Jessica Starmer - BALPA's view (Update - Appeal decision)
PPRuNe Supporter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Devon, UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But you can't arbitrarily exclude a qualified applicant purely on the grounds of gender.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RevMan2
Employers would be that stupid these days, but there's more than way to skin a cat.
I doubt if Ms Starmer will be concerned about other women. She may be many things but she isn't stupid. She must have realised the potential damage to other women when she set out to get what she wanted for herself.
Employers would be that stupid these days, but there's more than way to skin a cat.
I doubt if Ms Starmer will be concerned about other women. She may be many things but she isn't stupid. She must have realised the potential damage to other women when she set out to get what she wanted for herself.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt Ms Starmer was particularly concerned about the plight of other women, or of men, or had any sort of moral crusade in mind. She thought BA had treated her unfairly, the tribunal agreed and BA got their fingers burned. Now they are reduced to appealing and running a new 'dirty tricks' campaign of their own through management sanctioned slurs in the press.
DIRECTOR
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: U.K.
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am with BA Management on this issue. This wretched woman has spent more time off work being pregnant than she has at work. No Business can sustain that kind of paid time off.Is she on 50% Salary whilst pregnant or 75% or 100%??
Why is nobody looking into why she lives in Dorset yet works Short Haul out of Heathrow?
Where does she stay when she is on an early start or does she drive all that way prior to a long duty day??
Why is nobody looking into why she lives in Dorset yet works Short Haul out of Heathrow?
Where does she stay when she is on an early start or does she drive all that way prior to a long duty day??
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA pay the same percentage of your salary as you work. Work 50%, get 50% salary. BA clearly can sustain that kind of paid time off (ie maternity leave, which is the only paid time off JS received), and they also have very generous part time provisions for several thousand cabin crew, but not for pilots. Where any BA pilot stays on their days off is no concern of BA. You are contracted to arrive rested and fit for duty. How you achieve that is not their business. BA ay pilots to do a job, they don't own their lives. When you say you're with the management does that mean you support their anonymous smear campaign in the press?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carnage Matey!
What anonymous smear campaign in the press? 
BTW, for information:
Talking of using the press, if you look at BALPA's website you'll find an account of how
"we deliberately held back the story, releasing it only on the Sunday before the Monday hearing, so that it hit Monday morning’s papers and Monday morning television and radio programmes."
"The press coverage on the Monday was enormous, with seven of the nine nationals and most of the regionals running the story. A television crew flew in from France. The coverage, and the interest, built up over the three days of the tribunal hearing.The opening of the case was covered by BBC TV, ITV, Sky, ITN, and national and regional radio stations."
You'll see that BALPA had two objectives:
(1) To prevent any interviews with Jessica Starmer apart from the two BALPA sanctioned.
(2) To persuade the media that Jessica Starmer was bringing the case not only for herself but on behalf of all pilots, male and female, who wanted part time working.
"David Fielding explained that BA has, in recent years, taken on a number of young women pilots, and they are now having families and they need special consideration. BA had not thought this through and had not prepared itself for this eventuality."
There was no time for BA to respond - as soon as the hearing began they couldn't.
The media largely fell for BALPA’s spin - "and this resulted in sympathetic reporting, not least in an excellent feature by Bel Mooney in the Daily Mail."
When you say you're with the management does that mean you support their anonymous smear campaign in the press?
BTW, for information:
Talking of using the press, if you look at BALPA's website you'll find an account of how
"we deliberately held back the story, releasing it only on the Sunday before the Monday hearing, so that it hit Monday morning’s papers and Monday morning television and radio programmes."
"The press coverage on the Monday was enormous, with seven of the nine nationals and most of the regionals running the story. A television crew flew in from France. The coverage, and the interest, built up over the three days of the tribunal hearing.The opening of the case was covered by BBC TV, ITV, Sky, ITN, and national and regional radio stations."
You'll see that BALPA had two objectives:
(1) To prevent any interviews with Jessica Starmer apart from the two BALPA sanctioned.
(2) To persuade the media that Jessica Starmer was bringing the case not only for herself but on behalf of all pilots, male and female, who wanted part time working.
"David Fielding explained that BA has, in recent years, taken on a number of young women pilots, and they are now having families and they need special consideration. BA had not thought this through and had not prepared itself for this eventuality."
