Female BA pilot wins legal battle for right to work part-time

[Wedge]

According to BBC news.......

[Albert Driver]

It takes great strength of character to stand up against BA. Let me be the first to express my admiration and offer my congratulations.

[fade to grey]

Hmmmm,
Not sure I agree.BA clearly had a policy allowing pilots to work part time once they had reached a required experience level,which this lady had not -why should she be treated any different to the hundreds of male pilots with young children.

I believe she may well have done a disservice to any female pilots following in her footsteps,who may well be viewed in a less favourable light now.

[Airbrake]

This pilot wants to have her cake and eat it, who would blame BA if they never hired a female pilot again.
Is anybody taking bets on how long before she gets pregnant again and throws the towel in for good?
Call me cynical....

[Carnage Matey!]

BA clearly had a policy allowing pilots to work part time once they had reached a required experience level,which this lady had not -why should she be treated any different to the hundreds of male pilots with young children.

IIRC the experience level argument was only introduced late in the case when BA thought they might lose. The initial rejection was purely for financial reasons. Having flown both long and short haul within BA I would argue that the experience criteria they set was entirely arbitrary.

This pilot wants to have her cake and eat it, who would blame BA if they never hired a female pilot again.

Or an alternative viewpoint would be that she wants to exercise the rights which European laws afford her and doesn't see why she should be denied those rights simply so that a manager can meet his budget (and bonus) targets.

I personally view this as a great victory for all BA pilots who want part time. We have seen other departments showered with part time, job share and other flexible working options but for the vast majority of pilots who seek that particular option stone-walling is the only response from management. Over 40% of BA cabin crew enjoy some type of flexible working, but only 2% of pilots. The disparity is purely due to the desire of BAs Flight Ops managers to husband every penny they can in order to enhance their own bonuses.

PS If BA never employed another female pilot then they'd probably be sued for sexual discrimination. They initiated the policy of targetting female applicants, they can hardly be surprised when they start having kids!

PPS I particularly enjoyed seeing our managers get caught telling fibs in the tribunal.:E

[Airbrake]

I, like many others am fed up of people spouting on about their Human Rights. What about her moral obligation to get some time in and pay back her employer? Pilots are not office workers, and to compare us with them is pointless, if you want office terms and conditions you are in the wrong job.

If she had turned up for her cadetship selection interview and told them she wanted to have a kid and be 50% partime in a few years she would have been laughed at and shown the door.

She has got what she is entitled to, but as mentioned previously she has done a huge disservice to a great many female pilots who are trying to get their first job.

[brakedwell]

She needs to work part time if she lives in Wareham!

[Carnage Matey!]

Well I disagree. You may not like the law, but it's the law. BA went out of their way to recruit female pilots, they should have anticipated that some of them might have got up the duff and wanted part time working at some stage. Frankly I am a bit sick of BA telling me that I must be equal to all other staff when it suits them (staff travel, retirement ages) but I must be different to other staff when it suits me (part time working). BA can readliy afford to pay for more part time working for pilots, especially given the amounts of money they regularly hose other departments down with, but they don't want to. If it takes one person to have the balls to sue them then good luck to them. I believe the pilot in question will have in excess of thirty-five years before her retirement age from BA, plenty of time to get some time in and pay back BA (in addition to paying back more than the cost of her training from reduced pay). If you think BA are getting stitched up financially then perhaps you'd lke to start a thread calling for the heads of any former cadets who left BA within 5 years of joining and didn't pay back their full training costs (yes, there are some).

[Ye Olde Pilot]

So how would you feel if you had spent a fortune to get the right to sit r/h only to be bumped of by someone playing the game.

Ban me now Danny but this is unfair for pilots and airlines.

What about old peoples rights:ugh:

[BusyB]

I don't have a problem with her right of part-time work.

I have a problem with promotion done on "seniority" or "time in the company" as opposed to "working time in the company":confused: .!!

She/he shouldn't be promoted ahead of someone who has WORKED longer for the company.:ok:

[Carnage Matey!]

Ironically this rather helps old people too, as if you are a BA pilot with a dependent parent you can now get time off to care for them. Doesn't have to be a child.
I'm slightly confused about this issue of 'being bumped off by someone playing the game'. What game is that? Is it the 'BA employ the person they think best for the job' game, or is it the 'I've got a big pile of debt so I deserve a job more than a cadet', or is it the 'They've got a silver spoon in their mouths they deserve nothing' game? I find it rather peculiar that people think this industry has some unique order of merit in relation to who should get what jobs. If I funded my own training as an accountant should I be aggrieved that a big accountancy firm trained it's own people? Should I expect those in the big firm to be denied part time work because I deserve their job better? Should I be entitled to a better job than them because I am somehow more committed than they are? I certainly can't think of blue chip employer who thinks that way.

BTW BusyB the EU put the kibosh on your proposal several years ago as they say it indirectly discriminates against women, who are more likely to have an interrupted career.

[Cater]

I agree I think she has not done her self any favours

[Carnage Matey!]

She's just got the 50% part time working she wanted, she has a secure career in BA for as long as she wants it, I think she's done herself (and most other BA pilots) a very big favour! If the objective was to not do herself any favours you'd wonder why she bothered pursuing the case for three years.

[CCLN]

I find this case particularly interesting because, as of now, it has just as much to do with discrimination as it will have to do with equality later. When we say equal, by defefinition it must always be equal to something. So when a man then decides to go part-time to look after his son/daughter/dependent, he must be treated equally to his/her counterpart. In this case the female pilot in question. Consequently the bar will always be getting higher and higher when one person/party or another will be searching for a judgement on fair terms.

[Riverboat]

Carnage Matey - how about emigrating somewhere, where you won't do any further damage to UK Ltd. I suggest Australia. There are too many people in this country arguing for "rights", and it has gone far too far. Trouble is, you just can't see it. So to give the rest of us a better life, and depart in peace.

[Albert Driver]

Ahh! Always a such a pleasure to watch pilots rush in to support one another.
That must be the reason why T&Cs have never been so good.

[Carnage Matey!]

Sure thing Riverboat. All these pesky people talking about 'rights', how on earth is a mill owner supposed to make any money these days? I bet you'd still have kids sweeping the chimneys.

CCLN - the bar stops getting higher when equality prevails in the workplace. It doesn't have to (nor indeed can it) rise continuously. As long as both men and women are treated equally within the organisation then the bar stops. What raises the bar in the first place is European social law. If you want to stop the bar rising then stop the European social law (something our govenment often tries to do), but once the law is in place you'd better make sure you obey it and apply it in a gender equal fashion. (Did I just say 'gender-equal'?:yuk: )

[CCLN]

Ofcourse the bar will stop at some point. Don't misinterpret my comments as an arguement against equality as I do think the law is neccessary but what may sometimes be granted on the grounds of discrimination later becomes an arguement for equality from which my comment about the bar arose. Like you stipulate, providing that it's a two way street on all fronts the bar will stop.

[Roobarb]

BA- When it comes to recruiting minorities to wear them like a badge - don't ask for what you want, you might get it.

Mrs Starmer - You must be relieved this is all over. Look after your children. Nothing else in the World is more important. You have my personal gratitude for causing the PoD to be vexed.

http://www.five.tv/media/image/11771514.jpg
I'll take on the opposition anyday. It's my management I can't beat.

[Carnage Matey!]

Oooh that reminds me. Some considerable time ago PoD said he'd resign if BA lost this case. Well now it's finally reached a conclusion perhaps we can look forward to some changes at the top.;)

[portsharbourflyer]

It is nothing short of an insult to those of us who have self funded our own training and our looking for our first position. The BA cadet scheme she attended now no longer exists so she is very lucky to have had her training funded.

My fiance' would love to have children but the financial position I am in due to having completed both an aero degree and a frozen ATPL means this is something we have had to put on hold for a few years. In other words to obtain a pilots qualification takes many sacrifices, as a BA Cadet she would have had a fairly easy route into the airlines compared to most self funded pilots. I am not complaining because no one forced me to train as a pilot, it was my choice.

I have nothing against female pilots, I know some very good female aviators but if she wanted a career as a pilot she should know it is was not your normal 9 to 5 office based lifestyle. However with sponsorship schemes now non-existent, any new female pilot coming into the industry will have had to invest anything from 40 - 70 thounsand in their own flight training, I suspect if she had to make a similar investment in her own training then holding her career up with pregnancy is something she would have thought twice about.

[RoyHudd]

I wonder how Mrs. Starmer's LPC/OPC's will go, with the low amount of 319/320 handling time she will now achieve every 6 months. (85hrs PF/6 months, maybe...340 TT/year?) Being a minority group member, she will doubtless be given more than an average number of opportunities to redeem herself. Questionable decision. Safety consequences.

[IcePack]

Um!,
Wasn't it the fact that she was entitled to the time off/ part time in her contract. But BA were trying to change it retrospectivly that this is all about.
?:ok:

[Wino]

Roy hudd,

wonder how Mrs. Starmer's LPC/OPC's will go, with the low amount of 319/320 handling time she will now achieve every 6 months. (85hrs PF/6 months, maybe...340 TT/year?) Being a minority group member, she will doubtless be given more than an average number of opportunities to redeem herself. Questionable decision. Safety consequences.

More bollocks. She will have 10 times the number of approaches that a 747 driver has in a year. If she was fine before she will be fine now.

Cheers
WIno

[Pidge]

RoyHudd. I did 300 - 350 hours a year for the first four years of my career. Strangely, my lpc/opc's went fine

[QDMQDMQDM]

I work 2 to 3 days a week as a male GP. If I screw up, people die. There's a lot of hands-on currency involved and a mountain of knowledge to keep up to date with. Similar to your job, in fact. As a PPL, I also have some perspective -- admittedly not an airline pilot's -- on flight currency and the hours requirements for that. I fly my Super Cub just under 100 hours a year and I fly it not that far from the limits of what it can do. I don't feel rusty every time I fly.

Putting the two perspectives together, it is abundantly clear to me that the objections to this pilot's part-time working are based on bigotry and sour grapes, nothing more.

QDM

[JW411]

Roy Hudd:

Let me say that I do not sympathise at all with this young lady but you are talking a load of boll*cks by suggesting that a pilot will have problems doing an LPC/OPC when only flying 350 hours a year.

I managed it quite happily for the last 19 years and indeed examined many, many other pilots in exactly the same position and didn't find your perceived "lack of hours" a problem.

It really is a spurious argument in any case. You guys who regularly turn in 900 hours a year are constantly complaining about how knackered it makes you and how you are working too hard for your own good.

Now you want to criticise those of us who have been clever enough to find a good job that only entails flying 350 - 400 hours a year! You are on the wrong tack old mate!

[Human Factor]

My only problem is I can't pay the bills on 400 hours per year. To be fair, my own fault.

Good luck to her.

[fantom]

I hate to admit it but QDM's arguement wins my day.

I really hate to admit it.

[smith]

I have a problem with promotion done on "seniority" or "time in the company" as opposed to "working time in the company"
I would have thought that promotion would be based on suitability for the position rather than time in company ie you could be a ****e pilot with 20 years on the line or an ace pilot with 10 years on the line, which one would be most suitable for promotion? All this seniority stuff is a load of kak, doesn't happen in any other industry (well maybe a few), suitability, eagerness, productivity, attitude etc are far more important.

[javelin]

I think if a female pilot chooses a career in aviation, she should consider her options for bearing children very carefully. Gain some core experience, take a career break then return full time, don't try and juggle the two and remain in a twilight world of minimal experience and currency.

I do not want to think that my wife and son may be flying behind someone who has just returned from a part time break with low experience and currency and then have the Skipper keel over and leave the shop to her.

