Jessica Starmer - BALPA's view (Update - Appeal decision)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Here there and everywhere
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tallbloke, that does not quite answer my question. My point was, as many pilots have learned the hard way, is that the decision to support someone cannot be turned into a popularity contest - for either the issue, or the individual.
For example, there are often threads here suggesting that a lot of pilots are critical of decisions or actions of a fellow pilot in a particular situation. These criticisms rarely are based on having the full facts, but the majority of those commenting here might well be critical.
That's free speech for you. But when it comes to supporting the pilot, the decision cannot be based on the question "do a majority of the members feel we should support this individual". There are other criteria, which is all I was trying to say.
********
I'd like to add my thanks to Dave for his post and clarification of various issues.
For example, there are often threads here suggesting that a lot of pilots are critical of decisions or actions of a fellow pilot in a particular situation. These criticisms rarely are based on having the full facts, but the majority of those commenting here might well be critical.
That's free speech for you. But when it comes to supporting the pilot, the decision cannot be based on the question "do a majority of the members feel we should support this individual". There are other criteria, which is all I was trying to say.
********
I'd like to add my thanks to Dave for his post and clarification of various issues.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Stansted
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Why are only 2.9% of professional licence holders in the UK female? What is it about our industry that is so unattractive to females? Being a mother and being a pilot should in no way be incompatible."
What BALPA have done is made smaller companies realise now that employing women is LESS attractive. If you had a handful of jets would you now employ a women who was likely to cost you time and money? No.
Typical of BA/BALPA to see how this will effect the real world.
What BALPA have done is made smaller companies realise now that employing women is LESS attractive. If you had a handful of jets would you now employ a women who was likely to cost you time and money? No.
Typical of BA/BALPA to see how this will effect the real world.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been away from the UK for a long time and am ignorant of UK law in these matters. Some no doubt will say just plain ignorant after reading this post, and an MCP to boot, although the latter would not be fair.
After reading this thread, I have just read the first posting of the 35 pages and the newspaper report to which the link lead. Having long experience of Prune threads I spared myself the ordeal of reading the 35 pages.
This strikes me as another sad case of "wimminism".
I congratulate Ms Starmer on her success as a mother, but would add that being a mother is her choice. Being a mother is not such a rarity in the world that her employer should be forced into giving her special treatment beyond that available to her colleagues.
"Equal", (ha, when was it ever that in the feminist movement), opportunity should work both ways. Apart from her statutory rights for time off just before and after birth it seems to me that she has no more rights to long term part time work at her convenience, if her employer does not wish to grant it, than a bloke who wants the same amount of time off to build, and then sail, his yacht.
BA is a business, not a social welfare organisation
After reading this thread, I have just read the first posting of the 35 pages and the newspaper report to which the link lead. Having long experience of Prune threads I spared myself the ordeal of reading the 35 pages.
This strikes me as another sad case of "wimminism".
I congratulate Ms Starmer on her success as a mother, but would add that being a mother is her choice. Being a mother is not such a rarity in the world that her employer should be forced into giving her special treatment beyond that available to her colleagues.
"Equal", (ha, when was it ever that in the feminist movement), opportunity should work both ways. Apart from her statutory rights for time off just before and after birth it seems to me that she has no more rights to long term part time work at her convenience, if her employer does not wish to grant it, than a bloke who wants the same amount of time off to build, and then sail, his yacht.
BA is a business, not a social welfare organisation
PPRuNe Supporter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Devon, UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do understand your point delwy however I think you may misunderstand mine. I expressed the opinion that I was less likely to join the union now than 3 weeks ago. Having read a little about the case I feel that the union has done itself a disservice in this case. If a representative organisation takes action which is not supported by the majority it's membership it has no mandate to undertake that action. There appears to be very little support from members for this particular action. Whilst the union can hardly take a vote on each and every action it undertakes, it should have a good idea of the views of it's membership.
Furthermore BALPA should be mindful of the effect the outcome of this tribunal may have for female wannabees, who may now find it more difficult to get that all important first job (not important in BA's case as it no longer takes on low hours candidates with the demise of the scholarship). The outcome of this judgement may be that less females are employed, not more. Personally, I think that is a poor outcome.