There was no time for BA to respond - as soon as the hearing began they couldn't.
The media largely fell for BALPA’s spin - "and this resulted in sympathetic reporting, not least in an excellent feature by Bel Mooney in the Daily Mail."
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clearly when the management behind the move to prevent 50% part-time embark upon condemning the ruling as being detrimental to women in the workforce, what they mean is that they cannot allow part-time workers in their workforce.
The logical reason behind this is that they have an intrinsic inability to adequately plan for sufficient levels of staffing to man the flying program. Hence the use of 'forced draft' and higher levels of planned flying for staff than ever before.
This is detrimental to the cause of women, since if they show an inability to cope with a workforce that is 1% female, how will they ever be able to cope with a - now suppose for a moment it occurs - 40-50% female workforce.
It is irrelevant that (1) she was pregnant - since *shock, horror* - she is female and that is bound to happen at some point in her career; (2) that she lives in Dorset: since much of BA's workforce is able to live in varied places with the - up to now - highly stable roster; and (3) whether she was committed to the job or not.
Facts are that: BA appears unsupportive of family considerations where many other companies cope, BA changed the goalposts after she had applied according to the rules at the time for 50%, and that adequate support at little extra cost can exist to allow that level of work (and indeed has in the past).
For BA to resort to unwarranted media comments strikes of poor sportsmanship. If they are unwilling to allow for family considerations and intrinsic biological differences, then one would expect them to get what they deserve.
Bottom line is however that they are unable to attract and train enough pilots to fulfil requirements and have resorted to backtracking on promises - in this case of part-time work - to fulfil their requirements.
Shame on you all for supporting Piss Poor Planning on the company's behalf.
The logical reason behind this is that they have an intrinsic inability to adequately plan for sufficient levels of staffing to man the flying program. Hence the use of 'forced draft' and higher levels of planned flying for staff than ever before.
This is detrimental to the cause of women, since if they show an inability to cope with a workforce that is 1% female, how will they ever be able to cope with a - now suppose for a moment it occurs - 40-50% female workforce.
It is irrelevant that (1) she was pregnant - since *shock, horror* - she is female and that is bound to happen at some point in her career; (2) that she lives in Dorset: since much of BA's workforce is able to live in varied places with the - up to now - highly stable roster; and (3) whether she was committed to the job or not.
Facts are that: BA appears unsupportive of family considerations where many other companies cope, BA changed the goalposts after she had applied according to the rules at the time for 50%, and that adequate support at little extra cost can exist to allow that level of work (and indeed has in the past).
For BA to resort to unwarranted media comments strikes of poor sportsmanship. If they are unwilling to allow for family considerations and intrinsic biological differences, then one would expect them to get what they deserve.
Bottom line is however that they are unable to attract and train enough pilots to fulfil requirements and have resorted to backtracking on promises - in this case of part-time work - to fulfil their requirements.
Shame on you all for supporting Piss Poor Planning on the company's behalf.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you read the facts? BA pilots here say there's a whole bunch of them working part-time and more waiting their turn to go part-time.
"that: BA changed the goalposts after she had applied according to the rules at the time for 50%"
That's an opinion not a fact
That's an opinion not a fact
What unwarranted media comments have BA made?
One BA source said: " If a BA plane went down and a pilot was working 50 per cent of the time a couple of months out of training, we wouldn't come well out of subsequent investigations."
Ever wondered why most of the folk who work for the company and know the true facts don't support her.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hand Solo
I appreciate from your posts on both Starmer theads that you're an enthusiastic supporter of her claim, and your previous reference to 'Jess' suggests you might know her personally, but isn't it going a little far to suggest that "most of the folk who work for the company who have posted on this thread don't know the true facts"?
Could it be that they know the true facts, but simply don't share your views?
Isn't it a true fact that even the majority of pilots on her own fleet don't support her?
There have been two long, and IMHO interesting, threads on this topic. Do you suggest there are any facts that haven't yet been posted and which, if they were, would give those who don't support Mrs Starmer reason to reconsider their views?
If so, what are these 'true facts'?
"Dave Fielding is the only poster who knows what happened at the tribunal."
It's true he was there, but are you suggesting that only his views should carry any weight? Or that they should carry more weight? He and his colleagues clearly did an excellent job for Mrs Starmer, but I doubt if Mr Fielding would claim to be neutral. He was one of those who gave interviews to the media even before the hearing.
