BA Pilot's sex discrimination case. (Update: Now includes Tribunal's judgement)
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: NY
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very wise!
Norman Stanley Fletcher what a wise young man you appear to be! Never a truer word posted on this net!
The blame lies squarely with the well intentioned but badly designed, re-designed and yet re-re-designed Welfare State.
It rewards idleness, it encourages reliance on the state (i.e the poor taxpayer who chooses to work for a living) it encourages young females to get pregnant in order to live off handouts for the rest of their lives, it encourages young males to abdicate their responsibilities as parents of the children of these young females and sadly it simply encourages the sort of behaviour we are seeing in this case!
This young lady (perhaps not the right description) is taking the pxxx along with her husband just trying to take the system and the taxpayer for an expensive ride and sadly with the Liberal Left Wing judges at present in charge along with the PC sorry excuse for a government she will most probably succeed!
The blame lies squarely with the well intentioned but badly designed, re-designed and yet re-re-designed Welfare State.
It rewards idleness, it encourages reliance on the state (i.e the poor taxpayer who chooses to work for a living) it encourages young females to get pregnant in order to live off handouts for the rest of their lives, it encourages young males to abdicate their responsibilities as parents of the children of these young females and sadly it simply encourages the sort of behaviour we are seeing in this case!
This young lady (perhaps not the right description) is taking the pxxx along with her husband just trying to take the system and the taxpayer for an expensive ride and sadly with the Liberal Left Wing judges at present in charge along with the PC sorry excuse for a government she will most probably succeed!
I worked for two UK short haul airlines that managed perfectly well with part time rostering. One ( a turbo prop operator ) offered 'married rosters' for crew with spouse in other airlines. (The odious term 'political correctness' hadn't crossed from the USA back then! )
In another Jet scheduled company we had a lady Captain who flew half a line after she had her baby. She flew about forty five to fifty hours a month. These were rostered in two blocks of five days each.
I never, ever, heard one single gripe from another crew member about the situation. It was nice to know that the deal was there should you need it. The only comment made was that the part time pilots were flying more pro rata than those on a full line. Equally I never heard of any big technical problem in writing the rosters.
The issue has nothing to do with political correctness or feminism neither of which I am a fan of!
The UK has the longest working hours in the EU. The whole political agenda supports this as a means of raising revenue and boosting economic output. Family life is actually not well supported by the politically correct nanny state. In this case she will pay for time with her child out of her own pocket. Far from being greedy this pilot actually wants less work for less money.
A lot of Pprune's longer threads have debated the issue of fatigue and overwork - particularly in the low cost carriers.
From where does the angst arise against this pilot who is putting her head above the parapet for a better deal?
In another Jet scheduled company we had a lady Captain who flew half a line after she had her baby. She flew about forty five to fifty hours a month. These were rostered in two blocks of five days each.
I never, ever, heard one single gripe from another crew member about the situation. It was nice to know that the deal was there should you need it. The only comment made was that the part time pilots were flying more pro rata than those on a full line. Equally I never heard of any big technical problem in writing the rosters.
The issue has nothing to do with political correctness or feminism neither of which I am a fan of!
The UK has the longest working hours in the EU. The whole political agenda supports this as a means of raising revenue and boosting economic output. Family life is actually not well supported by the politically correct nanny state. In this case she will pay for time with her child out of her own pocket. Far from being greedy this pilot actually wants less work for less money.
A lot of Pprune's longer threads have debated the issue of fatigue and overwork - particularly in the low cost carriers.
From where does the angst arise against this pilot who is putting her head above the parapet for a better deal?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hampshire physically; Perthshire and Pembrokeshire mentally.
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From where does the angst arise against this pilot who is putting her head above the parapet for a better deal
It is interesting to read the thread on this topic on the BALPA/BA forum. The tone is altogether different - much more supportive of the young lady and where there are objections they are more gently put. But, of course, the BALPA/BA forum does not allow anonymity.