This is not a move forward, there are still areas that require careful thought wrt rights etc. We are now talking a potential flight safety hazard :suspect:

[Flying Lawyer]

The thread title is misleading:
BA offered to allow Starmer to change to a 75% contract. The dispute was between the 75% they offered and the 50% she wanted.
There has been no recent court 'victory'. BA lodged an application for leave to appeal against Mrs Starmer's win at the Employment Appeals Tribunal last year, and has now decided to abandon an appeal.I’m not entirely surprised. BA handled her application in what many would regard as a practical ‘common sense’ way, but common sense and the provisions of employment law often don’t coincide. BA made procedural errors at a very early stage which created legal difficulties for them in due course - regardless of whether there was a shred of merit in a non-legal sense in Starmer’s claim. (Interestingly, the overwhelming majority of posters on the two very long threads last year ranged from being unsympathetic to highly critical of her claim.)
An appeal is not a fresh hearing of the claim; no evidence is heard. It's a 'review' of the previous decision.
So, unless BA could show that the Tribunal made a mistake of law and/or made a finding of fact which was ‘perverse’ on the evidence (an extremely high test), the previous decision would stand.
It's much more difficult to get a decision overturned on appeal than it is to win at the first hearing.

Background

2000: Recruited and trained (ab initio) by BA. Full time contract.

May 2001: F/O on the Airbus fleet (short haul).
Became involved with Captain Starmer - divorce - became Mrs Starmer #2.
Feb 2003 onwards: Pregnant - unable to fly - ground duties
Oct 2003: Maternity leave - baby born.
March 2004: Application for a 50% contract. BA refused but offered her a 75% contract as a compromise. She declined the offer. (BA prepared to offer husband 50% contract. Offer declined.)
Note: Five pilots on the LHR Airbus fleet applied to work part-time in Feb/March 2004. Man applied for 75%: Refused. Four women applied for 50%: One granted 50%; other three (incl Starmer) offered 75%. Starmer declined the offer and claimed she was the victim of sex discrimination.
Sept 2004: Returned to work - not having flown for 19 months - and used leave “and other means” (quote from the EAT judgment) to take time off pending the outcome of her claim against BA.
2005: Employment Tribunal
2006: Employment Appeals Tribunal, and second child born.The Law:
If a “provision, criterion or practice” which applies to both men and women operates to the detriment of a considerably larger proportion of women than men, then that is unlawful sex discrimination - even if men are subject to precisely the same provision, criterion or practice.

Legal Issues at the Tribunal
Key issues:
(1) Did BA apply a “provision, criterion or practice” (PCP) to Mrs Starmer which it applied (or would have applied) equally to a man?
Held: Yes.
(2) Was that ‘PCP’ to the detriment of a considerably larger proportion of women than men?
Held: Yes.
Of the relatively small number of BA pilots who'd applied to work part-time, there were more applications by women than men.
So, although there was evidence that BA was in fact more likely to grant an application by a woman, it could still be proved by statistics that the proportion of women refused part-time contracts under BA's criterion was larger than the proportion of men - because more women applied.
(3) Could BA show the ‘PCP’ to be justifiable irrespective of the Claimant’s sex?
Held: No.

Note: The Tribunal didn't consider the fact that Mrs Starmer chose to live 107 miles/2 hrs drive each way from LHR to be relevant to her child care difficulties. (No comment.)


NB: I've given a very brief summary of the law. It is not an attempt to justify either the law (I'm not a politician) or the Tribunal decisions.


Some might think there's an irony about the way she's played the system:
BA introduced a scheme in 2000 to accommodate child care needs subject to recency considerations.
There was clear and undisputed evidence that BA had a policy of actively recruiting women pilots.

___________

IcePack
No.
Your understanding is completely wrong.

___________

QDMit is abundantly clear to me that the objections to this pilot's part-time working are based on bigotry and sour grapes, nothing more.
Really?
Strong words indeed.
And rather a dramatic change from the opinion you expressed in the previous thread: ”There is something about doing it a lot in a short time, which is important in the learning curve. You learn more full time in five years than you do half time in ten years and I think the quality of that experience is different.
I don't know the full details of this case, but I think the principle that someone in a profession like yours or mine should work full-time in the early years to be safe and gain the relevant experience is a sound one.

Even though I now work as a doctor a mere two days a week and my wife is the same, strangely enough we both probably support BA on this one.”

[overstress]

I do not want to think that my wife and son may be flying behind someone who has just returned from a part time break with low experience and currency and then have the Skipper keel over and leave the shop to her.
What a load of tosh. If someone passes an LPC and a line check, they can cope with the situation you describe. What you have posted is nonsense, better not let your wife & son fly as you never know who's on the other side of that door. :suspect:

BusyB: What you allude to is in fact illegal in the UK - a part time worker cannot be disadvantaged for promotion compared to a full time one.

Once again the mention of this case exposes the petty jealousies and prejudices of some. Reading some of this stuff, you'd think this was a Victorian mill owners forum :cool:

[judge.oversteer]

Just like Wimbledon.
They play 3 sets, we play 5.
JO

[the bald eagle]

Flying Lawyer

Good post matey....next time i'm up sh*t creek with the CAA can i get you to bail me out of it!!:)

[tristar2]

its about time BA started playing by the rules

[smith]

Just like Wimbledon.
They play 3 sets, we play 5.
JO

Yeah but they get paid the same now!:=

[poorwanderingwun]

All you sympathisers with this coniving lady can cheer away if you wish but the fact is that the publicity attached to this case is going to harm the employment opportunities for many ladies and not only those within the aviation community..
irespective of the courts, most of us have a pretty fundamental appreciation of what amounts to fair play and this lady is the wrong side of the line.

( As for tennis players I've never understood the argument that ladies should earn the same figure as the men... simply put... the best lady player is only equivelent to the mens approx number 33... if you're the best in the world you get the best money... if you're the best lady player or the best under 21 or whatever you're simply NOT the best and get paid accordingly ). But this is not the subject of the thread and I apologise to the moderators for the divergence..

[bubbers44]

Why would BA hire female pilots in the future if their productivity is half of a male? Would the law require it? Why? This job requires a lot of dedication, if you are not dedicated to this profession work somewhere else.

[helen-damnation]

To change the tack slightly,

GREAT news for any BA opposition!:eek:

Higher costs, less profit etc etc.:O

Another case of EU/UK shooting itself in both feet again. :(

[Solar]

First time post so go easy.
I know of a young lady who has recently achieved the ATPL status and of course is currently looking for a job. I just wonder how this ruling will help her search. My son and I were discussing her dilemma recently and one of the things he said was that if he were a potential employer he would be very conscious of the possibilty her becoming involved and pregnant. Whether this is right or wrong is neither here nor there it is a fact.

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:
Tennis anyone?
At Caesar's Palace, on September 26th, 1992, Jimmy Connors beat Martina Navratilova in straight sets, 7-5, 6-2. He was handicapped, being only allowed one serve and having to make use of the full (doubles) court area.
The match was a challenge attempt by Navratilova to establish the fact that women were as good as men on the tennis court and that they provided equal value for spectators and should thus be paid the same.
The industrial tribunal in the Starmer affair has behaved with predictable consistency as befits the illogical bias in keeping with a long tradition. In ignoring common sense and rational arguement it has made life so difficult for BA that the company has, one suspects more from exasperation than anything else, decided to let sleeping dogs lie.
In the absolutely hypothetical case that there were to be an incident in the future in which the safety of a flight were prejudiced because young Jessica were not as current as she perhaps should or could have been; it will be interesting to read the conclusion of any board of inquiry. One might, perhaps with some small justification, look to a condemnation of BALPA, as opposed to a censure of BA, for having taken this matter beyond what might be considered the normal boundaries of common sense and passenger welfare?:ugh:

[Curious Pax]

Leaving the predjudice aside, a lot of the arguments against Mrs Starmer appear to centre around the costs to BA. Does anyone have any figures to illustrate this? Presumably she will only receive 50% of salary for working 50% of the time, and only the flight pay etc for flights she actually undertakes, so on that side of things BA pays less. Given her age I find the argument about payback of costs of training irrelevant, as I don't see any great difference between someone spending several years longer clocking up hours due to part time working, and someone who flies full time for 5 years (say) and then leaves for another airline - just one of the risks of business. Are there any numbers around the basic cost of employing a pilot before they start receiving anything in their paypacket?

How does part time work for a BA pilot? On the Flybe thread elsewhere there was discussion of part time working for them, and on the face of it it seemed to be of benefit to the company, as the 900 hours problem didn't kick in, so a 75% time pilot would likely work >75% of 900 hours.

[saffron]

The argument that 350 hours a year is not enough flying experience is spurious,night freight & corporate pilots regularly fly this amount without any problem.As stated BA management brought this argument in late in the dispute,because they knew they were losing.BA management WAKE UP you are in the 21st century.Also the argument that this pilot is less productive is wrong;she is doing half the work for half the pay;same productivity.

[POHL]

What is the seniority position of this female pilot, now she has 'earned' the right to 'work' at home childminding as opposed to fulfilling the contract she initially signed with BA?
Does she maintain a position in her joining order? or does she slip back in proportion to the time actually spent in working as a pilot?
Having read Flying Lawyer's excellent historical background to the case I am in agreement with the frustration expressed by employers and others alike to this blatant manipulation of employment rights.
As one, who for many years, was envolved in the minefield of seniority issues, I would be interested in the view of those pilots whose full time service is calculated in the same way as this partimer.

[mucatron]

Measuring productivity is quite complex but by even the most basic equation of

PI = (Output x Quality) / Input [purchase cost, wages]

clearly shows that BA aren't getting what they intended to pay for. It would be like BA buying a plane that they can only use for 2 flights per week.

So given the option they would never have done it in the first place, they would just buy one that can fly as much as possible, right?

I think this pilot has done the right thing for herself. Only herself.

[MungoP]

So... Here I am, not a humble pilot in the nether regions of the world but ( in my dreams )... The CEO of a striving company.

My strategy fo the next five years is to expand the companies products by moving into Eastern Europe.... I've sold the idea to the board.. Huge investment agreed to... long term strategy in place... Next move.. Find Key personnel to implement the stratergy..

Sales Team... headed by commited individual who will identify the markets...set up outlets... form close associations with client customers while making optimum use of the budget... Much depends on the success of this individual and the sales team and today I'm interviewing the short listed applicants... I'm conscious that any major disruption to this project over the next couple of years can lead to a failure of the stratergy..maybe even the company and that many jobs depend on the success of the individual heading the team...
The short list is made up of 2 men, one woman all more or less equally qualified and each of the applicants in their mid to late twenties...

Yes... by now you all know where this is going... with this and similar cases nawing away at the back of my mind, what are the chances for the lady ?
Something a lot less than Zero. ( she has to have made it this far so as to avoid any accusations of my being anit-feminine )

Ladies.. if you want responsible positions whether in the cockpit or in the wider world, you have to BE responsible. This case and others have done your gender no good whatsoever.

[remote]

Flying Lawyer


Note: Five pilots on the LHR Airbus fleet applied to work part-time in Feb/March 2004. Man applied for 75%: Refused. Four women applied for 50%: One granted 50%; other three (incl Starmer) offered 75%. Starmer declined the offer and claimed she was the victim of sex discrimination


2) Was that ‘PCP’ to the detriment of a considerably larger proportion of women than men?
Held: Yes.
Of the relatively small number of BA pilots who'd applied to work part-time, there were more applications by women than men.
So, although there was evidence that BA was in fact more likely to grant an application by a woman, it could still be proved by statistics that the proportion of women refused part-time contracts under BA's criterion was larger than the proportion of men - because more women applied


I might be missing something, but looking at your figures above, looks like 0% of women who applied during the period were refused part time contracts and 100% of men were refused.


I would think the gentlemen concerned, if he so chose, would have a case for sexual discrimination and not the women.