Furthermore BALPA should be mindful of the effect the outcome of this tribunal may have for female wannabees, who may now find it more difficult to get that all important first job (not important in BA's case as it no longer takes on low hours candidates with the demise of the scholarship). The outcome of this judgement may be that less females are employed, not more. Personally, I think that is a poor outcome.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,806
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Several posts on this topic and the longer one have talked about the 'cost to the airline' of maternity leave. There seems to be a certain lack of understanding about how the system works.
The maternity pay entitlement is 90% of salary for six weeks, then GBP106 a week for the next twenty weeks. Most employees can then claim a further 26 weeks unpaid maternity leave if they choose. Maternity pay is paid initially by the employer but reclaimed in full from the Inland Revenue, usually within a month.
The only cost to an employer that maternity represents is the inconvenience of hiring temporary cover. An airline the size of BA would/should adjust its manning to take pregnancy into account along with other predictable factors such as short and long term sickness.
PS BA choose to ground their female pilots in the first six months of pregnancy. JAR OPS does not require it.
The maternity pay entitlement is 90% of salary for six weeks, then GBP106 a week for the next twenty weeks. Most employees can then claim a further 26 weeks unpaid maternity leave if they choose. Maternity pay is paid initially by the employer but reclaimed in full from the Inland Revenue, usually within a month.
The only cost to an employer that maternity represents is the inconvenience of hiring temporary cover. An airline the size of BA would/should adjust its manning to take pregnancy into account along with other predictable factors such as short and long term sickness.
PS BA choose to ground their female pilots in the first six months of pregnancy. JAR OPS does not require it.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: cambridge
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Argus - for one moment I had thought that I had seen the last of Anisminic! 
I would suggest, based on the information on these 35 pages and also the remarks of Dave Fielding, BALPA rep, on the other thread, that BA simply didn't put forward a coherent defence. Clearly we don't know what went on in the tribunal, but it sounds like their lawyers were caught on the back foot - which is surprising.
Certainly BA have standing for a judicial review action, thought this would occur after the appeal, in the event of a negative outcome for them. However, the grounds on which they may appeal may be narrower than the ones that Argus has identified - don't forget that the onus is on BA to defend its stance and adduce evidence - a tribunal is not *not* taking into account relevant considerations if those considerations were not raised by BA in the first instance. BA's policy IS indirectly discriminatory - no-one denies that - but what is being argued is that there exists a justification for it. The burden is on BA to support the justification. The only point on which the 'not taking into account relevant considerations' ground may be raised is the safety argument advanced by BA, though if BA's lawyers weren't savvy enough to prepare this argument thoroughly (which is how it sounds to me!) then the tribunal's decision probably can't be challenged as it is sound on the evidence in front of it.
Argus makes excellent points relating to what BA *should* have done in the original hearing. If I had to represent BA then I would use those arguments and adduce the evidence you have suggested. It seems, however, that they did not do so - it's really peculiar. Were the lawyers unprepared? Or were BA complacent in thinking they didn't need to raise the safety defence? Or perhaps the commentators on this forum are simply wrong, and that flying at 50% is safe? In which case, ought BA to argue not that flying at 50% is unsafe, but that flying at 50% would undermine BA's credibility in the eyes of the consumer, who are likely to feel less safe when flying with them? That argument does not appear to have been deployed at any point.
Argus/Flying lawyer - one thing I'm not familiar with is the composition of tribunals - presumably those deciding the dispute are simply lawyers with no experience of aviation? Not that this is a problem - I'm just interested to see whether it is possible for BA to argue that such a decision has wide-ranging implications outside of the individual case, or whether the tribunal doesn't take that into account - the so-called 'floodgates' argument in the field of tort. In other words, is the role of the tribunal to decide the dispute as between the parties, or to decide the dispute taking into account the needs of society? If the former, the original decision makes more sense - if the latter, less so.
Who needs lawyers?!
I would suggest, based on the information on these 35 pages and also the remarks of Dave Fielding, BALPA rep, on the other thread, that BA simply didn't put forward a coherent defence. Clearly we don't know what went on in the tribunal, but it sounds like their lawyers were caught on the back foot - which is surprising.
Certainly BA have standing for a judicial review action, thought this would occur after the appeal, in the event of a negative outcome for them. However, the grounds on which they may appeal may be narrower than the ones that Argus has identified - don't forget that the onus is on BA to defend its stance and adduce evidence - a tribunal is not *not* taking into account relevant considerations if those considerations were not raised by BA in the first instance. BA's policy IS indirectly discriminatory - no-one denies that - but what is being argued is that there exists a justification for it. The burden is on BA to support the justification. The only point on which the 'not taking into account relevant considerations' ground may be raised is the safety argument advanced by BA, though if BA's lawyers weren't savvy enough to prepare this argument thoroughly (which is how it sounds to me!) then the tribunal's decision probably can't be challenged as it is sound on the evidence in front of it.