What really struck me was the attitude of my 24-year-old daughter who hopes she is on the threshold of an academic career. The proto-femininists of yesteryear would be horrified. Boys, there is no such thing as the Sisterhood!
The whole story is a parable of our times.
Last edited by Wingswinger; 15th Jan 2005 at 09:28.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WR
With respect WR, I suspect that the reason that no-one has replied to your post is that we are all rather tired of having, how shall I say this politely? "Enthusiasts" commenting on an aviation PROFESSIONAL's livelyhood.
No one has commented on my previous post ...
Just a numbered other
A very interesting thread, this.
Spartacan:
They actually want their cake and eat it.
If that was their true agenda, then one of them would give up work to achieve it. 75% of the population can only dream of a combined income anywhere near the single income of a BA captain.
Well, I did, and so did my children (until divorce made it rather more difficult)
I try not to harp back, as times do change. But in my Navy days, the choice was clear, career or children (and unfortunately it was always going to be the mum's lot to decide)
My view is that personal choice, and I include a family in that, is a responsibility and not a right. Why on earth should companies (and I know BA could afford it, but smaller ones can't) pick up the tab?
Spartacan:
What this couple in BA want is a very small adjustment in BA's working practices so that they can have time to bring the child up themselves.
This is actually entirely healthy and responsible. Stronger family values benefit everyone.
How many of you out there benefitted from having your parents around a lot? Would you have wished it otherwise?
I try not to harp back, as times do change. But in my Navy days, the choice was clear, career or children (and unfortunately it was always going to be the mum's lot to decide)
My view is that personal choice, and I include a family in that, is a responsibility and not a right. Why on earth should companies (and I know BA could afford it, but smaller ones can't) pick up the tab?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGLL
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MercenaryAli said
By going to work how exectly is she costing the tax payer money?!? Instead she will be paying £750 a month to Gordon Brown. Your logic is great.
A few years ago BA offered part time to people because it would save BA money (pay people 25% less salary but still get all the flying covered) beacuse the flying program was reduced (Gulf War etc) . Most people weren't interested as they weren't flying particularly hard, so the take up was low.
The tables have turned and until last week BA hasn't employed anybody new for 3 years. 200 pilots a year have been retiring and the remaining employees increasing productivity to get the work covered. So last year BA started a blanket NO to all PTWK. Your wife has died, no. You've got cancer, NO. You've got a sick parent, NO. You catch my drift. So now that it is inconvenient for BA they just say no, change the rules, and walk away. Considerate employer!?! Ha Ha.
Somebody did some research and came up with a fascinating figure - 66% of cabin crew in BA hold some form of reduced hours contract.
So it's OK for one group of people to have PTWK but its not OK for others.
You wanabees out there - the more people on part time, the more vacancies for you in BA.
This young lady (perhaps not the right description) is taking the pxxx along with her husband just trying to take the system and the taxpayer for an expensive ride and sadly with the Liberal Left Wing judges at present in charge along with the PC sorry excuse for a government she will most probably succeed!
A few years ago BA offered part time to people because it would save BA money (pay people 25% less salary but still get all the flying covered) beacuse the flying program was reduced (Gulf War etc) . Most people weren't interested as they weren't flying particularly hard, so the take up was low.
The tables have turned and until last week BA hasn't employed anybody new for 3 years. 200 pilots a year have been retiring and the remaining employees increasing productivity to get the work covered. So last year BA started a blanket NO to all PTWK. Your wife has died, no. You've got cancer, NO. You've got a sick parent, NO. You catch my drift. So now that it is inconvenient for BA they just say no, change the rules, and walk away. Considerate employer!?! Ha Ha.
Somebody did some research and came up with a fascinating figure - 66% of cabin crew in BA hold some form of reduced hours contract.
So it's OK for one group of people to have PTWK but its not OK for others.
You wanabees out there - the more people on part time, the more vacancies for you in BA.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You what?
Wind your neck in. Your response to WR might at least have been understandable if it had come from a BA pilot, but you're not a professional pilot and you don't work for BA.