[Flying Lawyer]

tristar2 its about time BA started playing by the rules Employment/discrimination law is a legal minefield.
BA appears to have made some procedural and tactical errors when dealing with Ms Starmer's application. IMHO the errors were entirely understandable.

cavortingcheetah BA ..... has, one suspects more from exasperation than anything else, decided to let sleeping dogs lie. Overturning a decision on appeal is very difficult.
But for errors at the very early stages, the outcome may have been very different.

Curious Pax
"Leaving the predjudice aside"
Threads concerning BA always bring prejudice out of the woodwork, sometimes from outside, sometimes from employees disgruntled (justifiably or otherwise) with the management.
Contrary to what some allege, BA has actively recruited women pilots. a lot of the arguments against Mrs Starmer appear to centre around the costs to BA. Cost was only one of BA’s arguments at the tribunal, and there was far more to it than your simplistic 'work 50%/paid 50%' suggestion.
Apart from the obvious costs which apply regardless of whether an employee works full or part-time, there are additional costs of recruiting, training, conversion courses etc and of employing more than one pilot to carry out a full-time role.
The Tribunal accepted part-time contracts meant appreciable additional cost to BA, but then used BA’s offer of a compromise to help Ms Starmer with child-care arrangements against it, saying BA had already agreed to bear those increased costs by offering her a 75% contract.
There are other considerations:

eg Part-time pilots aren’t available for reserve cover.
The Tribunal accepted there would be an impact on the reserve, but said approving a 75% contract removed her from the pool of pilots able to work in that capacity.
Again, the offer of a compromise was used against BA.

eg Pilot resource difficulties: F/O’s were already flying at or near the maximum annual hours agreed with BALPA, and sometimes over.
Tribunal: “BA had a recruitment freeze - we do not doubt for other than proper business reasons – (but it is) a self-imposed constraint.”
ie Employ more pilots to cover for part-timers.

eg Reducing the scope for allowing pilots to transfer between fleets.
Tribunal: “BA has a practice of allowing pilots to transfer to other fleets when possible. This …. is a matter within BA’s control.”
ie BA does not have to allow transfers.
Pilots waiting to transfer or hoping to do so in the future may well find Ms Starmer's gain to be their loss.

eg Pilots already flying maximum agreed flying hours.
Tribunal: ”This was a voluntary agreement between BA and the relevant trade union and no more.”
Those aware of, and concerned about, fatigue issues might not be quite so dismissive about the voluntary agreement.

Remote I might be missing something, but looking at your figures above, looks like 0% of women who applied during the period were refused part time contracts and 100% of men were refused. You’re not missing anything.
It's one of several factors which shows some of the criticisms of BA here to be (IMHO) uninformed and unfair.

saffron The argument that 350 hours a year is not enough flying experience is spurious. That wasn’t the argument. As stated BA management brought this argument in late in the dispute,because they knew they were losing. It’s been stated, but it's not true. Both sides submitted in advance the points they intended to argue at the tribunal. (SOP) The Starmer side tried to prevent BA arguing the safety point. The tribunal ruled it was entitled to do so. (Although it ultimately ruled that the safety argument was not proved.)

___________

Re he ‘threshold’ argument:
”BA’s 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.”

I’m not an airline pilot so I’m not qualified to express a view on whether such a threshold is sensible/a wise precaution, but wonder if even the personal opinions of professionals matter in this context.

Should an airline have the right to impose such a threshold if it considers it to be in the interests of flight safety? (Whether or not individual airline pilots or other airlines consider it a sensible precaution.)
Airlines commonly require pilots to have far more hours than the legal minimum for a CPL/frozen ATPL. Should they have the right to impose requirements which are more stringent than the minimum required by law?FL

[Wedge]

Flying Lawyer

The thread title is misleading

The thread title was composed before the press story was online - just a 'byline' on the BBC news website (although I think they used the words 'legal campaign').

I'm not sure why you've inferred that the thread title necessarily implies that there has been a recent court victory - it was not meant to imply that and the fact that BA have dropped their appeal means that the 'legal battle' is now over and therefore it doesn't appear misleading to me to say that Ms Starmer has won her 'legal battle'.

Had I been fully seized of the facts and legal issues from the start, which you have eloquently related above, I could have named the thread "BA decide to drop their legal appeal against last year's employment tribunal which found in favour of a female airline pilot allowing her to work 50% of her contracted hours instead of the 75% that they had offered"..... but somehow I don't think that would have been quite so punchy. ;)

[Flying Lawyer]

Fair enough. I assumed you'd read the press report/knew the background before you started the thread.

You're right - headline writers tend to go for punchy lines.
'BA abandons Starmer appeal' would have worked here where the case is well known. (The previous two threads attracted more than 128,000 views and 800+ posts.)

Or even ..... 'The Law is an Ass'

;)



FL

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:
Not quite sure of absolutely all the facts here but was there ever a legal battle over this matter at all?
Surely an industrial tribunal, whilst perhaps being a legal entity, is not a courtroom per se? Rather it is usually a convention of rather narrow minded, bigoted, prejudiced and left wing orientated labour party - or worse, employees with an over rated concept of self importance and sense of worth?
(:hmm: Better stop here! Some of this descriptive prose might boomerang home to hit the fur between the eyeballs.)
Is it not obvious that any tribunal will do its damndest to find in favour of the poor oppressed worker, thereby vindicating its French revolutionary antecedents? Stalin was quite fond of tribunals as well, if one casts memory back that long ago, a bourgeois tool suborned to the ill determined uses of the proletariate.
As usual, one thoroughly enjoyed the careful and well reasoned synopsis and arguements provided by Flying Lawyer. Most excellent!:) May one infer therefrom that there exists a body of opinion which holds that, but for administrative and legal errors of one sort or another, the tribunal might well have had to find in favour of BA?
Rather reminds one of the emminent judge this week who, in advocating that life for murder should not mean life, made a comment to the effect that in a hundred years' time people would look back on 'life meaning life' with the same abhorrence as we regard flogging today. One cannot but say that his historical phantasy was ill thought through - which is not a good recommendation for a rather senior member of the judiciary. There are many today who, far from looking back on flogging with disgust, would welcome its reintroduction and extension of application. In saying this one is in no manner suggesting that either Jessica Starmer or her very supportive spouse deserve a flogging or even, in her case, the ducking stool. In terms of punishments of the past, the scold's bridle might have been altogether more appropriate as well as perhaps being deeply gratifying for BA?:ooh:

[fredfred]

I'm sure she thought long and hard before embarking on her case. She would have known she would come up against just the sort of criticism on this forum. It is a tough one. Women of her age used to be called the "have it all generation" til it was realised that they were in fact the "do it all generation". I'm told 1% of pilots are female - so not sure how much of an issue this one the one hand - on the other hand it might just help everyone with kids or dependants who maybe don't want to work 100% of the time. It's a cliche - but it's not just women who are looking at the work-life balance. Men want to spend time with their children too. The fact is - she probably will be with the industry for a long time and I am sure will more than make up for the short time in her career where she needed to work part-time in order to be there for her child.

[fade to grey]

All I can say is....I would hate to be in her shoes when she does her LPC/OPC,not because of any implied lack of currency, but it would be an ideal way to get her out.

we all know full well that the TRE can make you fail if they so desire,or am I being overly cynical ?

[Carnage Matey!]

I very much doubt our TREs would connive in such a blatantly illegal plan.

[haughtney1]

we all know full well that the TRE can make you fail if they so desire,or am I being overly cynical ?

Who you Fade?:} mayby its the food at the Lungi:E

Personally I think the law is an ass on this one...but then again BA stuffed up early on.
So what if shes a girl and has kids....go on maternity leave like every bloody one else:=

[Wannabe1974]

I seem to be doing a lot of naive posting lately... but here goes.
What the hell happened to the idea of accepting your terms and conditions of employment and then abiding by them? If you don't like it, resign. That would appear to be the common sense solution, regardless of the legal-babble. This woman has got a bloody cheek - I would have given my right arm to be on the BA cadetship scheme. To then turn around and start making ludicrous demands of your employer in the critical early flying years where the learning curve is very steep, strikes me as utterly barking. Yes, sometimes people need time off, for example if a parent dies. But generally speaking that is unpredictable and people do not set out to ensure that happens generally!
Yes, having babies is important (so I'm told), and we need the little blighters. But until someone comes up with a better idea, women unfortunately have to bear the burden. Literally. Better planning on her part might have avoided a rather unsatisfactory situation and outcome.
I wonder what it will be like when she goes back to work....?

[Carnage Matey!]

I seem to be doing a lot of naive posting lately

Yes you have....

What the hell happened to the idea of accepting your terms and conditions of employment and then abiding by them?

Like the right to maternity leave and to request 50% part time working like anybody else in BA?

If you don't like it, resign. That would appear to be the common sense solution, regardless of the legal-babble.

Good one. You have desperate wannabee written all over that statement. I'm sure prospective employers are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of exploiting you! Don't like it? Resign!

I would have given my right arm to be on the BA cadetship scheme

And I'd like a gold plated toilet but it's just as irrelevant. At your age you could have applied to the cadet scheme. Why didn't you? And if you did, why weren't you successful?

To then turn around and start making ludicrous demands of your employer in the critical early flying years where the learning curve is very steep, strikes me as utterly barking.

Some people don't see the demands as lucrative, and after 18 months of flying the Airbus out of a regional base the learning curve has pretty much flattened off. It may strike you as utterly barking, but then you probably don't have the experience to make that sort of judgement call. 7 years ago all Airbus FOs in BA were flying around 400 hours per year total. Nobody said that was dangerous.


Yes, having babies is important (so I'm told), and we need the little blighters. But until someone comes up with a better idea, women unfortunately have to bear the burden.

Nice to see chauvinism is alive and well.

I wonder what it will be like when she goes back to work....?

She'll probably be getting considerable thanks from all the people who had been denied part time working before and can now get it thanks to someone standing up to BA.

[Wannabe1974]

Carnage matey - blood pressure/stroke alarm!
I'll ignore the valid points made in your post as one or two seem vaguely sensible. But to question my career history seems somewhat irrelevant and childish. However if you really want to know, I was in the armed forces for some years and quite happy there until recently. That's why I wasn't on the BA scheme. Which neatly links to my decision to leave, which was based on the fact that I didn't like it much anymore, which addresses one of your other points I suppose. Whilst I accept that people should fight for what they think is right within an organisation, I fundamentally disagree that you should be fighting against what you signed up for on day one.

[Anti-ice]

The words 'pushy' and 'jump' 'queue' 'the' come to mind.

It seems extraordinary to hold your employer to ransom , in a highly skilled job, within virtual months of joining.

I would imagine her (possible) 102 MILE Dorset-LHR daily (each way) commute may have been a factor too.
Would be very tiring on earlies/doubles doing that up to 20 times a month,204 miles a day.

It also seems a tad precious, given they are both in very highly paid jobs, with many child care options available on two high salaries.

Not the kind of job, where you should be able to just pick and choose ' how much you want to do ' at any given moment.

There are hundreds of people in BA who have waited in excess of 5-10 years for ANY part time contract - Ms S was 75% already.

There appear to be many at BA who are aggrieved by her actions, the cost to BA , and the fact that a bit of hard graft had not come before her recourse to the courts.
There are many at BA in much harder circumstances than this lady too, but who still respect the work/balance mix in the earlier years of their careers.

I don't know if it was up to BA in this instance to 'pick up the pieces' (in a costly way too), but it's certainly an industry where you have to get your priorities right.
Sounds like she started a great and prized illustrious career, and then the wonderment of a family blurred the illusion...........

[Wannabe1974]

Anti-ice. That's sort of what I was trying to get across, albeit in a slightly lame fashion...
Well said!

[QDMQDMQDM]

Well, Flying Lawyer, amazing, and rather frightening to see the contrast. I guess I believed that then -- not so long ago actually -- and have now changed my opinion, based on my own experience.

[fade to grey]

Carnage matey,
Rather than wannabe,you are the naive one if you think an OPC can't be devised to push someone out...I'm told there is a far east airline that does it all the time.