"The safety argument is entirely bogus."
That's a matter of opinion. It's not one upon which I'm qualified to comment, but would you agree opinions are divided amongst those who are qualified? Do you really think a pilot's total hours, the period in which those hours were achieved, and recency should be entirely irrelevant when applications for PTW are considered?
'Unwarranted media comments'
Do you agree that, justifiably or otherwise, it's likely there would be adverse media comment if there was an incident and it emerged that one of the pilots was a relatively inexperienced part-timer? I emphasise 'justifiably or otherwise.'
IMHO, it's not limited to media comment. I've been involved in a number of fatal accident cases where the relative inexperience of a pilot (including professional pilots) was a central issue in the claim.
I think BALPA did a superb job managing the media (or manipulating, depending upon your point of view) and their timing, too late for BA to respond even if it had wanted to, was very clever. (Whether it was appropriate to involve the media is a separate issue.)
If you read BALPA's website, you'll see that creating bad publicity against BA was a deliberate tactic in the hope that adverse media coverage would induce BA into backing down and giving in to Mrs Starmer's claim. It didn't work. Even if it's true that BA management is now trying to use the media to get BA’s side across, can you really blame them?
Re 'moving the goalposts'
If you mean a formal ‘hours’ policy was introduced after Mrs Starmer’s application for PTW had been refused, that’s correct.
However, if you mean BA attempted to apply that formal hours policy retrospectively to Mrs Starmer, that's not correct. (See below)
Pilots were entitled to apply to work part-time contract, but applications were considered on a ‘case by case’ basis and would not necessarily be granted.
"There was no requirement to have 2000 hours when she applied."
True. BA didn't claim there was a formal policy requiring minimum hours.
But, had any pilot of similar level of experience/inexperience to Mrs Starmer previously applied to work a 50% contract? I think from recollection, not sure, the answer is no.
There was no evidence that BA had granted an application by someone else of similar experience level.
"BA introduced the requirement when they realised the issue was going to a tribunal and they didn't have a strong case."
That's the 'Starmer side' interpretation of BA's reason. I don't have the judgment in front of me but my recollection is that her lack of experience was given as a reason at BA’s internal 'review of refusal' stage. Either way, step back from the fray for a moment and consider:
In light of an application for PTW by a relatively inexperienced pilot, was it not sensible of BA to set out a formal policy making it clear to all pilots that hours would be amongst the factors which would be taken into account when considering applications for PTW?
Would BA not have been at risk of the same problem arising again if it didn't?
NB:
BA did not suggest there was a formal policy regarding experience levels in existence when Mrs Starmer made her application.
BA did not claim it was entitled to rely upon a formal 'minimum hours' policy in her case.
BA argued it was entitled to take into account what it regarded as safety issues relating to a particular pilot’s experience when considering his/her application for PTW, but that's a different matter.
"The disagreement is entirely down to personal politics"
Are you suggesting BA's decision to refuse Mrs Starmer's application was 'personal' in an inappropriate sense?
Or that the refusal was motivated by some personal malice towards her?
Let's consider the facts.
BA offered Mrs Starmer a 75% contract (ahead of more senior F/Os who'd already applied and had been waiting a long time).
Despite fleet resource difficulties, BA offered to allow her more experienced husband to change from 75% to 50% in order to assist the couple with their childcare arrangements.
Both offers were rejected and Mrs Starmer complained to the Employment Tribunal that BA were discriminating against her.
Disagreement entirely down to personal politics??
Whose personal politics?
I appreciate from your posts on both Starmer theads that you're an enthusiastic supporter of her claim, and your previous reference to 'Jess' suggests you might know her personally, but isn't it going a little far to suggest that "most of the folk who work for the company who have posted on this thread don't know the true facts"?
Could it be that they know the true facts, but simply don't share your views?
Isn't it a true fact that even the majority of pilots on her own fleet don't support her?
There have been two long, and IMHO interesting, threads on this topic. Do you suggest there are any facts that haven't yet been posted and which, if they were, would give those who don't support Mrs Starmer reason to reconsider their views?
If so, what are these 'true facts'?
"Dave Fielding is the only poster who knows what happened at the tribunal."