The pilot's claim against BA won't be decided by 'aviation professionals' but by two people from industry, one with a union background and one with a management background, and a lawyer in the chair. They don't come from the industry concerned in the dispute, and they decide after they've heard what each side says.
This forum is public - BA personnel have private forums where they can discuss the dispute in private if they want.
You may be "rather tired"
of non aviation professionals commenting on the claim, but the thread has had 180 posts (some aviation professionals, some not) and 180,000 views to date so your suggestion that "all" aviation professionals might share your view seems unlikely to be correct.
WR has made some very helpful contributions to the discussion explaining employees' rights and employers' rights under employment law. Just like everyone else, you're free to learn from him or ignore him as you wish.
____________
WR
According to some press reports, the husband applied to work 75% BA agreed. I don't know if the reports are true.
Heliport
Wind your neck in. Your response to WR might at least have been understandable if it had come from a BA pilot, but you're not a professional pilot and you don't work for BA.
The pilot's claim against BA won't be decided by 'aviation professionals' but by two people from industry, one with a union background and one with a management background, and a lawyer in the chair. They don't come from the industry concerned in the dispute, and they decide after they've heard what each side says.
This forum is public - BA personnel have private forums where they can discuss the dispute in private if they want.
You may be "rather tired"
of non aviation professionals commenting on the claim, but the thread has had 180 posts (some aviation professionals, some not) and 180,000 views to date so your suggestion that "all" aviation professionals might share your view seems unlikely to be correct. WR has made some very helpful contributions to the discussion explaining employees' rights and employers' rights under employment law. Just like everyone else, you're free to learn from him or ignore him as you wish.
____________
WR
According to some press reports, the husband applied to work 75% BA agreed. I don't know if the reports are true.
Heliport
Nope, I still don't understand why anybody should be at all upset that Mum is so detemined to get a 50% roster.
A comparison: My neighbours are lawyers. When they had kids the wife, after a maternity break, returned to work three days a week. Twelve working days a month is slightly more than a 50% roster. I don't hear the legal profession jumping up and down at the deal she has. Why should it be different for pilots? Beats me.
Moreover, since the work days are regular it is simple to arrange the child care. Much more problematic on a random roster.
>>But in my Navy days, the choice was clear, career or children <<
Fine. But BA is not a fighting service. It is a job like any other.
A comparison: My neighbours are lawyers. When they had kids the wife, after a maternity break, returned to work three days a week. Twelve working days a month is slightly more than a 50% roster. I don't hear the legal profession jumping up and down at the deal she has. Why should it be different for pilots? Beats me.
Moreover, since the work days are regular it is simple to arrange the child care. Much more problematic on a random roster.
>>But in my Navy days, the choice was clear, career or children <<
Fine. But BA is not a fighting service. It is a job like any other.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Sunny South
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spartacan,
One can only presume that your lawyer neighbour qualified for the 50% reduction having met the required duration of service or that there was no qualification period in the practice. They probably had no need to stamp their foot and demand that the rules be changed to suit their circumstances.
When your partner has just flown 24 sectors in 5 days, you do get a slightly unsympathetic perspective on this
The plus side is that she's building plenty of hours so that if she needs a 50% roster, she'll qualify within the rules, won't have to claim sex discrimination and cost her employer a fortune in legal fees.
One can only presume that your lawyer neighbour qualified for the 50% reduction having met the required duration of service or that there was no qualification period in the practice. They probably had no need to stamp their foot and demand that the rules be changed to suit their circumstances.
When your partner has just flown 24 sectors in 5 days, you do get a slightly unsympathetic perspective on this
The plus side is that she's building plenty of hours so that if she needs a 50% roster, she'll qualify within the rules, won't have to claim sex discrimination and cost her employer a fortune in legal fees.
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still stand by what I said earlier. She is challenging BA's decision to arbitrarily change the rules after she had made her application.
