Pregnancy-Maternity-Pregnancy leave

[miss marple]

Hi there

I was wondering if anyone can offer me some advice please.

I work for a UK based company and therefore am governed by UK law.

I have recently had a baby and am currently on maternity leave, however my maternity leave is due to end in the next 6 months.

It is my company's policy for pregnant crew to be grounded from the time they find out on full pay (not sure if that is law or internal only, can an employer reduce one's salary while on pregnancy leave?).

What would happen if I were to fall pregnant again while on maternity leave, would my employer be obliged to put me back to on to pregnancy leave on 100% pay and then I go on to maternity leave again once the baby is born.

My company doesnt stipulate in any policy that I must first return to work after maternity leave so I was wondering if anyone has any experience or information on such matters/cases.

[d105]

I would imagine your head of HR is the prime person to ask these questions to.
I can imagine however they're not going to be too pleased with you being on 100% pay while on pregnancy/maternity leave for a second time in a row.

In case they have issues with it do not hesitate to consult a lawyer. Better get one too early than too late. :)

[Firestorm]

they're not going to be too pleased

But if it's the law then they'll have to suck it up.

Similar thing happened to a friend of mine. She went back to work after her first child and 6 months maternity leave, and 6 months unpaid maternity leave, and accrued leave (almost 57 weeks in total since she had gone off for maternity leave): within 4 weeks she found out that she was pregnant again! She took maternity leave immediately (even though she was not in an aviation industry) because she knew that her department were going to be made redundant en masse before she would have returned from maternity leave. It made sense to me, plus she got her full redundancy package!

Check with you union rep, and with HR.

I think we are more governed by EU law than UK law these days.

[brakedwell]

On the other thread:
Virgin's maternity policy is statutory minimum, 6wks at 90% pay then £123 pw. They allocate a job for you in the office at LGW 2/3 days pw whilst grounded on full pay.
3.5% of pilots are female. I don't know how that compares to the rest of the industry?

Only 3.5% of pilots are female - surprise, surprise. Standing by for flak!

[miss marple]

Thanks for your answers so far.

Its not so much the maternity leave I am unsure about, its whether there would be an issue of me going from the maternity leave I am currently on directly back to pregnancy leave and back onto 100% pay for the 9 months and then on to maternity leave again once the baby is born (as it is the company policy not to allow female crew to fly while pregnant).

[lesserweevil]

sounds like a great way to "use" the company to me - perhaps one of the reasons why some companies are still hesitant to employ female staff.

[Otto Throttle]

What does it specify in your company maternity policy? They are legally required to have one.

In my own company, once grounded due to pregnancy, crew members receive 90% of their average salary over the preceeding 3 months. This lasts until commencing maternity leave, when they receive the first 6 weeks at 90% of their grounded pay and then statutory maternity pay until this is exhausted.

If a crew member were to fall pregnant again whilst on maternity leave (as in your case), then payment would be 90% of your monthly SMP until your second period of maternity commences fully and you are eligible to claim full SMP once more.

Different companies will have different policies, but in this industry, especially in the UK, I wouldn't imagine many employers will offer more than the law requires them to do.

[trex450]

as far as the CAA go you are of course supposed to tell as soon as you know and will be grounded for the first three months. Thereafter you are allowed to fly up untill six months and then you are grounded. Had we known for our children prior to the three month point we would of course have advised the relevant people ;)

[miss marple]

Thanks weevil for your highly helpful and inaccurate posting.

I am not 'using' the company I work for, I am merely trying to make sure I get what I am legally entitled to, a bit like what the company gets out of me when it rosters me, when it schedules my duty and rest, when it pays me, when it holds me to account for my actions etc etc, so why am I 'using' the company when I seek only to receive what I am entitled to under the law and company policy on this matter?

I am not asking for special treatment!

[d105]

I think what he is getting at is that you're receiving 100% pay for the foreseeable future without having to work for it.

Some people feel that is unfair but usually their opinions change once they have kids of their own.

You're absolutely right in demanding what is yours by law. I used to be a bit sceptical towards maternity leave myself. That is until my girlfriend got pregnant with our first daughter :)

[B737NG]

I hope that Mother and Child are doing well. Miss Marple ask´s not for special treatment but.... I have a few very sensible personal questions:

Is it realy needed to have a second child? is your Company secure, is your future and the one of the Father secure? so you can afford a second Child? I just assume it is the second.... could be the third. Becoming a Parent is easy, beeing a Parent is more difficult.

