BA Pilot's sex discrimination case. (Update: Now includes Tribunal's judgement)
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No its just you. I trust you never get on a long haul flight with those lazy pilots doing just 10 sectors per month compared to 10 sectors in a few days in short haul. If I was going under the knife I'd rather have a part time expert than a full time a full time jack of all trades! Familiarity breeds contempt and all that!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: east sussex
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PS Carnage Matey. Ten sectors a month could equate to 100 hrs per month. Exactly how is that lazy? PPS I did 20 years Long/ Medium and 20 years Medium/Short. That's full time, not part so I do really feel able to comment.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy. You work for years, then you go part time. Its the way lots of consultants, surgeons and barristers work. Just because you work 50% of days doesn't mean you lose 50% of your knowledge, experience, expertise or reputation!
PS the lazy was tongue in cheek. However in my company ten sectors per month is likely to equate to a maximum of 5 sectors acting as P1, even less if you are operating as part of an augemented crew. Thats could be achieved in as little as two days on a short haul fleet. Spending 80 hours in the cruise/bunk with little or nothing to do but make position reports does not make for a great challenge or experience builder. Experience has shown that as a community the long haul pilots in my company often struggle with the manual handling of the aircraft due to a chronic lack of exposure, so much so that many now receive an additional day in the simulator to practice their handling. No such requirement for the short haulers.
PS the lazy was tongue in cheek. However in my company ten sectors per month is likely to equate to a maximum of 5 sectors acting as P1, even less if you are operating as part of an augemented crew. Thats could be achieved in as little as two days on a short haul fleet. Spending 80 hours in the cruise/bunk with little or nothing to do but make position reports does not make for a great challenge or experience builder. Experience has shown that as a community the long haul pilots in my company often struggle with the manual handling of the aircraft due to a chronic lack of exposure, so much so that many now receive an additional day in the simulator to practice their handling. No such requirement for the short haulers.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: east sussex
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO I-FORD,
Given the choice of having my family flown by a line pilot or a mangement pilot, I know which I would choose. You can do your own choosing.
Carnage Matey,
So explain to me why I am currently engaged in helping an old lady sue a highly experienced \'part time\' surgeon (just keeping his hand in) for incompetence, citing not only other cases that he has cocked up but also the disapproval of his peers? In life- critical professions you need to think very carefully about others, not just yourself and your career and expectations.
Given the choice of having my family flown by a line pilot or a mangement pilot, I know which I would choose. You can do your own choosing.
Carnage Matey,
So explain to me why I am currently engaged in helping an old lady sue a highly experienced \'part time\' surgeon (just keeping his hand in) for incompetence, citing not only other cases that he has cocked up but also the disapproval of his peers? In life- critical professions you need to think very carefully about others, not just yourself and your career and expectations.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: east sussex
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO Carage Matey,
Almost in real time here-if I wasn't so incompetent on the computer I'd have had this in 10 mins ago!! Do agree with you re SH/LH but i feel there are some professions, usually involving the well being of others, that need to be treated very carefully with regard to anything less than full committment by the participents. Here endeth............!
elTel
Almost in real time here-if I wasn't so incompetent on the computer I'd have had this in 10 mins ago!! Do agree with you re SH/LH but i feel there are some professions, usually involving the well being of others, that need to be treated very carefully with regard to anything less than full committment by the participents. Here endeth............!
elTel
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are also plenty of media reports of medical negligence cases amongst full time surgeons. There are many highly skilled, gifted medical professionals working part time. The NHS relies on them. One case of negligence does not represent a convincing indictment of them all, no more than saying because a single negligent doctor was female or Asian that all female or Asian doctors are not to be trusted.
The key is whether the level of recency you maintain in your speciaisation is acceptable. In this particular instance I am far from convinced the safety argument is valid. The CAA sets the standard required. Even on a 50% contract the pilot in question would be working ten days per month on multi sector days, gaining more handling experience than any of our long haul pilots. Indeed it is quite possible for some senior people on short haul to fly less than 20 sectors per month if they are able to work only the high credit day trips, so it is quite possible she could be gaining more experience (if not more hours) than them. BAs objection to this request for part time working has everything to do with cost and nothing to do with safety. It's rather ironic that the architect of the affirmative action program for women is now quoted on the BBC News website spouting safety concerns. It seems the cost of his program is returning to haunt him.