Your condescending tone is childish and unprofessional,and berating wannabe about the cadet scheme is pathetic.

I presume you are one of the 'chosen ones' with the,'world's favourite airline' (everybody laugh).
However I still maintain she has landed a blow for female's job chances,and working so far from home on a shorthaul roster smells a bit.

what is wrong with a 75% roster anyway? -most professions don't get a week off a month,maybe she just found she didn't much like flying ?

[nilcostoptionmyass]

HA HA HA What a bunch of muppets BA management are.

They actively recruited woman with no flying experience and bypassed all the young lads who had bothered to get ppls etc sitting in flying schools because it was trendy and politically correct.

Good on her

improves everyones T's and C's

Love it.

[Whirlybird]

having babies is important (so I'm told), and we need the little blighters. But until someone comes up with a better idea, women unfortunately have to bear the burden.

Wrong! Women have to BEAR the children. Either parent can look after them. What law says it has to be the mother?

BA's argument was that Jessica Starmer didn't have the experience to be able to safely fly only 50% of her working hours. Her husband did, however. Let's leave aside whether BA were right or wrong as to the safety aspects - I don't know, and neither do many of you. But this was the situation, and ALL BA employees knew it.

Jessica's husband was offered the 50%. Why didn't he take it? Why should everyone assume that SHE had to be the one to look after THEIR kids?

Jessica didn't have a leg to stand on, legally. It wasn't discrimination; she was being refused what she wanted purely on safety grounds. She should never have brought the case. The fact that she won proves to me that the law is 100% an ass!!!

Nobody, but nobody, in aviation that I spoke to, or who posted on here, thought she was right when this case first came up. Why have you all changed your minds now? This makes no sense whatsoever to me. Please can someone explain it all to me, clearly, logically, in words of one syllable!!!! :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[judge.oversteer]

Well said Anti-ice!
I dont know, I've flown with and trained a few female pilots in my time and not only were they exceedingly good but they were very good, and still are, mates!
However, I am dismayed when someone like that pulls the sexist card and says stuff you! Not only that ,she is saying stuff you to BA ( OK we all recogognise that they are being gutless, shame!) and the rest of the industry.
Where is BALPA on this (over to you,Merv)?
I dont have any problem with females on the flight deck, they have worked harder in most cases than anyone else and as I have said most are very good.
I am just sick and tired of all this gender, racist, social Bullshot in our industry.
I've been flyin for 40 years!
I guess its time I quit!
Sayonnarra suckers.
JO

[Wannabe1974]

"Wrong! Women have to BEAR the children. Either parent can look after them. What law says it has to be the mother?"

Quite. I agree. I was referring to the physical act of bearing a child.

[stormin norman]

Its very sad to see JS has won her case.If we all did what she did and demanded as much the UK airline industry would be dead within a year.
Why won't she just leave, the majority in the airline want her to.

[jumbodriver]

stormin norman,
was that the extremely scientific straw pole, taken behind the bike sheds, quoted by the daily hate,by any chance?

[bubbers44]

The airline industry must realize how women cost more because of child bearing and other health costs. For her to throw in this extra cost doesn't do much to encourage hiring female pilots. She probably wouldn't even qualify for reserve flying so people senior to her would have to do that. More reserves that fly full time, twice as much medical insurance for the people in her group, and new hire classes to make up the difference adds up to additional crew costs. Would they have hired her if they knew what she was up to.....NO. Also more simulators and instructors to keep more part time pilots qualified. She only helped herself.

[Craggenmore]

Carnage Matey,

Are you her husband?

Id ask her to pay back her training costs before going part time and then sit I'd sit back and watch her hire a baby-sitter in about 1 second flat!

[overstress]

Whoever said Does she maintain a position in her joining order? or does she slip back in proportion to the time actually spent in working as a pilot?

That would be illegal in UK employment law.

Still some very bitter people on here, many posters seem to be as near-hysterical as the man-made global warming believers ;)

In 10 years time many who berate JS now may turn round and thank her....

How can an employee fail to welcome an improvement to a colleague's t's & c's? Or are all the critics on here management?

[Flying Lawyer]

WR ”Flying Lawyer tells us that this was largely due to earlier procedural errors” I didn’t go that far. Perhaps I should explain what I meant.
BA’s decision, by letter 25 March 2004, was:
‘The RTR Board has considered your written request and your comments at the meeting. Having evaluated the possible impacts on you, your colleagues and BA at this time, I have decided that I am not able to grant your request for 50%, but I am able to agree a change for the alternative option of 75% contract starting January 2005.’
The reasons for the decision were under the headings of:
Burden of Additional Costs
Inability to re-organise work among existing employees
Detrimental effect on quality and performance
Inability to recruit extra employees.
ie The 50% application was refused for budget/resource reasons.
BA didn’t have the resources to allow F/Os to work 50%, so the safety aspect wasn’t considered. (It was academic, because it wasn’t possible for resource reasons.)
Possible procedural/tactical error:
Had BA gone a stage further, considered whether it would be appropriate (even if resources were available) to allow someone of her relatively limited experience/hours, and who at the time of the application hadn’t flown at all for 13 months, to return to work later in the year on a 50% contract and also formally refused on that ground, the ultimate result might have been different.
That's not a criticism; it’s always easy to be wise after the event.
And it might not have made any difference. In my view, she was very lucky with her tribunal.

Some on the pro-Starmer side have alleged (in the various threads) that BA dishonestly claimed there was a specific ‘hours threshold’ at the time her application was refused.
That is simply not true. BA introduced the 2000-hour threshold 3 months or so after the Starmer problem arose. There was no dispute that, until then, individual applications were considered on their individual merits.
The formal specific number of hours threshold seems to have been introduced as a direct result of the Starmer problem and to make BA’s position clear for future applicants for PTW.

I’ve read the (very long) judgments of both the original Employment Tribunal and the review in the Employment Appeals Tribunal which set out the facts, law and arguments in great detail.
IMHO the criticisms of BA made by some (a minority) on this and the previous threads are uninformed, unjustified and unfair.

I've not seen a shred of evidence that BA discriminated against women pilots in the ordinary sense of the word. However, Parliament has given discrimination a different very technical meaning in law and, ironically given their active recruitment of women pilots, BA appears to have been caught by that. (And by Starmer being lucky with her tribunal. Another tribunal might well have come to a different conclusion.)

The majority opinion (from all 3 threads) is that the law is wrong, there was no sex discrimination and it was outrageous that she got what she wanted by playing the sex discrimination card.
I suppose one way of looking at it might be to accept there will always be people who use (or abuse) any system to achieve a result for themselves that most people think is outrageous, but that’s still better than not having the system there for what most people would regard as deserving cases.


Now easier for BA pilots to obtain part-time contracts?
Those in the pro Starmer camp who make that claim are either very naive or must think others are.
The majority of pilots wanting part-time contracts will now find it much more difficult. Those who can't use the sex discrimination argument will have to wait longer while precedence is given to those who can.

Whirlybird Why have you all changed your minds now? I don’t think anyone has except QDM. This makes no sense whatsoever to me. Please can someone explain it all to me, clearly, logically, in words of one syllable!!!! I’ve summarised, in this and previous threads, the relevant law and the reasons given for the decisions.
I’m not going to try to defend either the law or the decision. I work in the legal system but that doesn't mean I think the law is always right or that the legal system always achieves a sensible or fair result.

overstress How can an employee fail to welcome an improvement to a colleague's t's & c's? If they are prepared to stand back and look at the merits (or otherwise) objectively?
If they consider someone has gained unfair advantage over colleagues by playing the 'discrimination card'?
If they consider a colleague has been self-centred and selfish?
If they consider improved t's & c's a colleague has achieved for himself/herself will make life more difficult for others?
Most people have moved on from the old 'us and them solidarity' days of automatically supporting a colleague regardless of what they actually think of the colleague's behaviour or the merits of their demand.

FL

[Nov71]

Anti-discrimination law is a minefield yet nec for a few bigots.
I defer to FL's opinion re the handling of the BA case
IMO women have the additional rights afforded by maternity leave legislation and I approve of some paternity leave. Beyond that additional childcare rights should be applicable to one partner by mutual consent.
The sacked ex-army oficer Tory MP was denounced as racist for referring to black/ginger ba*tard recruits. An error in part if he had not known the parents' marital status or was blind. The valid point he went on to make was that a minority of the minority will use discrimination as a weapon for compensation when not supported by the facts.
Even in Officer training SNCO's refer to white etc recruits as 'plonker' or 'tosser' but correctly add 'Sir' or could that be 'Cur'
Re Wimbledon. Women can play 3 sets per match, Men 5. Either change this to 3 or 5 for both genders or pay £x for each set won per Round
Small employers cannot afford Corporate legal representation and most employees do not risk Tribunals without the support of Trade Unions or a pilot's pay for fear of a black mark on their record.
In creating a baby the male contribution is transient, the female 9 months Beyond that one partner needs to provide nurture, the other (financial, emotional) support. The next generation will pay all our pensions (Gordon willing)

[Dick Deadeye]

I've not seen a shred of evidence that BA discriminated against women pilots in the ordinary sense of the word.

Yes, you're probably right, and that probably sums up the majority view among the Nigels and Nigellas.

However, the point is, most of my old mates don't care.

They are just happy to see an insufferably arrogant Flight Ops management get a good kicking at the hands of a court.

Any court, any issue, it doesn't matter, so long as they got a kicking!

And if it happened because they didn't take the correct legal approach, or exercise due care and diligence, well isn't that just typical.

As an aside, is GMFO's position tenable?

Will he now resign?

I think we should be told? :E

[Whirlybird]

In creating a baby the male contribution is transient, the female 9 months. Beyond that one partner needs to provide nurture, the other (financial, emotional) support.

Quite. Although on two pilots' salaries there was nothing to stop them employing a fulltime nanny and both flying fulltime, as many professional couples do.

[Carnage Matey!]

Anti-ice: Your 'pushy' and 'jump the queue' comments are only relevant to your small world in BA which is cabin crew, and where you all wait your turn for a part time contract out of personal preference rather than personal need. Thats not the way it works in Flight Ops, where people get part time according to whether they need it before those who just happen to want it. Perhaps we should all be getting upset about the many cabin crew who join BA and disappear off on maternity within a couple of years never to return to full time work. Are they pushy and jumping the queue too?

I find your comments about the distance someone lives from their place of work rather hypocritical when many many crew on Eurofleet live distances exceeding 100 miles from LHR, and your suggestion that somebody might get twenty single days of work indicate you don't really have the first clue about typical patterns of work on the A320.

Wannabee1974 - I checked my contract and there's nothing in there to say I don't have the right to request part time working in my first five years, so I really don't see why you think she's fighting against what she signed up for. I know BA granted 75% part time around the same time to a female FO on the same fleet with only about 18 months more experience based purely on her lifestyle choice. She had no care commitments, so clearly BA did not have an issue with that!

Fadetogrey - you are still being naive if you think an OPC would be devised in BA to push Jess out. Let me tell you how it works. The trainers devise an OPC. It's much the same for everyone. Any attempt to do something different to someone would immediately raise suspiscion. If thats failed it's all written up, with clear reasons for the failure. Re-training takes place, with emphasis on the deficient areas. Then the OPC takes place again, with a different trainer. If it's failed then more retraining takes place anda meeting of trainers, including training standards captains determines the next course of action. If you believe all these TCs and TSCs can be nobbled (and I know lots of them and they can't be) then you probably believe that the Roswell alien shot JFK. If you believe they could do all that without leaving an incriminating paper trail that leads straight to a constructive dismissal case then you are deluded.

nilcostoptionmyass - BA recruited plenty of lads with PPLs, and plenty of lads with zero hours and some women too. Their philosophy was always to take the people they thought would be best for BA from the widest pool possible. Why should they restrict themselves to those in flying schools? They'd be excluding all the people who couldn't afford to get PPLs in favour of those who could get Daddy to fund it.