I employed some Female´s 30 Years ago when I had my own enterprise and we had always put the humanity first, for both, Male and Female. But it was one of the Females who went to the Authority to ask for all the rights she has and for all the benefit´s she is entiteld for, my late Wife had treated he like her own Daughter at the time..... Result was, we got audited from the regulator and, as after all audit´s, there where some minor findings we had to correct to satisfy the Auditor, not the Females.... We did and spent more money on the Audit then on everything else with the result that we where disappointed and even a month before my Wife passed away she spoke about it again how disappointed she was.

Having right´s is important, getting them is not wrong, but how can you calculate the pay fair and equal? A male employee is getting sick for a certain amount of days per year.... theoretical. How many pregnancy´s do you calculate in a femals employee? Just asking here, I have seen both sides of the coin. A employee in a big company is a number in the statistic, easier to cope with the odd´s when he/she is not able to work for any reason. I see man calling in sick due to some exotic sports or hobbies they do and get hurt. The company and the co-workers have to cope with it and cover the time out. I rather cover a Woman when she is expecting, that is something contributing positiv to the society.

Just some food for thought I hope, again, best wishes for Mother and Child....

Fly safe and land happy ( after the leave )

NG

[miss marple]

Hi NG

I suppose you could question how many children anyone should have, but we live in the UK and not China and would like to have two.

This will be our second child and we believe we can give two children a good life so will not plan to go for a third.

That's just our opinion, but since you asked I have furnished you with the answer.

I dont want to 'use' or take advantage of my employer as some kind weevil suggested earlier, I only want to be afforded what I am legally entitled to under law and from internal company policy.

I didnt make the rules, laws or policy, I just want to make sure I follow them to make sure I receive what I am entitled to.

I can understand the view that some will have that woman cant have it all, and there may well be something in that, however, people need to have children, some woman choose to have a career too, the laws and policies we currently have is all I can work with.

[411A]

...some woman choose to have a career too
Indeed they do.
I would suggest that you quit your job, and let the company hire someone who actually might like a business career, instead of having a child or two.:rolleyes:

[Walnut]

Maybe one way to make this fairer for the majority of the workforce is to suspend seniority accrual when the women is not on 90% maternity pay. At least that way hard working male pilots will get their commands a little sooner. My son, who lives in Sweden has a wife who has had three children, all about 2yrs apart, In Sweden I believe a women gets 90% pay for 2yrs. Imagine the cost to the state, and why the tax rate is 60%.

[EGCC FO]

HA! I just can't believe some of the archaic and sexist opinions in this thread!! Seriously? How on earth can you guys sit there and try and claim authority on how many children someone can have? I can only assume all those do not to have any offspring of their own. Miss Marple isn't the first, and won't be the last. With more and more women flying I would have thought attitudes like this would be a thing of the past. It really is shocking that we have to work alongside some of you.

[miss marple]

Thanks EGCC fo.

411A and Walnut, all I can add is that I can kind of understand why some folk , mostly men without children, might find the way females are treated with regards to pregnancy and maternity leave and pay unfair.

However, put it into context, women should have equal rights in all aspects in their job as men, right?

Obviously, it is women who have the children and that is a normal outcome of most marriages and is a requirement for the human race to continue.

So, it seems obvious to me that in order for women to have a job/career and have children they need to be afforded some kind of help and protection over and above what a man gets as he can help further the human race without having to carry and give birth to a baby.

Obviously there is abuse of this in some cases, but there is abuse of sick time etc carried out by men too, so are your views formed on the basis that women shouldn't have the same rights as a man while they fulfill their uniquely female job of having children?

[411A]

...so are your views formed on the basis that women shouldn't have the same rights as a man while they fulfill their uniquely female job of having children?
I would ask, where does it end?
Having children is OK, provided the company does not have to keep open a job for you, later
IE: take all the time you desire for maternity leave, just don't expect to waltz right in and displace the person that had to be hired, while you were off, giving birth.
Equal for men/women or, if the woman deisres children, go to the back of the line, jobwise, when returning.
All this maternity leave nonsence can be carried too far, which then begins to affect other employees (have to work harder to let missy go have a baby) or...disadvantage the guy/gal who must be hired to replace missy, whilst she is on leave.
Some women game the system, and expect to be paid indefinitely while being absent.
Sorry, ain't no free lunch, somebody has to pay, and it usually is not the one missing.
One child OK, more than one...find another job.

