas of law where I wouldn't even try: Employment is one; the other is Landlord & Tenant.
In both those areas, Parliament has enacted laws influenced by the political and social policies of the government in power at the time. Accordingly, the law is often the complete opposite of what most people (including lawyers outside those fields) might reasonably assume it to be.

[bobs61]

Quite so, FL, however my prediction was not based soley upon the legal merits of the case. My guess is that BA will throw money at this one and that if the EAT appeal is unsuccessful, they will not give up. As you suggest, social policy influences both formation and application of the law in this area. This can work both ways.

[Cruise Alt]

Guess that will teach BA to advertise in Cosmopolitan!

I work with some really great and dedicated female pilots. Difference is they are interested in flying! 1100 hours in five years - sounds like 20% working to me.

Perhaps restricting advertising for pilots in a flying related publication might help to find people who actually want to fly?


PS talking of kids, how many of you with children would be completely happy to send yors off in the back of Ms Stammer's Airbus for the day?

[L337]

I have flown with her.

Me.

L337

[unablereqnavperf]

Sounds like taking the p*** to me!

Spoken to several female BA pilots who are not too pleased with HER!

[Heliport]

Mrs Starmer's activities have certainly generated a lot of interest, and excellent discussion.

Between this thread and the original (linked below) we've just gone through 762 posts and 100,000 views.

BA pilot's sex discrimination case. (incl Tribunal Judgment) (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=158593)

[PilotsPal]

It is reported that efforts to find a compromise have failed and the appeal by BA is being heard today.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/4651801.stm

[Flying Lawyer]

There's been lots of comment and some confusion here about the 2000 hours rule.
Just to avoid any misunderstanding about the appeal -

There's no dispute that formal rule was introduced after the refusal so the rule itself is irrelevant in this particular case. However, BA will still be able to argue the safety aspects.

To win the appeal, BA will have to show its refusal to grant Mrs Starmer part-time working was justified and not discriminatory.

The hearing continues today.

[Flying Lawyer]

The hearing at the Employment Appeal Tribunal concluded today but judgment has been reserved.
ie The decision will be announced at some future date.

[behind_the_second_midland]

Interesting change of tribunal chairman.

[thegypsy]

Why don't BA put this troublemaker on 50% Salary and then sack her??

Would cost less in the long run as unfair dismissal claim will be based on 50% Salary??

[maxy101]

Not if the dismissal was found to be on the grounds of sexual discrimination....then there isn't a ceiling to the damages that could be awarded. (I'm sure Flying Lawyer could correct me if I'm mistaken)

[thegypsy]

maxy 101 You may be right but this has nothing to do with sexual discrimination but that BA do not want ANY Pilot with her level of inexperience working just 50%

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. Perhaps BA are paying their Pilots too much if they can afford 50% working??

[yimyam]

pregnant again, has she got a rich daddy who paid for her flying training ?
put her on part time and fail her opc/lpc.