The key is whether the level of recency you maintain in your speciaisation is acceptable. In this particular instance I am far from convinced the safety argument is valid. The CAA sets the standard required. Even on a 50% contract the pilot in question would be working ten days per month on multi sector days, gaining more handling experience than any of our long haul pilots. Indeed it is quite possible for some senior people on short haul to fly less than 20 sectors per month if they are able to work only the high credit day trips, so it is quite possible she could be gaining more experience (if not more hours) than them. BAs objection to this request for part time working has everything to do with cost and nothing to do with safety. It's rather ironic that the architect of the affirmative action program for women is now quoted on the BBC News website spouting safety concerns. It seems the cost of his program is returning to haunt him.
Paxing All Over The World
On the previous page, the comment:
Was correctly picked up and challenged, although not answered. The original went on:
[list=1][*]Actually - we don't! There are more than enough new humans in the world and the Western world could do worse than throttle back on it's own reproduction for the benefit of the world.[*]A new generation will happen irrespective of the BA decision. Human beings have made that clear for some years now! 
[/list=1]
--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
I don't think having a child is a luxury or a "life choice".
We NEED a new generation.
[/list=1]--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Aotearoa
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I started out in aviation, I made a conscious decision not to start a family because I knew it was incompatible with what I wanted to do.
My career now spans 36 wonderful years starting out as general aviation dogsbody, pilot, flying instructor, air traffic controller, airport manager, safety investigator, safety auditor etc etc. It has been wonderful, and I'm grateful.
Times have changed, I know. But as has been said previously, who wants to be Superwoman? I could not have done what I've done, if I had started a family.
I like kids, especially when they cry and someone takes them away. And yes, I admit I might have four furkids at home at any one time.
But I've had a lot of fun; my employers have been good to me, and I have returned their respect.
You really can't have your cake and eat it too.
My career now spans 36 wonderful years starting out as general aviation dogsbody, pilot, flying instructor, air traffic controller, airport manager, safety investigator, safety auditor etc etc. It has been wonderful, and I'm grateful.
Times have changed, I know. But as has been said previously, who wants to be Superwoman? I could not have done what I've done, if I had started a family.
I like kids, especially when they cry and someone takes them away. And yes, I admit I might have four furkids at home at any one time.
But I've had a lot of fun; my employers have been good to me, and I have returned their respect.
You really can't have your cake and eat it too.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some people should get hold of some facts before they shoot their mouths off. Jessica deserves credit for having the courage to take this public, I'll bet she doesn't bother to read the drivel on here.
Mrs 401 and I are considering adding to the family. First things we are considering are what will happen work wise, what we are entitled to etc, second is cost, i.e. tax credits, child benefit etc. That way we can make a concious decision as to whether we can go ahaed and do it.
If we took the Mrs Starmer approach, we'd have baby first, think later.
The choice to have a baby and making the time for it is our responsibility, not our employers. If what our employer offers is not good enough, we need new jobs before starting the family.
It is yet another example of the reduction of responsibility in our allegedly developed society.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know very little details of this case, but it seems the crux is whether the rules changed after she became pregnant.
It has already been ably demonstrated above that full-time/part-time is less of a determinant of ability than type of flying/sectors. Will you be insisting that pilots have their CVs pinned on a noticeboard beside the gate to the aircraft so you can decide if you want to take the risk with those individuals? It could have number of sectors/hours in the last month/year; the amount of sleep they managed to get last night; a list of what is bothering/distracting currently; and the score of their IQ and flying aptitude test and alcohol level for the publics' perusal.
Would you rather fly with the part-time pilot with 1500 hours or the guy with 200 hours on his first sector out of line training.
Perhaps all female pilots should be sterilised as a part of their CPL requirements, or least sign a pledge upon employment that they won't procreate and that they acknowledge they are not allowed to change their mind ever. Don't have to worry about the guys though, they have a wonderfully convenient thing called a wife: takes care of all the domestic inconveniences and makes sure his offspring are ready for presentation and smelling of baby powder at his Kodak moment type arrival home. Perhaps all new mothers should have a partial lobotomy at the maternity ward to remove all personal ambition.
Maybe all successful people/countries should contract out baby rearing to less advantaged countries/areas. We could send our babies to rural areas of France/sink estates in Glasgow where unemployment is high and get the benefit of bilingual sprogs (I think Glaswegian counts).