Whirlybird - It amazes me that people don't listen to those who have flown the aircraft, endured the same learning curve and are intimately familiar with the hours/safety issue. 8 years ago FOs were joining BA on the A320 with 200 hours and then flying 400 hours per year for three years. Nobody claimed it was a safety issue then. Now somebody has joined, done a full year in a high intensity, mulit-sector short haul operation and has applied to fly around 350 hours per year (after a period of full time on return from maternity leave) and that's unsafe is it?

Craggenmore - no I'm not her husband, and she's already paying back her training costs and will continue to do so until she has paid BA over and above what they paid for her training. Thats the deal.

[Wannabe1974]

Carnage Matey - without wanting to sounds as presumptious as you are about other people... You sound so bitter and hateful about BA, who I'm presuming are your employer. I wonder why you stay?

[Carnage Matey!]

You are being very presumptious. I'm neither bitter nor hateful. I do recognise when BA are trying to ride roughshod over their staff to further managements interests. We've all seen it in BA Flight Ops, which is why I enjoy seeing the management brought down a peg or two. I also recognise when people are bringing up a load of baloney arguments on this thread in order to disguise what are often just chauvinistic or plain envious sentiments.

[Wannabe1974]

"I enjoy seeing the management brought down a peg or two"

So I wasn't far off the mark then. :ugh:

[Carnage Matey!]

Miles off the mark. Unless you consider all BA pilots bitter.

[Anti-ice]

Quote Wannabe - "Carnage Matey - without wanting to sounds as presumptious as you are about other people... You sound so bitter and hateful about BA, who I'm presuming are your employer. I wonder why you stay?"

I raised this point last year too, as i was concerned at the level of vitriol in some posts....

My post was removed, I was given a warning, and it's allowed to continue :rolleyes:

It concerned me greatly - and still does - given the position - but the 'ignore user' post is always an option........ you just have to remember it's 1 in 60M.

Don't look back at previous posts Wannabe, unless you really have your wits about you..........

[fade to grey]

Carnage,
yes I am aware how OPCS are devised,and I'll wager I was doing them when you were still at school.However I live in the real world,and in the real world there are dirty tricks applenty.
I would also guess you are a friend of the subject of the thread - ,'jess',maybe you even went through oxford or jerez together ?However I still see her requests as amounting to preferential treatment,maybe she really did want out.her priorites changed with the kid's birth and clearly her husband was earning a decent wage, so I guess she didn't want to do the job anymore and has been discussed there are lots of childcare options.

I personally know of two female pilots (1 BA/1 Virgin)who left to have kids and are not certain as to whether they want to return -but they will just quit if they have had enough,not try all this.

As for your analogy about the roswell alien shooting JFK, Roswell was 1953 and the aliens died in the crash (hence the autopsy) and JFK was shot in 1962 or 63.Man you really need to revise your conspiracies;)

[Flying Lawyer]

Carnage Matey!
I know BA granted 75% part time around the same time to a female FO on the same fleet with only about 18 months more experience
BA offered Ms Starmer 75% part time.
She chose not to take it.


Re "just chauvinistic or plain envious sentiments" and similar comments in previous posts.
For some reason, you don't seem prepared to accept that other people are capable of considering the various issues in this dispute and coming to different, but no less valid, conclusions.



FL

[Wannabe1974]

Carnage-matey - I haven't met enough BA pilots to comment on your last post. The ones I have met seem genuinely happy to be given the opportunity to do a well-paid and enjoyable job. They also seem generally well adjusted and not obsessed with seeing 'the management' brought down a peg or two as you put it.
If you really do feel like that about the rest of your team, I would suggest you move on somewhere where you don't develop such anger. It can't be good for you...

[Shaka Zulu]

I think where CM's sentiment stems from is the fact that Management - Employee relationships are not what they used to be. I think there is a new line in the sand drawn especially in aviation.
Communication from Top to Bottom is miserable in my view. Most Managers seem to be Micro Managing and not thinking of the bigger picture as often as they should. The invaluable price of employee satisfaction is often ignored to produce short term savings and enhance the bonuses of those managers. The funny thing is that the 'targets' set for them are wrong from the get-go.
We've seen it in easyJet where MS was fired after a string of bad decisions.
Also when Ray got replaced with AH it was apparent that there was a guy at the helm that took interest in the company and all of its employees.
Goodwill needs to come from both sides.

And yes most of us are very happy working for our company. I fly my aircraft with pride however its hard to be the professional when there are so many un-professionals in the business that are only looking after how long they can milk the cow before they retire. Shame.....

And congrats to Mrs Starmer!

[Angryfool]

Congratulations to Mrs Starmer.

Although I may not entirely agree with some aspects of this case, I feel that the individual had the courage to fight her case with balpa's support and won. Jessica was already on a 75% contract when she took the company to a tribuneral, looking for a 50 % contract. Where I feel there is some resentment amongst individual's is in relation to her already having 75% yet wanting 50%. As the case showed in this instance, she had a case and she won. There is also some resentment towards Balpa, as their PR machine stated that the case would result in part-time opening up for other pilots. Unfortunately, this has definately not been the case, even though they would like you to believe it has. If the company are not legally obliged to give you part-time under the right to request, then they will not if they do not have sufficient resources.

I do recognise when BA are trying to ride roughshod over their staff to further managements interests. We've all seen it in BA Flight Ops, which is why I enjoy seeing the management brought down a peg or two.

I totally agree with Carnage. We wouldn't even be talking about this if it wasn't for the attitude of some BA managers.

[411A]

Working for an airline.
The applicant applies, and is accepted.
This comes with a certain amount of responsibility.
The responsibility of actually turning up for work, and flying the schedule to which one is assigned.
NOT asking for maternaty leave every couple of years.
Sound harsh?
I don't think so.
Now, I have certainly flown with several female First Officers, and they were first rate, one was on secondment from BA.

They have to be, in an otherwise male dominated profession.

IF the part time works for the airline...fine.
Otherwise, these gals should stay at home or find another profession.
Simple as that.:ugh:

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:

Why should you be abused, scratchingthesky?
The only barrage here should fall upon the skeletal remains of those feminists who have brought the reputation of womanhood into such ridicule and disrepute. It is the likes of Emmeline Pankhurst and her ilk who must bear the burden of responsibility for the first stirrings of this grotesque social monster that goes by the misnomer of political correctness and which now haunts those of both sexes in their every attempted achievement!:ugh: :eek:

[POHL]

Overstress

Seniority 'slippage' for whatever reason is Not against Employment Law!

My point was raised simply because the seniority issue is valid given this
female pilots contribution to the Fleet monthly flying hours demand in her new position of childminder. A pilots seniority determines pay,allowances,days off,etc, and ultimately pension. How can a pilot who elects to stay at home be supported within the seniority structure for future benifits without making a contribution. I do feel that Balpa have very seriously eroded their credibility by supporting this case.

The prospect of "all of us thanking this pilot in ten years time" is risible
A return to reality is clearly demanded for the deluded who see merit in this pilots actions particularly after such a brief experience of work

[overstress]

POHL: better check your source then. Have a look at the DTI's website here (http://www.dti.gov.uk/employment/employment-legislation/employment-guidance/page19479.html#Promotion_for_part_time_workers)
As promotion is so closely linked to seniority in BA, the interpretation of the law is that seniority cannot suffer by going part-time, as UK employment law in the reference I've given states that part-timers must be given equal opportunity for promotion.

The pension is dealt with simply - as the pay is reduced during the part time period, so are the pension contributions.

Also,as one of the 'deluded' who see merits in this pilot's actions, what exactly do you deem to be sufficient experience for someone to go part-time? On second thoughts, don't answer as I don't think it's relevant - look at the facts of historical hours flown on JS's fleet and you will see why the tribunal rejected that argument.

FL: as greatly as I respect you and your work, I'm surprised at the implications in some of your posts.

To all those who don't 'get' Carnage's viewpoint, you have to understand that the relationship between Flt Ops and BA pilots is not as it should be...

[Waldo Pepper]

What so many of you fail to grasp is that flying airliners is just a job.

It isn't winning the lottery, or some sacred vocation that only a few can achieve. it's just a job, albeit a pretty good one.

Jessica has not stolen anyone else's opportunities. She got the job on her own merit, and, like many of us with a few years in, has her family as her priority now, not the company.

I've flown with her as my co-pilot and she is bloody good at her job. Better, I imagine, than many of those taking swipes at her. So get over it, it's the 21st century now. I know many wannabees can't imagine that spending time with your family is more worthwhile or valuable than time in the flight deck, but it is, and those of you who get your dream job will one day see that.

And no, I'm not married to her...

[Wedge]

It isn't winning the lottery, or some sacred vocation that only a few can achieve.

That sounds absolutely bang on. Time was when I thought being a pilot was like winning the lottery (although even winning the lottery is not really like 'winning the lottery' if you see what I mean).

FWIW, my view on this - I can see both sides. On the one hand, there was a time when I'd have given my left arm to be a BA trainee, and get it all paid for me with a great job at the end. I'd have considered it pretty rich of anyone, male or female, to start dictating to BA their terms and conditions of employment.

On the other hand, once you're trained you're a valuable asset to the company (and you've had a lot of money invested in you), and as such you can set the agenda yourself to some degree. That's what Ms Starmer has done, and although not a pilot myself and therefore probably not qualified to comment, I don't really see a problem with that.

411A

Now, I have certainly flown with several female First Officers, and they were first rate, one was on secondment from BA.

They have to be, in an otherwise male dominated profession.

Isn't that the problem here? The fact is that the profession is very male dominated. What you're suggesting is that women have to be better than the males if they are to get on. Or in other words, a male pilot can be second rate, but a female can't be. That seems pretty unfair to me, and it's probably because there's a lot of truth in it that BA did for a time follow a 'PC' policy and recruited some women who weren't interested enough to see it through. That obviously doesn't apply to Ms Starmer, reading the comments above from some who have worked with her.

If this debate is about equality, then it's clear there isn't equality for women in such a male dominated profession. I wonder what the reaction would have been if it were a male pilot who'd been involved.

[ellie186]

A correction to Flying Lawyer's summary of the case and the timeline.

Jessica Starmer's first child was born in October 2003.
Mr Starmer's divorce from his first wife was completed shortly afterwards also in October 2003. Did one thing have something to do with the other? - Is this really a woman who is being heralded as a champion of family values and the winner of a moral victory?

[Flying Lawyer]

Wedge asks: I wonder what the reaction would have been if it were a male pilot who'd been involved.
On the same facts?
A male pilot could not have used the same legal argument to get what he wanted.

Mrs Starmer claimed BA's refusal to agree to her changing to a 50% contract was sex discrimination against women.
The tribunal was persuaded that, according to the law, it was.
That might seem bizarre because, as a fact, women were more likely to have PTW applications granted. (Don't blame me. I didn't make the law.)

This next part is going to make some think the law is even more of an ass than they already do and, to be frank, I can understand why:

Given that the tribunal was persuaded that BA's policy re part-time work applications (based on lack of pilot resources) constituted unlawful sex discrimination against women (NB: not against women with children), she would still have won even if she didn't have a child.
The child care aspect took up only a few lines as background in long, very detailed reasons given for the decision.
Once her counsel had established that she was a member of a group being discriminated against (ie Women. NB: Not women with children) whether or not she had a child was irrelevant.

Does that mean a woman without a child would have won by using precisely the same legal argument?
Yes, it does.



ellie186 A correction to Flying Lawyer's summary
I confined myself to a brief chronology as background to the claim, just enough to explain the relevant law and the Tribunals reasons for the decision - so that people could make up their own minds about the merits or otherwise of Mrs Starmer's claim and the eventual outcome of the legal process.
Is this really a woman who is being heralded as a champion of family values? Opinions will obviously differ greatly about that, but it did strike me at the time (after conversations with friends on the fleet) that it was quite a gamble in the particular circumstances to bring the 'family values' stuff into play in the press, posed photographs with child etc.
That said, it was done well.
"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."
And "firm refusals for interviews over and above the two we sanctioned."