It's true he was there, but are you suggesting that only his views should carry any weight? Or that they should carry more weight? He and his colleagues clearly did an excellent job for Mrs Starmer, but I doubt if Mr Fielding would claim to be neutral. He was one of those who gave interviews to the media even before the hearing.
"The safety argument is entirely bogus."
That's a matter of opinion. It's not one upon which I'm qualified to comment, but would you agree opinions are divided amongst those who are qualified? Do you really think a pilot's total hours, the period in which those hours were achieved, and recency should be entirely irrelevant when applications for PTW are considered?
'Unwarranted media comments'
Do you agree that, justifiably or otherwise, it's likely there would be adverse media comment if there was an incident and it emerged that one of the pilots was a relatively inexperienced part-timer? I emphasise 'justifiably or otherwise.'
IMHO, it's not limited to media comment. I've been involved in a number of fatal accident cases where the relative inexperience of a pilot (including professional pilots) was a central issue in the claim.
I think BALPA did a superb job managing the media (or manipulating, depending upon your point of view) and their timing, too late for BA to respond even if it had wanted to, was very clever. (Whether it was appropriate to involve the media is a separate issue.)
If you read BALPA's website, you'll see that creating bad publicity against BA was a deliberate tactic in the hope that adverse media coverage would induce BA into backing down and giving in to Mrs Starmer's claim. It didn't work. Even if it's true that BA management is now trying to use the media to get BA’s side across, can you really blame them?
Re 'moving the goalposts'
If you mean a formal ‘hours’ policy was introduced after Mrs Starmer’s application for PTW had been refused, that’s correct.
However, if you mean BA attempted to apply that formal hours policy retrospectively to Mrs Starmer, that's not correct. (See below)
Pilots were entitled to apply to work part-time contract, but applications were considered on a ‘case by case’ basis and would not necessarily be granted.
"There was no requirement to have 2000 hours when she applied."
True. BA didn't claim there was a formal policy requiring minimum hours.
But, had any pilot of similar level of experience/inexperience to Mrs Starmer previously applied to work a 50% contract? I think from recollection, not sure, the answer is no.
There was no evidence that BA had granted an application by someone else of similar experience level.
"BA introduced the requirement when they realised the issue was going to a tribunal and they didn't have a strong case."
That's the 'Starmer side' interpretation of BA's reason. I don't have the judgment in front of me but my recollection is that her lack of experience was given as a reason at BA’s internal 'review of refusal' stage. Either way, step back from the fray for a moment and consider:
In light of an application for PTW by a relatively inexperienced pilot, was it not sensible of BA to set out a formal policy making it clear to all pilots that hours would be amongst the factors which would be taken into account when considering applications for PTW?
Would BA not have been at risk of the same problem arising again if it didn't?
NB:
BA did not suggest there was a formal policy regarding experience levels in existence when Mrs Starmer made her application.
BA did not claim it was entitled to rely upon a formal 'minimum hours' policy in her case.
BA argued it was entitled to take into account what it regarded as safety issues relating to a particular pilot’s experience when considering his/her application for PTW, but that's a different matter.
"The disagreement is entirely down to personal politics"
Are you suggesting BA's decision to refuse Mrs Starmer's application was 'personal' in an inappropriate sense?
Or that the refusal was motivated by some personal malice towards her?
Let's consider the facts.
BA offered Mrs Starmer a 75% contract (ahead of more senior F/Os who'd already applied and had been waiting a long time).
Despite fleet resource difficulties, BA offered to allow her more experienced husband to change from 75% to 50% in order to assist the couple with their childcare arrangements.
Both offers were rejected and Mrs Starmer complained to the Employment Tribunal that BA were discriminating against her.
Disagreement entirely down to personal politics??
Whose personal politics?
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 17th Jun 2005 at 08:18.
the lunatic fringe
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 67
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hand Solo:
Please explain.
L337
Please explain.
JS started her flying at a regional base. There was a gulf between the flying standards at that base and the companys main base.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer
Good post. You correctly identify the difficulties that finders of fact face when weighing up the relative merits of assertion dressed up as fact, bias (intentional and otherwise) and evidence purported to be expert, but in the non legal meaning of the term.
Good post. You correctly identify the difficulties that finders of fact face when weighing up the relative merits of assertion dressed up as fact, bias (intentional and otherwise) and evidence purported to be expert, but in the non legal meaning of the term.