PS: My wife agrees with me, totally, in this regard.

[miss marple]

I respect your opinion and agree that when someone takes advantage of the system they should be stopped.

However, so long as I and other women respect the law and company policy, I don't feel that I am taking advantage of any system.

Now if you think the law needs to be changed because it is wrong, I suggest you become a politician and have a new bill passed, perhaps your wife could be your press agent as I am sure you will be receiving many letters from women who don't share your opinion.

Regarding the current law in the UK, an employer has to keep your position open for only 12 months after you have had a baby, so it is hardly, as you seem to have described, have a holiday for a couple of years and waltz back in and displace someone.

Do you also agree any man who injures himself while playing sport and has to be off work for any length of time should also have to find another job?

Finally, when did you suddenly become Chairman Mau and decide how many children people should be allowed before they have to leave a particular job?

By the way, my husband agrees with me, totally, in this regard.

MM

[ManaAdaSystem]

Of course she does, 411A. How old is she? 70 something?

Miss Marple, it's not maternity leave most are reacting to, it's just that it seems like you are trying to time it so as to make max profit from your company while you stay completely away from your job.

[lesserweevil]

I simply don't understand why have a job if you aren't going to work for it. I don't argue your rights to have children - of course everyone is entitled to have children - but if you want to stay away from work and keep having them, it's simply my opinion that... you should do just that.

There is at least one person in my company who has been on maternity leave for the last 2 years or so, and it is common knowledge that nobody in the company thinks favourably of her - not so much that she is using the company (nobody really cares about that) but that the other employees feel hard done by, that they are working full time to get the same pay that the other employee is - who hasn't done any work with us for at least 2 years, not even office work.

[miss marple]

I didn't plan on getting pregnant on my maternity leave, I wanted to go back to work for a year before we tried for number two.

It didn't work out the way we planned and I wanted to know where I stood.

I can't change our situation, we are where we are...if that adds up to playing the system in your book then I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Hope your life pans out exactly how you plan it.

Weevil, I have worked for this company for over four years, so I have given good service to them, I didn't join them and suddenly had a baby, but now I am at the stage of my life where I would like kids.

I will indeed probably have to resign after my maternity leave, so do you think I should forfeit any pregnancy and maternity leave/pay I am entitled to?

Again, I say I am only following the law and company policy.

[SR71]

Far be it from me to judge, but my take on the matter is perhaps you might gain a little credibility with your audience here if you moved away from talk of entitlement, to one of, responsibility.

What do you think is fair?

What do you think is fair, if you were your employer?

Having answered those questions, why not strike a deal with your employer in the absence of any clarification and take the moral high ground.

At the moment, following the law and company policy, strikes me as stooping to the lowest common denominator.

My wife is a pilot.

Good luck with whatever you decide.

[V1... Ooops]

...It is my company's policy for pregnant crew to be grounded from the time they find out on full pay (not sure if that is law or internal only...

Wow, that is quite a remarkable policy - at least, viewed from the perspective that we have here in Canada.

Under Canadian law, a pilot is obliged to disclose pregnancy to her Aviation Medical Examiner when she becomes aware of it, but not to her employer. A normal pregnancy is considered to be a "state of good health", not some kind of disease.

I think that there is a regulation somewhere that requires Canadian pilots to stop flying commercially at the beginning of the third trimester, but that does not create any financial hardship, because there is a requirement for all employers to provide employees with leave for pregnancy. The pilot can still fly recreationally if she wishes, that decision is up to her and her Aviation Medical Examiner.

It sounds to me like your company takes a very conservative approach to things (granting you leave from the moment of conception, so to speak), but, heck, it is a very generous policy, so, it's tough to complain about it unless you really miss flying the plane.

As for the "what-if" scenario presented by the second pregnancy (congratulations, by the way), I think that d105 offered the best answer in the second post on this thread - just ask the HR department how they would like to handle that.

...I will indeed probably have to resign after my maternity leave...

Whatever for? It costs employers a fortune to recruit and train good pilots, and presumably after four years with the company, they know you are a good pilot. Just ask them for unpaid leave, and perhaps volunteer to keep your licence current (not necessarily your type rating) on your own dime. Heck, they might respond by offering to keep you current on type if you agree to show up every 6 months for the sim check.