Unless all the 'antis' on here are management bean counters, I can't understand why people are seemingly against a professional UK pilot trying to achieve the same terms & conditions that have been granted to others before her.
The person who said she was lazy is sailing close to the wind - nothing could be farther from the truth. As they probably don't know her, it was unforgivable.
BA have not recruited for some time, when I joined 6 years ago I was 3500-ish, now there are fewer than 3000 of us. The Airbus fleet has increased in size recently and our targets have just got bigger.
It isn't easy to roster us to the maximum when there is such inefficiency inherent with LHR ops. I don't blame Jessica for doing what she has done and she has the full backing of BALPA, which is trying to recruit more women into the aviation industry.
It seems that some are struggling with a lack of knowledge of UK employment law.
Norman Stanley F, please tell me you are a wind-up merchant, sadly I fear you are serious.
Unless all the 'antis' on here are management bean counters, I can't understand why people are seemingly against a professional UK pilot trying to achieve the same terms & conditions that have been granted to others before her.
The person who said she was lazy is sailing close to the wind - nothing could be farther from the truth. As they probably don't know her, it was unforgivable.
BA have not recruited for some time, when I joined 6 years ago I was 3500-ish, now there are fewer than 3000 of us. The Airbus fleet has increased in size recently and our targets have just got bigger.
It isn't easy to roster us to the maximum when there is such inefficiency inherent with LHR ops. I don't blame Jessica for doing what she has done and she has the full backing of BALPA, which is trying to recruit more women into the aviation industry.
It seems that some are struggling with a lack of knowledge of UK employment law.
Norman Stanley F, please tell me you are a wind-up merchant, sadly I fear you are serious.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spartacan
I don't think the people here who don't support the pilot are "upset" - they just think she's being unreasonable and demanding a bit much.
There could be many reasons why your lawyer neighbour's position might be different.
eg (In no particular order)
Perhaps her employers were able to agree to her request without causing any inconvenience to the operation of the firm - BA says it would.
Perhaps if your neighbour had asked to work (for example) a 2 day week her employers would have refused and offered a 3 day compromise - the pilot asked for 75% and was offered a 50% compromise which she turned down.
Perhaps your neighbour's firm were prepared to put up with inconvenience/extra cost rather than risk losing her talents altogether - BA has weighed up the pros and cons and decided what this pilot has to offer the company isn't worth the inconvenience/extra cost of giving in to her demands, (even though they've spent a substantial amount of money training her and won't reap the benefits of their investment if she leaves.
Perhaps your neighbour's employers had no reason to be concerned about a possible 'floodgates' effect - BA say there's good reason why they should be concerned.
Perhaps your neighbour's employers are more than happy to have some of their lawyers on a 3-day week - BA says it can cope with some pilots on her fleet working 75% but not 50%.
Perhaps your neighbour's employers decided there were no risks involved in allowing a lawyer who only works a 3-day week to deal with cases - BA says there are flight safety issues involved and they want pilots to be more experienced before they work only 50%, but will compromise at 75% until they gain more experience.
Please don't misunderstand - I haven't got a clue whether there's any force in BA's arguments. I'm simply suggesting that because your neighbour's firm could accommodate her wishes it doesn't necessarily follow BA can do the same because the circumstances may be entirely different.
overstress
Since it's highly unlikely all the 'antis' here are management bean counters, perhaps there's something in what they say. It can sometimes be more difficult to be objective if we know and like the individual concerned.
From what I've read in this discussion, some people aren't sympathetic to someone who was picked up straight from university, given sponsored flying training and the opportunity to work for one of the best and best-paid airlines in the world demanding after only a few years that BA change their rostering system (efficient or inefficient) just to suit her - and then accusing the company which sponsored her training of discriminating against women when they refuse.
Others argue that equality between men and women means just that - not preferential treatment for women.
Others argue the couple created their own problem, that it's a bit much to expect BA to resolve it and, if BA can't or won't, one of the parents should choose between their love of flying and concern for their child.
You may not agree with them, but surely you can see there are good arguments on both sides?