All you pompous dinosaurs have never been asked to choose between family and career, you can have it both because you have wives. I don't know why God gave women intelligence (don't say it) if having a baby relegates us to Tesco shelf stacking.
It's not ideal, it's not easy, but until men have evolved to a higher level where they too can have babies, we have to share the burden. The debate is whether the burden should be shouldered by the family/employer/government or all three. With women pilots making up only 6% of airline pilots the airlines are carrying way below the average employer burden.
You can't look at the requirement for child care as simply a number of labour hours that can be performed by anyone. Parents/mothers want to be hands on, but in four years when school starts this woman will still have 25 years to give BA. Sure she might have more children. But what sort of society are we? Why is flying any different to stacking shelves at Tescos and why is it so emotive? If this woman passes her sim checks what more have you to say?
Good luck to her.
It has already been ably demonstrated above that full-time/part-time is less of a determinant of ability than type of flying/sectors. Will you be insisting that pilots have their CVs pinned on a noticeboard beside the gate to the aircraft so you can decide if you want to take the risk with those individuals? It could have number of sectors/hours in the last month/year; the amount of sleep they managed to get last night; a list of what is bothering/distracting currently; and the score of their IQ and flying aptitude test and alcohol level for the publics' perusal.
Would you rather fly with the part-time pilot with 1500 hours or the guy with 200 hours on his first sector out of line training.
Perhaps all female pilots should be sterilised as a part of their CPL requirements, or least sign a pledge upon employment that they won't procreate and that they acknowledge they are not allowed to change their mind ever. Don't have to worry about the guys though, they have a wonderfully convenient thing called a wife: takes care of all the domestic inconveniences and makes sure his offspring are ready for presentation and smelling of baby powder at his Kodak moment type arrival home. Perhaps all new mothers should have a partial lobotomy at the maternity ward to remove all personal ambition.
Maybe all successful people/countries should contract out baby rearing to less advantaged countries/areas. We could send our babies to rural areas of France/sink estates in Glasgow where unemployment is high and get the benefit of bilingual sprogs (I think Glaswegian counts).
All you pompous dinosaurs have never been asked to choose between family and career, you can have it both because you have wives. I don't know why God gave women intelligence (don't say it) if having a baby relegates us to Tesco shelf stacking.
It's not ideal, it's not easy, but until men have evolved to a higher level where they too can have babies, we have to share the burden. The debate is whether the burden should be shouldered by the family/employer/government or all three. With women pilots making up only 6% of airline pilots the airlines are carrying way below the average employer burden.
You can't look at the requirement for child care as simply a number of labour hours that can be performed by anyone. Parents/mothers want to be hands on, but in four years when school starts this woman will still have 25 years to give BA. Sure she might have more children. But what sort of society are we? Why is flying any different to stacking shelves at Tescos and why is it so emotive? If this woman passes her sim checks what more have you to say?
Good luck to her.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oleo
First of all, I'm not a pompous dinosaur. But I totally disagree with what this woman is doing.
As you mention at the bottom of your post, parents/mothers want to be hands on. If she knew she wanted to raise her child herself, she should have considered taking a career break to bring up her child, not insist on being allowed to do both at the expense of the company. It all comes down to BA then having to cover the costs of her re-currency checks, medicals, etc etc and only getting half-usage of her.
As I've said before, this only highlights the potential problems that smaller companies might face should they employ lots of female pilots. And I'm afraid that there isn't a bias towards recruiting females anymore. With all the aptitude tests etc currently being used by the majority of airlines when recruiting, it would be easy to let a female slip through the net as a result of a 'poor performance' in these tests - with the real reason actually being that a compnay just can't afford to run the risk of having her go off in 2 years to reproduce.
And as far as choosing between a 200hr guy just on the line or a part-timer with 1500hrs - I'd go for the 200hr guy everytime. (Although they'd be likely to have slightly more than 200hrs after completing their line training, what with it being an average of 30sectors(?)). The 200hr guy/gal would be fresh, extremely aware of what was going on around them, and you can guarantee that the Capt would certainly be keeping a close eye on them as well. With the 1500hr guy/gal, they've had a few days off, don't really feel like being as work because little Jonny kept them up last night... they know what they're doing so they can relax a little....
And you top it all off with a great little bit at the bottom :
>>but in four years when school starts this woman will still have 25 years to give BA. Sure she might have more children<<
So BA could run the risk of having her 50% for the nest 8-10years if she has more children. Is that really fair to the company?