Most employers (at least, mine for sure) are not the least bit upset about pilots taking pregnancy leave, or even longer leaves after that until the kid gets into primary school - they know that the pilot will eventually come back, because they now have one extra mouth to feed!

Michael

[kme]

Two kids is not exactly uncommon in the UK (note - this is a guess).

If any flying female is going to have two, most companies would apperciate it to be twins of course. This is not exactly easy to arrange (Guess nr 2, but if you dont believe it - give it a try and prove me wrong).

What is then the second best?

This might be depending on the company itself and is likely decided by the details of the retraining requirements since the total time off is likely the same? wheather they come in a row or with time in between.

It is not unlikely that one (slightly bigger?) revalidation is cheaper than two.

All of this is of course depending on a job that continue to exist after the period. A company laying of staff would of course be happy to get rid of people staying home on full salary but there is regulations and they are there for a reason - anyone unhappy about the rules should spend time trying to change them or the people making them and not look down on the people affected by the rules.

(I can see that such situations when unexpected very well might wreck havoc with the balances of a small company / family operation and have all respect for people managing to deal with these kind of issues in a civilised way.)

Actually there is no problem to work while pregnant, its just the detail that you might get grounded during parts of it. If the company (management?) does chose not to use this staff for other tasks during this time, then this is the companys decision (taken either on economic/market grounds or just plain inefficient) and has nothing to do with the employee.

I might as well mention that I am from Sweden and we do have a bit different views on such issues in general than for example 411A.

[LilaJane]

Let's put things right!

I am a female pilot, 757 skipper (and valued by my colleagues), 2 kids.

I would have liked to carry on working as long as possible whilst pregnant but:

1. My company wouldn't let me.
2. The local CAA wouldn't let me.
3. The doctor wouldn't let me.
4. I am not sure PAX would have been happy if the FO announced we are diverting due to captain giving birth.

So yes I took time off and my company and colleagues understand it.

The reason stated on my payslip was loss of medical class 1 which cannot be argued.

So all the idiots on this forum, go back to testosterone filled topics and let miss marple get some answers in peace.

Happy new year to all.

Lila

[ManaAdaSystem]

Testosterone vs PMS!

Everybody loves me too! Or else! :)

[pablo]

IMHO get lawyer counseling and get fair advantage of whatever your contry laws allow you.
Companies also adjust to their most favorable side of the law every day without any moral concerns.

My 2 cents worth... after getting sacked by some random multi-billion dollar corporation that filed +1,5$ bil. profit last year, because I lost my class I medical and not recovered in 6 weeks of UNPAID leave.
(I offered to do office work meanwhile, which they rejected, so I requested unpaid leave to go back home).

And of course congratulations for the baby! :ok:

411A I'm surprised to hear an American make an statement like that. I wonder what would happen if a Chief Pilot of a company within the USA writes "1 kid ok, 2 kids go find another career" in an e-mail to a female employee. Maybe a few lawyers are keen on taking a look at it.
Just wondering...

Cheers / Pablo

[411A]

Just wondering...


Wondering not necessary... and no emails required, either.
Emails leave a trail.
If someone was deemed to be 'gaming the system' I can fully appreciate a chief pilots stance whereby...a couple of PC checks would then be failed, then dismissal is right around the corner.
I've seen it happen, in the past.

For the possible 'gamers' in the crowd...when you knocked on the HR door, you asked for work, and if work was provided, a reasonable salary was offered.
You then either said yes or no.
Note...work for salary.
I don't think the HR department intended for no work, but pay anyway.

Illness is one thing...maternity leave 'gaming' quite another.

[miss marple]

Ok 411, are you REALLY saying that maternity leave is 'gaming'?

No one is allowed to take more than what the law says or what the company policy allows, so if you are within the law and only given what those laws/policies say you are entitled to, then please, please, please explain how that is gaming?

Perhaps calling in and saying one is pregnant when one is not and trying to take advanatage of what a pregnant lady is allowed could be gaming, but otherwise surely it is following procedures?

When I knoced at the HR door (as you put it), yes I accepted their job for a fair salary, and they accepted me as a woman knowing full well what the law and their own company policy on pregnancy and maternity leave is and that I am a woman and one day may well request it.