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlyingLawyer:
I had a long chat with Dave Fielding recently and it was his view (which I share) that most BA pilots don't know the full facts and cannot grasp the reasons why BALPA was OBLIGED to take on this case.
But I'm sure he'll speak for himself...
Also:
Opinions are divided by those 'qualified' to judge, yes, but BA's argument was inconsistent with its previous policy on the same Airbus fleet but a few years previously. That's one of the reasons the tribunal threw ou BA's arguments, thereby, incidentally, stopping BA senior management right in its tracks.
A pilot's total hours and recency combined can give an outward indicator to the casual qualified observer, but this does not give the whole picture. Each case (for part time) should be considered on its merits and clearly, imposing a blanket (2000hrs) policy is not achieving that.
Declaration of interest: Male BA pilot who has been PTWK for childcare reasons.
Could it be that they know the true facts, but simply don't share your views?
But I'm sure he'll speak for himself...
Also:
"The safety argument is entirely bogus."
That's a matter of opinion. It's not one upon which I'm qualified to comment, but would you agree opinions are divided amongst those who are qualified? Do you really think a pilot's total hours, the period in which those hours were achieved, and recency should be entirely irrelevant when applications for PTW are considered?
That's a matter of opinion. It's not one upon which I'm qualified to comment, but would you agree opinions are divided amongst those who are qualified? Do you really think a pilot's total hours, the period in which those hours were achieved, and recency should be entirely irrelevant when applications for PTW are considered?
A pilot's total hours and recency combined can give an outward indicator to the casual qualified observer, but this does not give the whole picture. Each case (for part time) should be considered on its merits and clearly, imposing a blanket (2000hrs) policy is not achieving that.
Declaration of interest: Male BA pilot who has been PTWK for childcare reasons.
Last edited by overstress; 18th Jun 2005 at 21:41.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although you can't get away from the facts of this case I believe that one of the major issues here, if not the major one, is that this lady and her husband decided to make their home in the "beautiful" village of Corfe Castle in the Purbecks of Southern Dorset! For those of you who don't know where this lovely quaint setting is located, it is approximately 120 miles or two and a half hours driving time (on a good day) from Heathrow. Most of us understand that if we choose to work for an airline that we must be located within a certain distance / timescale from our main operating base to enable us to comply with our company terms and conditions. In other words there is no way on earth that this particular lady could use her home as a base from which to do this. Assuming she was working on a 75% part time deal and was doing a three week month, she would be spending many days in digs closer to LHR to carry out her short haul rostered duties. Away from her child of course! And what about those SBYs? She would have to be located closer to LHR to carry these out. Where did she stay? Again away from her child. Whose choice was this??? In these circumstances it would leave two options.
1) Move closer to LHR so she could get home each day to see her child and of course be able to carry out SBYs from home
OR
2) Push for a 50% part time deal with BA
So she choose the latter and BA screwed up!!!
If BA couldn't get it right, i.e moved the goalposts, then how can they win on appeal?
It was a grave error of judgement on their part when it was crystal clear that this lady knew that she couldn't win by any other means other than by moving closer to her base airport like the rest of us ACCEPT goes with a job of this nature!!!
1) Move closer to LHR so she could get home each day to see her child and of course be able to carry out SBYs from home
OR
2) Push for a 50% part time deal with BA
So she choose the latter and BA screwed up!!!
If BA couldn't get it right, i.e moved the goalposts, then how can they win on appeal?
It was a grave error of judgement on their part when it was crystal clear that this lady knew that she couldn't win by any other means other than by moving closer to her base airport like the rest of us ACCEPT goes with a job of this nature!!!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a long chat with Dave Fielding recently and it was his view (which I share) that most BA pilots don't know the full facts and cannot grasp the reasons why BALPA was OBLIGED to take on this case.
After the hearing, there was again enormous international media coverage of her triumph against BA, and Mrs Starmer supplied the press with those pics of her holding "my beautiful daughter Beth" etc etc.
Since then, Dave Fielding has set out Mrs Starmer's side of the argument and argued that what she did was to the benefit of all pilots in the long term. I think most people would agree he's done it very articulately and clearly, in 8 posts amounting to almost 7,000 words.
In contrast, BA said nothing to the media before the hearing and said nothing after it except they were disappointed by the result and would be appealing.