Balpa's Media/Press department had a job to do and, credit where it's due, they manipulated the press extremely effectively, and could correctly claim "this resulted in sympathetic reporting, not least in an excellent feature in the Daily Mail."

(All quotes from Balpa.)

[Whirlybird]

You're right, Flying Lawyer, I do indeed think the law is an ass. 'nuff said. :( :( :(

[POHL]

overstress

your Dti reference is very generalised and clearly would demand further interpretation by relevant parties. I would refer you to real life and the way in which these seniority issues have been dealt with historically in BA.
I do not think ,given the company opposition to this case, that old BA views have changed. What clearly has changed is Balpa's stance on the historic principles of BA seniority.
Seniority questions regarding absence due to 'critical' family circumstances were always dealt with sympathetically and rightly so. Here we have a completely different scenario and I would suggest that the sympathy vote distinctly strained amongst the BA pilot commumity.
If you are thinking of starting a 'liberal employment' airline yourself just be prepared to double just about every factor except revenue. Quadrupal that just to break even!

[overstress]

POHL, yes the reference is generalised, but covers the principle which I felt you had wrong. It is indeed the case that part-timers in BA do not 'slip' down the list.

The 'sympathy vote' may have been strained, but most people seem to recognise that a bridge has been crossed, interpret that as you like!

Part-time is in everyone's minds now as our working lives have been extended by 5 years. This will be an issue that must be addressed in the near future.

I have no plans to start an airline, but the UK employment market is supposed to be one of equal opportunities!

[fokker1000]

I haven't looked at the forum for quite a while.
But, am I right in thinking that this lady has got BA to back down at BALPA's (ie. my) expense having not done, what, a full year in the right seat? And, did this person pay for their training? And isn't her partner a skipper? and does this person retain seniority? Not quite sure I'll be paying my subs for much longer.
Am I being totally cynical? Answers from pilots only please.
Regards.
FK10

[Carnage Matey!]

To answer your questions:

1) BA pilots contribute 60% of BALPAs subscriptions but account for only 40% of BALPAs expenditure, so BA's pilots probably funded most of the case.

2) She joined May 2001, grounded Feb 2003. Well over a year in the right hand seat in a high frequency, multiple sectors per day short haul environment,

3) All BA cadets pay back their training costs and more by way of reduced salary and additional pay claw back for their first five years.

4) What has her husbands occupation got to do with it?

5) This person retains seniority because the law in the UK requires it.

[Dick Deadeye]

am I right in thinking that this lady has got BA to back down at BALPA's (ie. my) expense

Yes. That's one of the things you signed up for when you joined BALPA, supporting your colleagues when they need help.

BALPA doesn't exist just to support you. You are entitled to expect support from BALPA members, but you are also expected to lend support to BALPA members, a concept that appears to have escaped you.

Should you ever have the misfortune to need BALPA's help, they will support you, provided they think you have a good case.

How happy would you then feel, if BALPA members started discussing who paid for your training, how long you'd been flying, where were you on the seniority list or what your partner did; rather than discussing the merits of your case?

BALPA won, on behalf of this member, it sounds as if you would have prefered her to lose!

Am I being totally cynical?No, something far worse!

Not quite sure I'll be paying my subs for much longer.
Frankly the union will be better off without people with your attitude. :yuk:

[Heliport]

it sounds as if you would have prefered her to lose!

We've had 3 threads on this topic. The previous 2, at the time of the claim, were much longer.
The facts were posted, Balpa's view was posted, the merits of her claim were discussed extensively and, after the tribunal decision was announced, the merits of the decision were discussed extensively.
1st thread 513 posts.
2nd thread 360 posts.

Right or wrong, over all three threads, that is by far the majority view.

[FlapsOne]

fokker1000

If you ever need (or want!) Balpa help I'm certain you would not want the justification debated on the pages of PPrune (or anywhere else).

Everyone pays fees, and each case is taken on individual merits and chances of success (ie. you don't fight a lost cause because that IS a waste of members' money).

Under UK employment Law this pilot had a case and has won. The professional association supported her throughout all of that. Just what she paid her fees for.

[poorwanderingwun]

Does that mean that BALPA does not take into account the opinions of the majority of its members as to how their contributions are dispersed.. ? And is it an indication of the unions mind-set to hammer the employer without regard to the moral value of the claiment.. ?

Sounds very undemocratic for a Trade Union.... reminiscent of smokey rooms full of bitter and twisted individuals that oversaw the demise of many trades in the 70's.

[Carnage Matey!]

Aaaah the 'moral value' argument. So lets say due to some miscalculation on your part you somehow manage to fractionally infringe the blood alcohol limit somewhere downroute. It will of course, be entirely your fault, and using your moral argument you would presumably accept that BALPA should wash it's hands of you?

Edited to add that 'moral value' is highly subjective and I wonder who appointed you to make such a judgement?

[Airbrake]

Carnage, I suspect that if you were her employer your moral view point may be some what different.
Whether people are for or against this ruleing many female pilots will have a tougher time getting jobs because of it. That may be ilegal but many small operators out there would rather employ a male who is going to be the main earner in a family than a female who will be haveing kids in a few years.

Not very PC but a fact of life.

[Ancient Observer]

By and large, BALPA does its best. However, it is expensive to run, and does have a habit of taking on some daft cases. The detail of this case was very balanced, and could have gone either way.
However, they did win, and the victory will begin to undermine the whole "seniority" argument, which can only be a good thing, as "seniority" as practiced by BA and some others is ageism opf the worst sort.

[Flying Lawyer]

the victory will begin to undermine the whole "seniority" argument There is no basis for that proposition in either the decision of the original tribunal or the review by the Employment Appeals Tribunal, .

Some of the assertions I've read about how the case will allegedly benefit pilots generally are very surprising, and IMHO wrong. They bear no relation whatsoever to what the case was about, or the tribunal's decision.
It was not about seniority, and it was not about applications for PTW contracts generally.
Mrs Starmer claimed that BA's practice in relation to part time work applications constituted sex discrimination against women.
The tribunal was persuaded that it did.

The decision, that there was sex discrimination against women, will benefit women pilots who wish to change to part-time contracts, whether or not they have children.
I can't help wonder if there's a PR effort somewhere to persuade BA pilots generally that Mrs Starmer's victory will in some way benefit all BA pilots.


FL

[JW411]

Well of course it will; CM will be more than happy to watch his seniority number keep pace with dozens of others who have won the right to sit at home for years on end until it suits them to come back when time comes to bid for a 744 command.

[xsbank]

I see this a little differently - we are a part of an aircraft no different than a fuel pump, except in one critical way - the price of a fuel pump is not negotiable. Your price is. Your cost to the operation is variable and management is very good at 'negotiating' the variability in their favour.

Because we are not generally very good at negotiation and better at flying, we have evolved unions to do that task for us. We let them run our lives in a sort of average way and we are happy to get on with the flying. Now we are confronted with a pilot who is a good negotiator and understands all the rules and is somewhat more interested in things not flying-related. She trumps management to 'win' the negotiation.

Really, she is playing the game by all the proper rules - her gender is a red herring.

Why are you lot so sure you have been hurt somehow? Is it because it is 'beyond' the average? I see her victory as an addition to our lives, one more concession/benefit/option that has been won on our behalf.

[overstress]

XSbank - I'm with you. As FL states, the employer will have to view applications more favourably. How is that bad for employees?

The old chestnut confidently trotted out: "This has set back the case of women" - do those posters really think that an airline is going to risk being taken to tribunal over alleged discrimination in the recruitment process?

[Carnage Matey!]

CM will be more than happy to watch his seniority number keep pace with dozens of others who have won the right to sit at home for years on end until it suits them to come back when time comes to bid for a 744 command.

Whether I like it or not is neither here nor there. The law protects them from having their seniority held back. It would do just as much good to be unhappy about the sun rising in the morning or it raining on my days off.

[Wedge]

FL

A couple of questions:

Did the tribunal get the law right in your opinion? Clearly you have a view on the decision itself, but was it correct in law - however asinine the law may appear to be?

So, although there was evidence that BA was in fact more likely to grant an application by a woman, it could still be proved by statistics that the proportion of women refused part-time contracts under BA's criterion was larger than the proportion of men - because more women applied.

I'm assuming that the very last part of that constitutes the ratio decidendi for this judgment (the 'reason for decision' for the non-legal people reading this). I'm not quite sure I follow the reasoning. If it's a question of the proportion of men to women who apply for part time contracts, surely the mere fact that more women apply for them alone is not enough?

In other words - even if the ratio is 10 women for every one man who applies for a part-time contract, there can not be discrimination against women provided that the percentage total of those contracts awarded to men and women respectively is the same? Although as you say above, there was evidence that infact BA were more likely to award such a contract to a woman. :confused:

[Flying Lawyer]

overstess As FL states, the employer will have to view applications more favourably. Not me.
Mistaken ID? :confused:


If you'd said the employer will now have to view applications by women employees more favourably, I'd agree.

The tribunal's decision distinguished between women employees and men employees. That was the issue.
When forecasting the likely consequences of the tribunal's decision, it's necessary to make the same distinction.
To do otherwise is to misunderstand what the case was about or, in some instances I suspect, to actively misrepresent what the case was about and the likely consequences of Mrs Starmer's victory.


FL



Wedge
Just noticed your post.
Good questions, but they can't be answered in a few sentences.
Early early start tomorrow. I'll respond soon.

[overstress]

FL - sorry, yes, I meant women.

[interpreter]

Your point sums it up succinctly. BA and other airlines MUST view female applicants as a potential financial burden beyond that of male crew. The sex discrimination acts are all very well but in the long run they will make it less and less attractive to hire females. In my view this employee has done a disservice to every other BA employee.
In small businesses it is already being reflected in a recognition that they simply cannot afford to hire women of child bearing age and sooner or later the larger companies are going to have to find a rational approach that reflects the completeness of the male career record and the lessened experience of the female. It is not a criticism of the female employee but just a pragmatic acknowledgement of the facts of life.

[Carnage Matey!]

BA is too big and too high profile to stop hiring women (not to mention too desperate for pilots). As to the idea of impeding female recruitment in aviation, well I don't think that I am a model for male recruitment so why should Mrs Starmer consider herself a model for female recruitment? We all do what is best for ourselves. Nobody should be held up as a 'gender model' and forced to make their choices accordingly.

[interpreter]

No one would suggest that you are a male "gender model" as you put it but business is business. Wealth creation which benefits all demands that businesses are run in the most efficient and cost effective way - especially with companies up against international problems in an internationally competitive arena. Does that company go down, does it cease to hire as many - or even just a few - female pilots or does it simply penalise all the others by lower staffing costs - i.e. reducing or not improving pay levels?
Carnage - it is not a perfect world and "carrying "relatively unproductive staff is a luxury no company can afford. If you believe that BA can then you are living in "cloud cuckoo" land. I would suggest that BA seriously appraises its female recruitment policy such that when there is an adequate supply of pilots female joiners are kept to an absolute minmum. BALPA would be foolish if it did not realise that this case they have taken up could well prejudice the living of every other member for the forseeable future.

[npasque]

ridiculous. just because she is of the other gender does not grant her special consideration. just shutup and earn the required hours like everyone else who works for BA.

i certainly hope her relationship with BA is NOT long and prosperous. there are PLENTY of pilots out there who want nothing more than to sit in the R/H seat of a jet and keep getting knocked back, and here are some wankers who do nothing but complain. i dont think i need to emphasize that if she doesnt like the conditions i and many others will be VERY HAPPY to take the problem off her hands!

sorry for being so blunt but seriously, this is all getting way out of hand....