Can you help with one point which puzzles me?
If there's no truth in BA's impractical/flight safety/cost arguments, what do you think is their reason for refusing her request? Floodgates concerns?
Interesting discussion.
I don't think the people here who don't support the pilot are "upset" - they just think she's being unreasonable and demanding a bit much.
There could be many reasons why your lawyer neighbour's position might be different.
eg (In no particular order)
Perhaps her employers were able to agree to her request without causing any inconvenience to the operation of the firm - BA says it would.
Perhaps if your neighbour had asked to work (for example) a 2 day week her employers would have refused and offered a 3 day compromise - the pilot asked for 75% and was offered a 50% compromise which she turned down.
Perhaps your neighbour's firm were prepared to put up with inconvenience/extra cost rather than risk losing her talents altogether - BA has weighed up the pros and cons and decided what this pilot has to offer the company isn't worth the inconvenience/extra cost of giving in to her demands, (even though they've spent a substantial amount of money training her and won't reap the benefits of their investment if she leaves.
Perhaps your neighbour's employers had no reason to be concerned about a possible 'floodgates' effect - BA say there's good reason why they should be concerned.
Perhaps your neighbour's employers are more than happy to have some of their lawyers on a 3-day week - BA says it can cope with some pilots on her fleet working 75% but not 50%.
Perhaps your neighbour's employers decided there were no risks involved in allowing a lawyer who only works a 3-day week to deal with cases - BA says there are flight safety issues involved and they want pilots to be more experienced before they work only 50%, but will compromise at 75% until they gain more experience.
Please don't misunderstand - I haven't got a clue whether there's any force in BA's arguments. I'm simply suggesting that because your neighbour's firm could accommodate her wishes it doesn't necessarily follow BA can do the same because the circumstances may be entirely different.
overstress
Since it's highly unlikely all the 'antis' here are management bean counters, perhaps there's something in what they say. It can sometimes be more difficult to be objective if we know and like the individual concerned.
From what I've read in this discussion, some people aren't sympathetic to someone who was picked up straight from university, given sponsored flying training and the opportunity to work for one of the best and best-paid airlines in the world demanding after only a few years that BA change their rostering system (efficient or inefficient) just to suit her - and then accusing the company which sponsored her training of discriminating against women when they refuse.
Others argue that equality between men and women means just that - not preferential treatment for women.
Others argue the couple created their own problem, that it's a bit much to expect BA to resolve it and, if BA can't or won't, one of the parents should choose between their love of flying and concern for their child.
You may not agree with them, but surely you can see there are good arguments on both sides?
Can you help with one point which puzzles me?
If there's no truth in BA's impractical/flight safety/cost arguments, what do you think is their reason for refusing her request? Floodgates concerns?
Interesting discussion.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh poor old BA - how will it ever survive ? Unreasonable individuals like this young lady are just so selfish!.
Nothing like BA management then?
Pilots terms and conditions have been systematically attacked by Airlines over the last decade. I really can't accept the view that '........it's just business', because many of the goings on have not only been bad for business but have without a doubt affected operating standards as well as deeply affecting the wellbeing of many individuals.
What about the many people who took part time contracts because of the relentless schedules at some airlines only to find that it really meant a fifty percent reduction in salary but only fifteen percent reduction in flying hours?I know lots who did so feeling they had no other choice.
'Life's Not Fair - Get Used to It! '
No doubt coined by someone in a Bentley.
Nothing like BA management then?
Pilots terms and conditions have been systematically attacked by Airlines over the last decade. I really can't accept the view that '........it's just business', because many of the goings on have not only been bad for business but have without a doubt affected operating standards as well as deeply affecting the wellbeing of many individuals.
What about the many people who took part time contracts because of the relentless schedules at some airlines only to find that it really meant a fifty percent reduction in salary but only fifteen percent reduction in flying hours?I know lots who did so feeling they had no other choice.