Don't blame the people for following the rules, either change the rules or accept them.

Your shallow and hurtful allegation that I am a 'gamer' is poor and unjustified, you dont know me or my work ethic nor my relationship with my company, you I am afraid are sad, little man and I am shocked to hear how you agree and condone such ethics as to fail someone before they have stepped in to a check of some nature because you dont agree with some other point of view of theirs.

I think that is disgraceful and on top of being a sad little man you are a man of poor moral standing to agree with such a method of dismissal.

[411A]

miss marple seems to have a very large sense of entitlement, and appears to want to game the system to the maximum extent.
No wonder some women have negatives when looking for a job...it's far easier to hire a male, as they don't seem to have so much excess baggage.
miss marple does other women no favors.

[miss marple]

My sense of entitlement is no more than what the company policy states or the law offers.

I am shocked at your hostility towards someone you dont know personally and your desire to make such hurtful allegations.

I asked some simple questions in this thread, and it has been hijacked by the likes of you.

I fully respect your right to an opinion, but all you have done is make unfounded allegations against my motives to have a baby, how dare you since you don't even know me!

You may well disagree with the law regarding pregnancy and maternity leave and pay entitlements, but that is not my fault, go into politics and get them changed, but since this thread was about asking for information and not about the principle behind the law, I ask myself why you take time to argue on here about something that doesn't affect you in the slightest.

[411A]

I fully respect your right to an opinion,
Good, at least you are making progress.

...but all you have done is make unfounded allegations against my motives to have a baby, how dare you since you don't even know me!



You asked questions...it's not my problem that you don't like my answers.:rolleyes:

Your motives appear to get as much out of a 'system' as possible, whereas, you don't appear to care in the slightest what potential problems you might cause to others.
This is generally called...a huge sense of entitlement.

To repeat, you do absolutely no favors for other working women.

[miss marple]

You patronising fool!

You asked questions...it's not my problem that you don't like my answers

I did not ask for your opinion on my motivation to have a child, I asked for information regarding the law, you obviously can't read!

Your motives appear to get as much out of a 'system' as possible, whereas, you don't appear to care in the slightest what potential problems you might cause to others.


I suspect you claim all your entitlment when it comes to taxation, is that not your right to claim all you are entitled to, do you have the same opinion of people who claim to their full entitlement, thats all I am doing.

This is generally called...a huge sense of entitlement

If claiming what I am entitled to claim, as I do with my tax and my flight duty times and my rest entitlement and my crew food entitlement makes me have a huge sense of entitlement, then I accept that, but I fail to see how claiming what you are entitled to is anything other than following the policy.

I guess you work beyond your duty limits because you dont respect policy or laws, you therefore also probably dont respect your rest requirement because you dont want to have a sense of entitlement.

See how ridiculous it sounds when someone starts making unqualified allegations against someone they know nothing about.

Other than being argumentative, what positive have you brought to this thread?

[SR71]

1. My company wouldn't let me.
2. The local CAA wouldn't let me.
3. The doctor wouldn't let me.
4. I am not sure PAX would have been happy if the FO announced we are diverting due to captain giving birth.

One suspects there is more to your situation than meets the proverbial eye then....or else, in such circumstances, it is quite right that the legal obligations on an employer to support its employee through this period are comprehensive.

AFAIK, in the UK (like Canada it seems), as long as you meet the obligations of your medical, the company cannot force you to quit flying.

It may try.

JAR-FCL 3 requires that having been assessed pregnant, you will have a multi-pilot restriction placed on your license, and that you may be deemed fit to fly until the end of the 26th week. That process involves you, your AME and, if need be, the CAA.

miss marple,

I wouldn't worry too much about what 411A says, although, you've already taken the bait.

He enjoys the cut and thrust....

;)

It is a shame there is so much cynicism on this thread.

One understands why a company seeks to extract the maximum from it's employees. It is only doing the reverse of what it's employees seek to do to it.

It takes a noble person to break the circle.

And we wonder why there is no solidarity between pilots....

:ugh:

[411A]

...what positive have you brought to this thread?
Exposing you for what you are...someone who expects something for nothing.

Women in the work place...all OK, except that many want special privileges.