[Carnage Matey!]

Blimey I've never seen such ignorance!

it is not a perfect world and "carrying "relatively unproductive staff is a luxury no company can afford. If you believe that BA can then you are living in "cloud cuckoo" land. I would suggest that BA seriously appraises its female recruitment policy such that when there is an adequate supply of pilots female joiners are kept to an absolute minmum

You should come and have a look at the money BA pees up the wall on hosing the cabin crew down with cash, running sexual diversity awareness campaigns and giving free tickets to illegal strikers. These costs are a drop in the ocean. Running some family friendly policies towards their most loyal workforce instead of grinding them into the dirt while splashing cash on everyone else might even pay dividends. If you think BA can somehow get the message to the scores of people involved in recruitment that they should look less favourably on female pilots and the news won't leak out (or that they'd even act upon it) then it is you who is living in "cloud cuckoo" land.

ridiculous. just because she is of the other gender does not grant her special consideration. just shutup and earn the required hours like everyone else who works for BA.

Yes, you are ridiculous. She had plenty of hours, BA just upped the requirement for their own convenience.

i certainly hope her relationship with BA is NOT long and prosperous. there are PLENTY of pilots out there who want nothing more than to sit in the R/H seat of a jet and keep getting knocked back,
They got beaten to the job by a better candidate. Tough luck. It's these desperate types who drive the profession down with that sort of attitude.

"Take the job and work for nothing, don't ask for anything, I would do that". Well b******s to that! BA new what they were doing, they are willing to squeeze their pilots til the pips squeak, it's fair game to do the same back to them.

i dont think i need to emphasize that if she doesnt like the conditions i and many others will be VERY HAPPY to take the problem off her hands!

Except I doubt you'd get past the first stage of selection.

[interpreter]

I am afraid you are once again getting carried away on the raft of left-wing ideology. Who said BA could not have a policy of looking after good staff just because they are pragmatic about recruiting female pilots? Not I. I am afraid you are completely blind to the economics of aviation - and for that matter all business. Wealth creation and wealth creation alone allows a nation to be generous to those less fortunate than others etc. and so it is for business. The corporate responsibility of BA is to ALL employees and if they are to recruit those where the contribution will be less than the norm then all the others have good reason to object. That is all they are doing.

[millerscourt]

Carnage Matey sounds like a Luddite type of the Red Robbo persuasion that brought British Leyland to its knees.

[Carnage Matey!]

I am afraid you are completely blind to the economics of aviation - and for that matter all business. Wealth creation and wealth creation alone allows a nation to be generous to those less fortunate than others etc. and so it is for business. The corporate responsibility of BA is to ALL employees and if they are to recruit those where the contribution will be less than the norm then all the others have good reason to object. That is all they are doing.

Will you listen to yourself bleat on! Do you have even the vaguest idea what BA's Flight Ops budget is? Do you know what proportion of BAs turnover it is? Do you know what it would cost BA to grant 50% part-time to all those who had caring commitments? Do you know how many people have applied for such? Of course you don't. You don't have a clue, so don't lecture me about economics. This whole case about resources, and BA Flight Ops managements unwillingness to release the purse strings. The cost to BA is tiny but individuals in the management structure refuse on principle to spend money in order to save. It's a familiar story to every BA pilot who watches vast sums of money poured down the drain in an inefficient operation because nobody wants the cost of a solution on their budget. If the corporate responsibility of BA is to all employees (nice bit of management speak there) then I damn well want a share for the pilots because from where I sit the part-time contracts and below benchmark work levels are lavished on the other departments. I want to see more hours flown from the cabin crew (>40% of them are on part time). I want tug driver who do more than a handful of pushbacks per day. I want loaders who don't knock off early or lose my bags. I want bus drivers who will turn up on time to take me away from the aircraft when I have finished work and am no longer being paid. When thats all fixed then we'll start talking about corporate responsibilities.

millerscourt - not even close. I just know what a tiny, efficient and cost effective cog we are in the lumbering BA machine and I (and most of my colleagues) don't see why we should keep oiling that machine with our hard graft when nobody else gives a stuff.

It's interesting that most BA pilots have stopped posting on this thread. I suspect they are all fed up with the usual raft of comments from outsiders who like to spout on like they know something about the way BA. Sorry, but you know nothing.

[152wiseguy]

It seems there are quite a few on this thread that seem to view Ms. Starmer having a child (and therefore going part time) as an entirely selfish act and of no benefit to anyone except the Starmer family.

Given the rapidly declining birth rates across europe I think women should be given just this kind of support to encourage them a bit. After 30 years or so there is not going to be much of a work force left to look after all the mean spirited, sexist whingers on this thread as they sit dribbling their food in their retirement homes. :ugh:

[interpreter]

Yes indeed I do know those figures. BUT we are not discussing detail we are discussing principle. However much you wish to rant about the inadequacies of some of BAs areas of operation - and let's face it no business is perfect and BA would admit that they are very far from perfect - the simple fact is that to create a class of employee who may share all the benefits offered to others with a lesser input than those others is to create a precedent that leads only to Carey Street. How? In due course the company would have to either raise prices to cover it's costs or reduce staffing or payroll. Which would you prefer? The former will lead to uncompetitiveness and failure throwing all on the rubbish heap and the latter would see a flow of skilled staff away to the competition. Simplistic ? Yes but absolutely pragmatic and true to life. BALPA you have been warned and don't forget your members are relying on a pension fund with a gigantic hole in it.

[millerscourt]

Wiseguy Rapidly declining birth rates across Europe????!!! Not in the UK, they are forecast to increase from 60 Million to 69 Million by 2050 according to the United Nations. So plenty of people to spoonfeed me and you if necessary and I doubt whether any of the Starmer offspring would be volunteering for that duty even for you.

[lexxity]

If the birthrate is climbing why are so many schools being closed or merged and the same for maternity units?

[Carnage Matey!]

I'm most impressed that you know BAs Flight Ops budget Interpreter, especially as that sort of figure isn't public knowledge. Do you know many BA managers, or did you actually mean to say that you don't know what BAs Flight Ops budget is, and hence don't really know what sort of costs are involved in this sort of operation.

the simple fact is that to create a class of employee who may share all the benefits offered to others with a lesser input than those others is to create a precedent that leads only to Carey Street.

That class already exists. Cabin crew. MT drivers. Pushback operators. Loaders. A large swathe of middle management. Thats over a third of BA employees performing way below par whilst enjoying all the benefits that the efficent employees don't enjoy. Yet you complain when one of the few efficient employee groups scores a victory that will benefit a fraction of that very small group and forecast ruin for BA!

BALPA you have been warned and don't forget your members are relying on a pension fund with a gigantic hole in it.

Very simplistic. I don't think BALPA will be paynig much heed to your expert analysis.

[chipmunkj]

What all of you are failing to see is that Jessica's victory will benefit all of us, regardless of gender.

As of next month, when the Works and Family act comes in,any one who has care resposibilities can apply for "Right to Request part time working".

So you chaps, if your wife/father/mother (or child) has to be cared for, you can apply for right to request.

It is no longer just a "child" or a gender issue!!!

[Harry Wragg]

March 2007, Thoughts of PD

BA's employee costs are nearly the highest in the industry and have risen steeply in recent years when many of our competitors have seen theirs reduce. Since the major pay restructuring for our pilots in 2003, our wage bill has continued to go up markedly more than inflation; in contrast our competitors have actually reduced their unit costs. Is there a solution to this by taking a completely fresh look at what are loosely termed 'lifestyle' options?

I acknowledge that, up to now, the majority of part-time has only been available to individuals who meet the 'right to request' criteria. The current agreement adds additional cost and complexity which, at a time when money and management resource have been in short supply, has made it difficult to justify part-time other than for individuals who have a compelling need for flexible working.

However, if we can agree a package of changes that improve the part-time agreement and resolve work coverage, we may be able to offer a wider range of flexible working, including opportunities for short sabbaticals or unpaid leave.

So, in a nutshell, in order to make part-time working available as per the recent part-time working case, we will have to rob Peter to pay Paul. It is a zero sum game, any benefits gained have to be paid for by someone...who?

HW

[serena]

I fly for United Airlines. My husband is English. He is a stay-at-home dad for our 3 year old. I work more than full time since the Sept 11th attacks, and in fact have very little time with my family. I am away from home nearly 400 hours/month. My little girl loves her dad, but now she misses me - a lot. I am not there for her at all. If I was her father I would not be there for her either - the same. Male or female, if we don't protect our rights we take away from our children. This forum sounds very petty, condescending, and bitter. All that matter is our children. As pilots, male or female, we have a responsiblitity to be home for our families. If this kind woman opened a door for all of you to be home for your children, what are you complaining about? I would give a lot to work less and spend more time with both my husband and daughter. Now just imagine my proud English husband doesn't like to even live in America, but is living there to take good care of our sweet daughter. Do you expect every woman pilot to get so lucky?

By the way, I just came off furlough last year and I was flying in Australia - whoever suggested that - ha, ha!! I was fired for having a child!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes, AND MY HUSBAND IS A STAY-AT-HOME DAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I never had ANY problems with my child and work - my husband took care of EVERYTHING. It actually was a pay issue, he found a pilot to work for half of my wages. But do remember that in Oz they can fire you for ANYTHING. I think that was a lame excuse but some of you apparently think that's appropriate. Think again. I have an excellent reputation all over America and now Oz. I work hard and I love flying and people love flying with me - I make it fun. I've been flying for over 17 years now. Why are some of you being so condescending and petty?

[Bronx]

chipmunkj

"What all of you are failing to see"

:rolleyes:

The Starmer case was a 'gender issue', not a "child" issue.
Try reading the posts explaining the case and the decision.

[chipmunkj]

I am talking UK law--can't help it if some other countries are living in the dark ages!

[interpreter]

"That class already exists. Cabin crew. MT drivers. Pushback operators. Loaders. A large swathe of middle management. Thats over a third of BA employees performing way below par whilst enjoying all the benefits that the efficent employees don't enjoy. Yet you complain when one of the few efficient employee groups scores a victory that will benefit a fraction of that very small group and forecast ruin for BA!"
This demostrates clearly that you either do not read the replies or you are simply hell-bent on putting forward an argument that cannot be substantiated. The above I suggest is your opinion on the performance of certain employees. The correction of those shortcomings, if they exist. is a management responsibility. The creation of a class of employee who by contract does not need to do "a similar level of work" to that of another is a completely different matter. That is structurally bad for morale and financially inexcusable.

[Airbrake]

Serena, nobody on this issue is contesting the need for part time working as a parent or carer, that is a perfectly acceptable and reasonable request.
One of the issues surrounding this case which has aggrovated the issue is the speed at which a junior pilot achieved their demands before it was their "time". If they had waited another couple of years it would have been a non event and we wouldn't be disecting the issue today.
I see from your post that you have been flying 17 years, Starmer had been flying about 21 months before all this kicked off.

[Harry Wragg]

So it is merely the outpourings of people who realise: (1) the world does not revolve around them, (2) that life is unfair.

It must be particularly galling for Brits who love to queue [and the seniority system is just a big Q] to see someone who has just turned up get the lifestyle that most people aspire to but have, and will be denied.

It is also annoying for those self sponsored types who see someone get free training, and an automatic job flying aircraft many will take years to get anywhere near. Having got that access the person then sees fit to chose something else to do with their life, namely parenthood, and so it appears that they care nothing for either their career or the company.

Just so people understand, BA cadets are seldom interested in flying as a career, they have merely maximised their opportunities for remuneration and lifestyle.

Life is unfair, and it's about to get worse in the wonderful world of BA, a company a bit like the Soviet Union, where everyone is equal, but some more than others...

HW

[serena]

I do understand that it was out-of-seniority and that is unfair to all of us (even over here.) But some of these comments are a bit unfair.