Despite all that coverage of only one side -
- the overwhelming majority of people on both PPRuNe threads still don't support her
- Dave says the sentiments expressed on the BA BALPA forum are "pretty similar" to here despite him spending a large amount of time answering questions on that forum. (Dave's first post.)
- most pilots on her own fleet apparently don't support her
- "most BA pilots" don't support her.
How can that be?
Does it mean that most BA pilots don't look at PPRuNe, don't look at the BA BALPA forum, don't read newspapers and don't look at television news?
All the people who've criticised her might be completely wrong in their thinking (I'm not expressing an opinion on the issues) but can it sensibly be said that, after all that coverage in the media and on at least two pilots' forums, they still don't know the facts?
When we feel strongly about something, many of us have a tendency to think if people don't agree with us it's either because they don't know the facts or they're unable to grasp the reasoning - if they could, they'd agree with us.
BALPA's role:
Until now, people might have thought BALPA agreed with Mrs Starmer and was enthusiastic in its support for her. You say you agree with Dave that "most BA pilots .... cannot grasp the reasons why BALPA was OBLIGED to take on this case."
People might find that comment very interesting because it puts a different complexion on things.
You emphasise "OBLIGED".
If BALPA only took on the case because they were obliged to, people who've criticised BALPA might withdraw their criticisms of the union - even if they stand by their criticisms of her.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heli.
Very well put.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
I suppose the only good thing to have come out of all this is that BA will be less inclined to take on female pilots in the future.
Now I've got nothing against them,and have flown with some fantastic girls.But for some reason some do tend to be workshy and a surprising number seem to always be off LongTermSick.
Very well put.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
I suppose the only good thing to have come out of all this is that BA will be less inclined to take on female pilots in the future.
Now I've got nothing against them,and have flown with some fantastic girls.But for some reason some do tend to be workshy and a surprising number seem to always be off LongTermSick.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have to remember one small but vital factor. BALPA as an organisation has to be seen to be politically correct. If their lawyers were of the view that JS had a good case in law, then BALPA had no option but to support it, despite all of the misgivings detailed on this site.
I wouldn't mind betting that a significant number, if not the majority of BALPA reps are hoping that BA's appeal is successful - regardless of what they say in public.
My money is on BA winning the appeal.
I wouldn't mind betting that a significant number, if not the majority of BALPA reps are hoping that BA's appeal is successful - regardless of what they say in public.
My money is on BA winning the appeal.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may well be right, but I wouldn't risk my money on it.
In most areas of law, even those outside my own sphere, provided I knew the facts I'd be prepared to forecast the result on nothing more than basic legal principles and experience - and have a better than sporting chance of getting it right.
There are two areas of law where I wouldn't even try: Employment is one; the other is Landlord & Tenant.
In both those areas, Parliament has enacted laws influenced by the political and social policies of the government in power at the time. Accordingly, the law is often the complete opposite of what most people (including lawyers outside those fields) might reasonably assume it to be.
In most areas of law, even those outside my own sphere, provided I knew the facts I'd be prepared to forecast the result on nothing more than basic legal principles and experience - and have a better than sporting chance of getting it right.
There are two areas of law where I wouldn't even try: Employment is one; the other is Landlord & Tenant.
In both those areas, Parliament has enacted laws influenced by the political and social policies of the government in power at the time. Accordingly, the law is often the complete opposite of what most people (including lawyers outside those fields) might reasonably assume it to be.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite so, FL, however my prediction was not based soley upon the legal merits of the case. My guess is that BA will throw money at this one and that if the EAT appeal is unsuccessful, they will not give up. As you suggest, social policy influences both formation and application of the law in this area. This can work both ways.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guess that will teach BA to advertise in Cosmopolitan!
I work with some really great and dedicated female pilots. Difference is they are interested in flying! 1100 hours in five years - sounds like 20% working to me.
Perhaps restricting advertising for pilots in a flying related publication might help to find people who actually want to fly?
PS talking of kids, how many of you with children would be completely happy to send yors off in the back of Ms Stammer's Airbus for the day?
I work with some really great and dedicated female pilots. Difference is they are interested in flying! 1100 hours in five years - sounds like 20% working to me.
Perhaps restricting advertising for pilots in a flying related publication might help to find people who actually want to fly?
PS talking of kids, how many of you with children would be completely happy to send yors off in the back of Ms Stammer's Airbus for the day?