BA Pilot's sex discrimination case. (Update: Now includes Tribunal's judgement)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London & Edinburgh
Age: 38
Posts: 646
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPRuNe Playmate of the Month
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Donington, Lincolnshire
Age: 69
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part time pilots still have to make the grade in the sim.
Given the wider implications of this particular case, I imagine it will go all the way though every appeal process so it could be quite a long time before it reaches the end of the road.
Given the wider implications of this particular case, I imagine it will go all the way though every appeal process so it could be quite a long time before it reaches the end of the road.
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
BA Press Statement:
British Airways is very disappointed that the employment tribunal, which heard the case involving First Officer Jessica Starmer during January 2005, has found against the airline.
This case is about safety not gender.
Jessica Starmer currently works part time on a 75 per cent contract and British Airways has consistently said that the decision not to allow her to cut her working hours in half, to an average of just eight days a month, until she completes the required amount of flying hours was based on safety not sex discrimination.
British Airways will therefore be launching an appeal against the tribunal’s findings.
The tribunal rightly found that it is for British Airways to establish its own safety standards. These standards are above the minimum required by the Civil Aviation Authority. We are concerned and therefore puzzled that by reaching the decision it has the tribunal appears to interfere with the airline's right to set its own levels of safety standards and procedures.
British Airways believes that its pilots should have at least 2,000 flying hours experience – approximately three years of full time flying – before it is acceptable for them to work at 50 per cent levels, which equates to only eight days a month.
This safety threshold is applied equally, whether the pilot is male or female.
Safety has always been and will always be the top priority in everything that British Airways does.
British Airways is very disappointed that the employment tribunal, which heard the case involving First Officer Jessica Starmer during January 2005, has found against the airline.
This case is about safety not gender.
Jessica Starmer currently works part time on a 75 per cent contract and British Airways has consistently said that the decision not to allow her to cut her working hours in half, to an average of just eight days a month, until she completes the required amount of flying hours was based on safety not sex discrimination.
British Airways will therefore be launching an appeal against the tribunal’s findings.
The tribunal rightly found that it is for British Airways to establish its own safety standards. These standards are above the minimum required by the Civil Aviation Authority. We are concerned and therefore puzzled that by reaching the decision it has the tribunal appears to interfere with the airline's right to set its own levels of safety standards and procedures.
British Airways believes that its pilots should have at least 2,000 flying hours experience – approximately three years of full time flying – before it is acceptable for them to work at 50 per cent levels, which equates to only eight days a month.
This safety threshold is applied equally, whether the pilot is male or female.
Safety has always been and will always be the top priority in everything that British Airways does.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done Jessica ! Many more of us mothers will benefit from this decision - throughout the industry. A long overdue result - this IS the 21st Century.
Just one point, does anyone know if the Starmers were on Legal Aid? Or if they'd lost the case who would have paid the huge legal fees? Were BALPA helping?
Just one point, does anyone know if the Starmers were on Legal Aid? Or if they'd lost the case who would have paid the huge legal fees? Were BALPA helping?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Really happy for her to spend more time with her child, but our company would have an issue with a low-houred pilot only flying 8 days per month.
Like BA said, if she had many more hours then that's more arguable, but let's face it - she's going to spend the first few sectors trying to remember how to do it each month, that's not a great situation...
Who is going to do the other 50% too? I assume that she'll only be on 50% of her salary too? (Yes, that's the Management Side of me speaking...)
Like BA said, if she had many more hours then that's more arguable, but let's face it - she's going to spend the first few sectors trying to remember how to do it each month, that's not a great situation...
Who is going to do the other 50% too? I assume that she'll only be on 50% of her salary too? (Yes, that's the Management Side of me speaking...)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I welcome lady pilots to our proffesion but i think this case is helping to drag standereds to an all time low. why should this women be given preferential treatment she knows the rules just like we all do. what saftey net we she try and challenge next?
I think she should reconsider her choice of proffesion if she does not want to work!
I think she should reconsider her choice of proffesion if she does not want to work!
Controversial, moi?
In answer to an earlier question BALPA were funding Ms. Starmer's case. Although I fundamentally disagree with her aims I believe BALPA were right to do so.
Aside form the very real safety issue of a less than 2000 TT pilot flying only 8 days per month it is my feeling that such nice, touchy feely legislation, and decisions in favour thereof, is slowly driving up the UK's, and BA's in particular, costs. In fact the legislation dreamed up by the asinine idiots in Brussels seems primarily designed to make the EU totally uncompetitive.
Good luck to Ms. Starmer, I would probably have done the same in her position, but it makes me fearful for the future of my company already struggling with unsustainable overheads.
Aside form the very real safety issue of a less than 2000 TT pilot flying only 8 days per month it is my feeling that such nice, touchy feely legislation, and decisions in favour thereof, is slowly driving up the UK's, and BA's in particular, costs. In fact the legislation dreamed up by the asinine idiots in Brussels seems primarily designed to make the EU totally uncompetitive.
Good luck to Ms. Starmer, I would probably have done the same in her position, but it makes me fearful for the future of my company already struggling with unsustainable overheads.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point of fact - a certain management pilot upon going to Chief Pilot, at a certain base, was given an expemtion from the CAA for the minimum requirements for unfreezing his ATPL in some way.
Are management professing that they are gods while the rest are not? That management pilot would work fewer hours than Jessica with the same experience behind him.
Not too keen on the case, but the airline changed the rules after she had applied for 50% in my understanding. Aside from the chauvanistic comments and the morality of what she is doing, it is still a grey area after this ruling. I cannot however understand why the airline bothers to fight to prove this point though - the rules when she applied for 50% allowed her to do so...goalpost changing due to insufficient pilot recruitment perhaps.
One can only wonder.