"BA and other airlines MUST view female applicants as a potential financial burden beyond that of male crew. The sex discrimination acts are all very well but in the long run they will make it less and less attractive to hire females. In my view this employee has done a disservice to every other BA employee."

We had the same problem at United about 15 years ago when they had to fill quotas and they hired female pilots with 200 hours (or so.) When I got hired I had 4000 hours and had been a captain for a regional airline. I was treated as a 200 hour pilot and still am treated that way. That is life. But it doesn't take away from the fact that I love to fly airplanes. I choose to put my career ahead of my family. Maybe not all women will choose that, but I think the majority still will choose their career. So I do not believe it's a gender issue, I believe it's an individual issue.

[Mixed Up]

serena:

So I do not believe it's a gender issue, I believe it's an individual issue.

The employment tribunal clearly thinks it's a gender issue.:hmm:

[flyer1-11]

As a BA Captain on the B757 in 1999, I was one of the first to do part time and I worked 75%. I had 25 years flying experience.
On return to the B747-400 I reverted back to 'full time' working as I had experience as a co-pilot of very little handling practice and recency problems.
I think that working 50% on longhaul with less experience is not an ideal situation and does compromise safety to some extent. It also means that a part timer will always be struggling for recency on Longhaul and doing a higher proportion of handling sectors than a full time pilot.
Is the tribunal qualified to make a decision on flight safety and if there is an incident who is responsible.
BA were always helpful and accommodating.

[serena]

Oh well, I've got to go to work for the week. Have fun fighting it out!

[npasque]

ooh big man you are. dont go making assumptions like that around here, you dont know me or anyone else.

i wouldnt be surprised if you were the one who knocked her up

[MrBernoulli]

I see assumptions being made here about choices to be with ones family or pursuing a career. The assumption seems to be that, whatever the career, you can automatically have both. It just isn't true!

Some careers just don't give that option. Assuming that employment law will allow this 'balance' in all careers is a fundamental mistake. Therefore you have to find the job/profression that allows you to find your work/family 'balance'. Don't choose a job and then expect the law to sort it out for you. That would be a business on a hiding to nothing!

Two part timers doing the job of one cost more than a single person in the same position - FACT! You can't avoid it - uniforms, administration, recurrent trainig etc etc. They cost more. The whole point of a business is to be competitve and make a profit - if it doesn't do that it doesn't last long. Therefore the business employing the part-timers, if it goes down the part-time employment route, is going to have to save money elsewhere. So something somewhere is lost to EVERYBODY. We ALL lose.

Those that think this case is a plus for workers are almost exclusively those who want part-time work themselves, and they always fail to see that it costs more! Somewhere everyone is losing something, however small. The losses accumulate and eventually people realise that things are not what they used to be ....... but they don't associate it with their desire for part-time work. It gets laid at the door of something else - rising fuel prices, competitors fares yada yada yada.

I am married, I don't have children ...... but I have a FAMILY. Would I like to work less and spend more time at home? Human nature probabaly dictates that it is thus ....... but I don't have kids, but somehow my family is treated as less 'deserving', I don't get the option of part time, assuming I wanted it in the first place. Is that fair?

No, this case is but a small detour in the inexorable decline of benefits for ALL employees as a whole. The folk that get their part-time or whatever think they are doing great. The load has to get 'picked up' elsewhere and eventually things are lost - benefits, salary increases, et-bloody-cetera.

With rights there are always responsibilities. The responsibilities need to be exercised FIRST, not the rights. But the innate selfishness of parts of human nature seem to allow the noisy selfish lobby to get their 'rights' first. It will come home to roost but unfortunately we ALL have to pay. By which time it is too late.

[Alex Whittingham]

Is it a fact that part timers cost more than full timers? Mrs W was on a 50% roster for BA Connect (with less than 1500 hours total). BACon policy was no standbys for part timers so they were rostered first, often on touring rosters, and ended up flying 75% to 80% of the hours of a full time pilot with 50% of the pay. Not complaining, you understand, just making two observations:

1. It isn't always as simple as it looks
2. BA, who were very quick to say BACon was part of BA when it suited them, don't seem to have applied the 1500 hour policy universally.

[jetjockey737]

MrB, you are banging on about responsibilities and rights, This woman has got a responsibilty to her child that far out weighs the responsibilty to her employer. When her kids are old enough she should theoretically be able to return to work full time.

If you cant get part time at your employer, come and work for mine....you dont need to have kids to qualify for it there.

[MrBernoulli]

Alex, I didn't mean that part-timers cost more, I meant that 2 people covering the job that could be done by one person, is more expensive. Can't be anything else.

jetjockey737, "banging on"? OK. Well if the "responsibilty to her child ... far out weighs the responsibilty to her employer" then she can administer that responsibility herself. Why should the employer or other people in the company have to carry the can for that? She made a choice to have children, she may even have a 'right' to have children, but not at everyone elses's expense.

I didn't say I wanted part-time .... read it again carefully.

[SR71]

How much money did BA make last year?
They can cope with a few part-timers!
Just knock a few quid off pay-point 24...
:ok:

[MrBernoulli]

Good point, well made Lucifer! :D

[fokker1000]

Dear Mr Angry, or Carnage.. Whatever your name is...
You appear to be extremely wound up about this.
Are you a BA manager taking the P?, a journalist?, or even,... the husband?
My original remark, some while ago, when this issue first occured was only that it did a huge dis-service to the many other females pilots [I've flown with loads] who wanted a career in aviation, and, whether you agree or not, were prepared to sacrifice something for it like most of us do.
I truely sincerely wish the lady and her children health and happiness. That is from the heart. But we all have to make life choices regarding careers, you cannot have it all your own way, a decent career, salary, etc. comes at a price. If you sign on the dotted line that says you have to do X Y Z, then you cannot change the rules after you signed up for the job.

:}

[rmac]

I am interested to hear what our military colleagues have to say ?

Would female C130 pilot be allowed to elect part time in Iraq or Afghanistan because she wants to stay at home with the kids a bit more ;)

[52049er]

I despair every time I hear people bleating on about doing this job for the love of it. It is NOT the same as serving your country in the forces. It is NOT the same as helping street kids in Africa - it is paid employment for profit making (ish) organisations.

Every time we go on about doing it for the love of it, our bosses smile into another glass of champagne. They love the fact that we are committed, cos that means we will do it for less. It means they can screw around with our home lives just that little bit more and squeeze a little extra work out of us to help their bonuses.

My family comes first, middle and last. My company comes just where it should - exactly where my contract of employment puts it. No more, no less. I give my career 100% of the attention it needs and deserves and expect the same back from my company. If I am entitled to part time by law (as every other employee of every other company is) I will take it if I want to.

Next person to talk about 'dedication', 'commitment' or the 'sacrifices' we all should make - please remember that's taking money out of my pocket and putting it into my boss'. Do you really think that your company will thank you for your single minded 'my-job-is-so-important-blah-blah' dedication when they lose money and sack you? For gods sake IT'S ONLY A JOB and she is only an employee with a right to have time off to bring up her child if she wants it :ugh:

[rmac]

52049, that lovely phrase "entitled by law", the meeting of politics and business. It would seem that the only part of the equation not "entitled" to anything are companies and their shareholders.

Companies and shareholders are not generally big fat cigar smoking types these days. They are more likely to be your pension fund managers for example, or your insurance company, or an investor trying to generate yield for his/her cash beyond what can be achieved just sticking it in a bank. Without those private interests, there would be a lot less benefit for the general public. Can you imagine a world where only government owned flag carrying airlines existed ?

What makes anyone think that they are "entitled" to be provided for by those investors in anything else but a mutually beneficial relationship. As in any free market should the mutual benefit cease , then so must the relationship.

I run a number of businesses across Europe where staff fully (ab)use their "entitlement by law", to sick leave and overtime, where even stealing from the company is not considered by courts as dissmissable in an industry where trust is everything. Over at Airbus, a perfectly good series of aircraft is in danger of extinction because of political interference and employee intransigence, and will they all be happy when Boeing have 90% of the world market and they are all sitting at home jobless on state benefits.

What happened to the need to earn something rather than expect instant entitlement without any contribution. I can assure you that management candidates up for interview with me assure themselves of instant disqualification if they even breathe the word entitlement before they have had a chance to contribute anything.:ugh:

As for your comment about "just a job", I would have to say that on balance the evidence suggests that it is not just a job for many of your colleagues. Having had a look around the net, I have struggled to find a Professional Accountants Rumour Network for example.

Take a poll among well paid managers in mundane jobs, ask how many would take a pay cut in exchange for a front seat in a 777, you would be surprised at the positive response you would get

[brakedwell]

Well put rmac. Professional flying does require a vocational commitment. I worked for an airline run by a fellow countryman of yours, renowned for his prowess in a racing car. If all I was interested in were my entitlements I would have packed my bags in disgust and returned to UK pdq.

[CamelhAir]

rmac, read 52049's post again. In a nutshell, this is what he's saying (eloquently in my view)

I give my career 100% of the attention it needs and deserves and expect the same back from my company.

On giving said 100%, where is exactly with your problem with the so-called "entitlements"?

What makes anyone think that they are "entitled" to be provided for by those investors in anything else but a mutually beneficial relationship.

Which is exactly what 52049 advocates. He gives 100%, this benefits the company, so he is fully entitled to benefit also. After, he is doing a job, not as you claim, some sort of "vocation."

Perhaps you'd only be happy when the employee gives 100% and the company gives nothing.

Take a poll among well paid managers in mundane jobs, ask how many would take a pay cut in exchange for a front seat in a 777, you would be surprised at the positive response you would get

And watch as soon after they realise it isn't all it cracked up to be.
This is a job like anything else. The employee is expected to do as required in his/her contract. The company is expected to honour the contract. You will see the employees give 200% when companies start doing the latter. Airlines, as I'm sure you are aware, are rather prone to one-way loyalty.

[Clandestino]

simply that many do this job for the passion and love of the industry
And that's exactly the reason why porn-actresses are much better paid than porn-actors. There must be some analogy with our industry in there, I just can't remember where... I think SSTR is keyword but I can't be sure, sclerosis y'know...

Ms. Starnes approached the matter rationally and used the flawed law to her own advantage. What's shocking about that? Are the loopholes only to be used by MGT? Are the ones who fly-to-live worse pilots than those who live-to-fly? Do you at all know what's the real cost of pilot's wages and trainning compared to companies' overall expenses?

[serena]

You touched on every point that matters and on what is it REALLY like out there. I wonder if these bloggers have any clue what it is like to fly for an airline. Your points are accurate and most airline pilots would agree with them. Those that don't, surely aren't actually airline pilots. :ok:

[millerscourt]

Just seen Jessica spouting forth from the wilds of Dorset on BBC1 on the subject of mothers wanting flexible working.

You would think she would keep her head down for a bit but No she is clearly loving the attention she has got over the BA cave in.

[npasque]

of course. she has just become a shining beacon of hope for every working mother out there. :ugh:

[shootfromthehip]

[Take a poll among well paid managers in mundane jobs, ask how many would take a pay cut in exchange for a front seat in a 777, you would be surprised at the positive response you would get]

I've taken that poll from friends who aren't in aviation and they would get out of bed for what I earn:confused:. Let alone a pay cut for that front seat (maybe 1A with a rather large G&T :O )

[Fubaar]

Was I imagining it, or were there three or four posts on this thread a few days ago, at least one of which expressed a rather un-PC view of Ms Starmer's actions that have disappeared now?

[Carnage Matey!]

No you are not imagining it. They were pulled by the mods fairly swiftly.

[Albert Driver]

And quite right too.

We are discussing the actions of a named individual who remains part of the pilot community. We have the right to agree or disagree with what has happened but not the right to be abusive, intimidating or libellous.

In my view this thread has not been moderated anything like enough and parts of it bring PPRuNe into disrepute.

Address the issues, not the individual.