Walnut said it best...
Maybe one way to make this fairer for the majority of the workforce is to suspend seniority accrual when the women is not on 90% maternity pay. At least that way hard working male pilots will get their commands a little sooner. My son, who lives in Sweden has a wife who has had three children, all about 2yrs apart, In Sweden I believe a women gets 90% pay for 2yrs. Imagine the cost to the state, and why the tax rate is 60%.

Oh, I can hear the howls of protest now, from the likes of...miss marple
Ohhh, boo hoo:{:{:{

[miss marple]

You truely are a fool!

Exposing you for what you are...someone who expects something for nothing

Do you think a company would be giving something for nothing if they dont have to?

My employer is not a flying club, it is a business, so they pay only what they are legalyl obliged to.

I didnt realise there was sand in the head's of those who live in Arizona too!

[411A]

My employer is not a flying club, it is a business,

OMG, such a revelation.
Having now admitted that your employer is a business (not a flying club), I strongly suggest you stop whining and moaning...and actually, go to work, to earn the salary which you expect.

[Re-Heat]

Wow. There are some stone age and ignorant views on here, which of course you are perfectly entitled to hold. However, it would be rather more beneficial to equip yourselves with the facts re UK employment law before embarking on a crusade against Miss M, who is simply asking a question.

UK employment law is designed to permit a mother to have a child and then return to the same job in which she was previously employed to continue her career.

Airlines are further restricted by the medical fact that flying during the pregnancy is not particularly advisable, except during the second trimester (which I believe some airlines permit).

Logically, if a mother wants 2/3 children in quick succession, it would in fact mean that she is away from her job for a shorter time than would be the case if they were spread out, as the time off for maternity leave post-birth and time off during the pregnancy pre-birth coincide.

Thus, Miss M is in fact a greater asset to the airline, and the business retains a skilled professional once she returns.

As regards to the pay, I don't think it is that clear cut given the few numbers of female UK flight crew. I would expect that, given the grounding during the pregnancy due to medical reasons is at full pay, but maternity leave is not, you would remain on maternity leave pay during number 2 pregnancy, yet return to the full pay once that maternity period expires.

Your contract may differ, but I don't think anything is set in stone legally.

The other matter to consider is that maternity leave can be started up to 2(?) months before birth and ended earlier - if left on the lower statutory pay, that may be a way to manage a return to the flight deck and full pay more quickly.

[miss marple]

I am guessing the vast majority of your 8400 plus posts are argumentative ones since you have added zero value to this thread and with an attitude like yours, I guess your wife should be thankfull because you must spend all your time on here, which means it isn't with her.

I truly pity your wife!

Since you have absolutely nothing to add to this thread, why dont you go and argue with someone else.

[EGCC FO]

Miss Marple well done,

"I am guessing the vast majority of your 8400 plus posts are argumentative ones since you have added zero value to this thread and with an attitude like yours, I guess your wife should be thankfull because you must spend all your time on here, which means it isn't with her"

You beat me to it!!

[Cymmon]

411A is probably jealous he can't get pregnant and take time off!!!:E

Good luck Miss Marple.

[pablo]

For the possible 'gamers' in the crowd...when you knocked on the HR door, you asked for work, and if work was provided, a reasonable salary was offered.
You then either said yes or no.
Note...work for salary.
I don't think the HR department intended for no work, but pay anyway.


What about the opposite?
What about when you go the extra mile without saying: 'yes, well... I will do it but, what's in it for me?'
Or when the company tries to dodge the initial deal you signed when you 'asked for work'?
etc...

If someone was deemed to be 'gaming the system' I can fully appreciate a chief pilots stance whereby...a couple of PC checks would then be failed, then dismissal is right around the corner.
I've seen it happen, in the past.
Indeed, happened quite often, in Chicago in the 1920's-30's
"It looked like an accident"

Cheers / Pablo

[Jabiman]

Since females consist of almost 50% of the workforce, then companies must budget for maternity leave as a cost of doing business.
Since only 3.5% of pilots are female, I would suggest that to begrudge one her entitlements regarding maternity benefits is the height of being a scrooge.

[lesserweevil]

What I got from the original post (and a few subsequent ones) was that the 2nd pregnancy was planned to co-incide with the first lot of maternity leave so that she wouldn't have to go back to work.

Not so much an accidental pregnancy.

Of course, an accident is usually an accident. I don't object to women having children in general. However as a woman trying to be taken seriously in the world of aviation (or anything else for that matter) I sympathise with the general public on this topic.

LW