'Life's Not Fair - Get Used to It! '
No doubt coined by someone in a Bentley.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: manchester
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for info ;
(i)her husband already benefits by working part time.
(ii) Part time pilots at BA receive a couple of advantages that are envied by full time colleagues - they are removed from the requirement to do standbys - and they still get promoted when their number comes up -
ie Jess will be eligible for command ahead of other pilots ( of similar seniority) who have grafted on a full time basis.
(i)her husband already benefits by working part time.
(ii) Part time pilots at BA receive a couple of advantages that are envied by full time colleagues - they are removed from the requirement to do standbys - and they still get promoted when their number comes up -
ie Jess will be eligible for command ahead of other pilots ( of similar seniority) who have grafted on a full time basis.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Datcon
Nobody said it was fair, it's just employment law!
Which means some people can both have their cake, AND eat it. But for some couples, both of them on 75% just isn't enough of the cake.
Incidentally, am I correct in thinking that part timers are available for overtime on their PT days off? Sure would reduce the financial impact of their PT working.
Nobody said it was fair, it's just employment law!
Which means some people can both have their cake, AND eat it. But for some couples, both of them on 75% just isn't enough of the cake.
Incidentally, am I correct in thinking that part timers are available for overtime on their PT days off? Sure would reduce the financial impact of their PT working.
Está servira para distraerle.
I would still love to know why BALPA is supporting this claim.
The last seminar I attended, run by that august body, seemed to consist of little more than BA pilots and political appointees.
A dedicated Chauvanist, actually a French patriot and nothing whatsoever to do with sexual liberation, I hold no candle for JS nor her ilk. This does not mean that I have climbed out of the ark but rather that I try to balance all perspectives in this tortuous and tedious claim. Why then, is BALPA, which professes perhaps to represent all of us pilots, championing a cause which, at the end of the day, will possibly benefit one individual at the expense of collective damage to the rest of us?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: manchester
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Datacon - its true but bizarre isn't it!
Tandem rotor said -"Which means some people can both have their cake, AND eat it. But for some couples, both of them on 75% just isn't enough of the cake."
I quite agree.
For part time Captain's, I heard one quote that as a result of working 75% his nett pay is only 11% less each month.
Perhaps one of the issues is thet on the Airbus fleet operating up to 60 sectors a month into BA's shambles at LHR can be very exhausting (more tiring than doing a similar number of sectors into STN with Ryanair perhaps?) - that's why there are a far higher number of BA airbus pilots requesting and getting PT than on other fleet.
I'm not sure which way I view this court case. I can see valid points on each side.
A few previous posters have commented on the Starmer's decision to live in the countryside 110 miles from LHR - and that surely has a deleterious effect on their ability to manage the job/home life balance.
One thing is for sure; That BA can't freely give 50% contracts to some employees then ration the number of 50% contracts they give to pilots.
Tandem rotor said -"Which means some people can both have their cake, AND eat it. But for some couples, both of them on 75% just isn't enough of the cake."
I quite agree.
For part time Captain's, I heard one quote that as a result of working 75% his nett pay is only 11% less each month.
Perhaps one of the issues is thet on the Airbus fleet operating up to 60 sectors a month into BA's shambles at LHR can be very exhausting (more tiring than doing a similar number of sectors into STN with Ryanair perhaps?) - that's why there are a far higher number of BA airbus pilots requesting and getting PT than on other fleet.
I'm not sure which way I view this court case. I can see valid points on each side.
A few previous posters have commented on the Starmer's decision to live in the countryside 110 miles from LHR - and that surely has a deleterious effect on their ability to manage the job/home life balance.
One thing is for sure; That BA can't freely give 50% contracts to some employees then ration the number of 50% contracts they give to pilots.
Last edited by Shuttleworth; 16th Jan 2005 at 17:41.
Está servira para distraerle.
Collection.
The point that you make is a very apt one and the principle perhaps lies at the hub of the whole issue. At the risk of being a little Draconian, employers should perhaps have one and only one condition of employment and then stick with it like glue?