First of all, I'm not a pompous dinosaur. But I totally disagree with what this woman is doing.
As you mention at the bottom of your post, parents/mothers want to be hands on. If she knew she wanted to raise her child herself, she should have considered taking a career break to bring up her child, not insist on being allowed to do both at the expense of the company. It all comes down to BA then having to cover the costs of her re-currency checks, medicals, etc etc and only getting half-usage of her.
As I've said before, this only highlights the potential problems that smaller companies might face should they employ lots of female pilots. And I'm afraid that there isn't a bias towards recruiting females anymore. With all the aptitude tests etc currently being used by the majority of airlines when recruiting, it would be easy to let a female slip through the net as a result of a 'poor performance' in these tests - with the real reason actually being that a compnay just can't afford to run the risk of having her go off in 2 years to reproduce.
And as far as choosing between a 200hr guy just on the line or a part-timer with 1500hrs - I'd go for the 200hr guy everytime. (Although they'd be likely to have slightly more than 200hrs after completing their line training, what with it being an average of 30sectors(?)). The 200hr guy/gal would be fresh, extremely aware of what was going on around them, and you can guarantee that the Capt would certainly be keeping a close eye on them as well. With the 1500hr guy/gal, they've had a few days off, don't really feel like being as work because little Jonny kept them up last night... they know what they're doing so they can relax a little....
And you top it all off with a great little bit at the bottom :
>>but in four years when school starts this woman will still have 25 years to give BA. Sure she might have more children<<
So BA could run the risk of having her 50% for the nest 8-10years if she has more children. Is that really fair to the company?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sunny East Sussex
Age: 49
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have been following this thread with some interest. Mrs P-T-G is currently on maternity leave from her job as an employment lawyer, and we have been discussing this a fair bit.
An employee has the right to request part-time working, but they do not have an automatic right to be granted it. If the employer has a policy that is not discriminatory, then they have no problems.
However, the word discriminatory is a bit open-ended. If a policy would have more of an impact on women than men, then it is discriminatory. This would seem not to be the case here.
Employment tribunals come out with some strange decisions. Even if, on first glance, there is no case to answer, tribunals often err to the side of employees.
The other option is for BA to pay her off, as it is cheaper than the legal costs of a tribunal case.
Even if this lady wins, she will not get her job back, and may struggle to get another in this close-knit industry, but if she wins big, she may not have to.
An employee has the right to request part-time working, but they do not have an automatic right to be granted it. If the employer has a policy that is not discriminatory, then they have no problems.
However, the word discriminatory is a bit open-ended. If a policy would have more of an impact on women than men, then it is discriminatory. This would seem not to be the case here.
Employment tribunals come out with some strange decisions. Even if, on first glance, there is no case to answer, tribunals often err to the side of employees.
The other option is for BA to pay her off, as it is cheaper than the legal costs of a tribunal case.
Even if this lady wins, she will not get her job back, and may struggle to get another in this close-knit industry, but if she wins big, she may not have to.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sunny East Sussex
Age: 49
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, slight error on my part.
From what I have read, it seems she is claiming constructive dismissal, ie by their actions, her employers have made it impossible for her to continue in her job. This is effectively the same as the employer sacking her.
If this is not the case, and it is just pure sex discrimination, then the rest of my post still stands.
Feel free to reply in a civil fashion rather than shooting from the hip.
From what I have read, it seems she is claiming constructive dismissal, ie by their actions, her employers have made it impossible for her to continue in her job. This is effectively the same as the employer sacking her.
If this is not the case, and it is just pure sex discrimination, then the rest of my post still stands.
Feel free to reply in a civil fashion rather than shooting from the hip.
Last edited by P-T-Gamekeeper; 12th Jan 2005 at 10:33.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sunny East Sussex
Age: 49
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indirect sex discrimination - ie BA's actions have a greater impact on women than on men, rather than actually saying "You can't brcause you are female". Still sex discrimination, whether indirect or direct, the penalties and outcomes are still the same.
It would seem that the 2000 hr limit for 50% PT applies equally to men and women. Are there more issues here than just part time working? The BBC website mentioned a lack of facilities for mothers. Is this the case?
It would seem that the 2000 hr limit for 50% PT applies equally to men and women. Are there more issues here than just part time working? The BBC website mentioned a lack of facilities for mothers. Is this the case?