Are management professing that they are gods while the rest are not? That management pilot would work fewer hours than Jessica with the same experience behind him.
Not too keen on the case, but the airline changed the rules after she had applied for 50% in my understanding. Aside from the chauvanistic comments and the morality of what she is doing, it is still a grey area after this ruling. I cannot however understand why the airline bothers to fight to prove this point though - the rules when she applied for 50% allowed her to do so...goalpost changing due to insufficient pilot recruitment perhaps.
One can only wonder.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Now back in England
Age: 84
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Commonsense - safety - what else has gone out of the window here? Just how do these legal bods come to conclusions in what is really a specialised area.
She knew the rules just as those "Mums" in the AirForce did before they started getting mobilised and demanding changes to the rules. It is not a case of living in the 21st century. That is a trite phrase and is trotted out by these people.
There had been other cases where these "oppressed minorities" have recently been succesful in their cases - again flying in the face of the majority of opinions.
There is a phrase at the back of my mind - something to do with "jam" and "both sides being buttered".
She knew the rules just as those "Mums" in the AirForce did before they started getting mobilised and demanding changes to the rules. It is not a case of living in the 21st century. That is a trite phrase and is trotted out by these people.
There had been other cases where these "oppressed minorities" have recently been succesful in their cases - again flying in the face of the majority of opinions.
There is a phrase at the back of my mind - something to do with "jam" and "both sides being buttered".
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: west
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have not read the full ruling but it seems from information available that BA changed the requirments for part-time work and if they did this after the application was recieved then they were wrong. On the wider issue of maintaining currency on type then personally I would find 8 days a month a bit of a challenge (I have trouble with the security code on the crew room after a week off!) and that's with a fair bit of experience. However, presumably this may not be a long term plan as with 30years to go and even allowing for more children then there is plenty of time for full time work to be gained by the employers. It is inevitable that there will seemingly be a conflict between work and children for women at this stage in their carreer, it is nature at work. Women should not be victimised just because they want to have children and work. We would be somewhat stuck if all women who worked just gave up on having a family.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lichfield UK
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting to see that BA is to launch an appeal.
I do not think that they should have too much trouble in shewing that the Tribunal has exceeded its powers in deciding for itself what were or were not genuine business reasons.
The law says that when a request for flexibilty is made there is a duty to meet and properly consider the request. The request can be refused where there are clear business grounds. These need to be communicated clearly.
Importantly, Regulations state that a Tribunal does not have the power to question the business reasons for rejecting the request, though, they can ask to see evidence of the facts relied on to reject the application; they will also be able to examine whether the reasons were properly explained to JS.
This is an important issue not just for BA but for us all. What the Tribunal has effectively said is that anyone can demand to work flexibly, as opposed to 'request' to work flexibly. This cannot be right.
I think it's yet another example of poorly thought out and drafted regulation, that has evaded proper parlimentary scrutiny. This is typical of what has been emerging over the last 8 years.
I do not think that they should have too much trouble in shewing that the Tribunal has exceeded its powers in deciding for itself what were or were not genuine business reasons.
The law says that when a request for flexibilty is made there is a duty to meet and properly consider the request. The request can be refused where there are clear business grounds. These need to be communicated clearly.
Importantly, Regulations state that a Tribunal does not have the power to question the business reasons for rejecting the request, though, they can ask to see evidence of the facts relied on to reject the application; they will also be able to examine whether the reasons were properly explained to JS.
This is an important issue not just for BA but for us all. What the Tribunal has effectively said is that anyone can demand to work flexibly, as opposed to 'request' to work flexibly. This cannot be right.
I think it's yet another example of poorly thought out and drafted regulation, that has evaded proper parlimentary scrutiny. This is typical of what has been emerging over the last 8 years.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my book you can't accuse a company of sex discrimination one minute and then, in the same breath, claim that male and female workers need to be treated differently.
We all have to make choices in life. Sorry to disappoint the PC brigade, but there's no grand rule in life which says that all high-pressure jobs and positions of responsibility have to conveniently fit around motherhood and fatherhood. Bad luck.
Maybe I haven't been keeping up on events but I don't recollect a single female soldier in Iraq demanding to work part-time because they have to be home to look after the kids. They know the requirements of the job and, like professionals, they get on with it.
Personally I think the safety aspect is a red herring. BA's rules are BA's rules. Whether those rules are over-cautious or scarily slack is almost irrelevant - that's the level at which the company works and, if you don't like it, find another airline.
Far from being a step forward for female workers, I think this lady has simply given ammunition to those who think women can't hack it.
We all have to make choices in life. Sorry to disappoint the PC brigade, but there's no grand rule in life which says that all high-pressure jobs and positions of responsibility have to conveniently fit around motherhood and fatherhood. Bad luck.
Maybe I haven't been keeping up on events but I don't recollect a single female soldier in Iraq demanding to work part-time because they have to be home to look after the kids. They know the requirements of the job and, like professionals, they get on with it.
Personally I think the safety aspect is a red herring. BA's rules are BA's rules. Whether those rules are over-cautious or scarily slack is almost irrelevant - that's the level at which the company works and, if you don't like it, find another airline.
Far from being a step forward for female workers, I think this lady has simply given ammunition to those who think women can't hack it.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London, England
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real issue is that BA are short of pilots. Only 2% of BA's pilots are part time - compared with 37% of the cabin crew and a company average of 22%. BA are rostering flight crew up to the 900 annual legal limit and sickness is being clamped down on (but that is another thread!). The last thing that LCG wants to do is hire another 600 pilots to cover part time working.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Sunny South
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if Jessica would have been happy to have been represented at the tribunal by someone who was equally inexperienced and only worked 8 days a month 
It's a bad decision.
It's a bad decision.