Argus makes excellent points relating to what BA *should* have done in the original hearing. If I had to represent BA then I would use those arguments and adduce the evidence you have suggested. It seems, however, that they did not do so - it's really peculiar. Were the lawyers unprepared? Or were BA complacent in thinking they didn't need to raise the safety defence? Or perhaps the commentators on this forum are simply wrong, and that flying at 50% is safe? In which case, ought BA to argue not that flying at 50% is unsafe, but that flying at 50% would undermine BA's credibility in the eyes of the consumer, who are likely to feel less safe when flying with them? That argument does not appear to have been deployed at any point.
Argus/Flying lawyer - one thing I'm not familiar with is the composition of tribunals - presumably those deciding the dispute are simply lawyers with no experience of aviation? Not that this is a problem - I'm just interested to see whether it is possible for BA to argue that such a decision has wide-ranging implications outside of the individual case, or whether the tribunal doesn't take that into account - the so-called 'floodgates' argument in the field of tort. In other words, is the role of the tribunal to decide the dispute as between the parties, or to decide the dispute taking into account the needs of society? If the former, the original decision makes more sense - if the latter, less so.
Who needs lawyers?!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: cambridge
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alex:
Although you've raised some very valid issues, what you may not have factored in is also the cost to the airline or retraining the employee who has returned from maternity leave. Presumably Mrs Starmer, having been off for 19 months (can anyone confirm this) still needs to remain current on her ratings and so the airline would have had to pay for this even when she did not fly. Equally, upon returning to work the airline would have to pay for re-training sessions even though she would not be working.
Tallbloke and Dave Fielding:
I'm really interested to understand the dynamics of BALPA's duty, and who it owes it to. Dave F's original post suggested that BALPA will support ANY pilot whose case against their employer stands more than a 50% chance of success. This suggests BALPA owes a duty to individual members, rather than members at large. What if, however, the majority of members are against action, as in this case?
I would be surprised if BALPA didn't take their wider duty into consideration before supporting legal action - Dave, could you clarify this point? The logical conclusion of BALPA's stance (unless I am wrong) is that its internal policies may be inconsistent: what if BALPA supports Pilot A in one case and Pilot B in another, but the substance of both disputes are contradictory:
Consider, for example:
Pilot A: Female pilot, who wants 50% working hours to look after her child. Big Bad Employer won't let her.
Pilot B: Male pilot whose employer, having employed him in 2001, has his contract cut to 50% to plug a gap left after a female employee took maternity leave. Pilot B wants to take action on the basis that he expected more than 50% hours.
Both cases are pretty arguable - and stand a 50% chance of success. But if BALPA supports both then although they appear consistent with regards their duty of care vis-a-vis individual members, BALPA's stance really mucks up the interests of its membership base as a whole, who are now employed in an industry that doesn't have any logic to its working hours provisions. There is no guiding policy (such as safety, legitimate expectations) underlying BALPA's overall approach!
Although you've raised some very valid issues, what you may not have factored in is also the cost to the airline or retraining the employee who has returned from maternity leave. Presumably Mrs Starmer, having been off for 19 months (can anyone confirm this) still needs to remain current on her ratings and so the airline would have had to pay for this even when she did not fly. Equally, upon returning to work the airline would have to pay for re-training sessions even though she would not be working.
Tallbloke and Dave Fielding:
I'm really interested to understand the dynamics of BALPA's duty, and who it owes it to. Dave F's original post suggested that BALPA will support ANY pilot whose case against their employer stands more than a 50% chance of success. This suggests BALPA owes a duty to individual members, rather than members at large. What if, however, the majority of members are against action, as in this case?
I would be surprised if BALPA didn't take their wider duty into consideration before supporting legal action - Dave, could you clarify this point? The logical conclusion of BALPA's stance (unless I am wrong) is that its internal policies may be inconsistent: what if BALPA supports Pilot A in one case and Pilot B in another, but the substance of both disputes are contradictory:
Consider, for example:
Pilot A: Female pilot, who wants 50% working hours to look after her child. Big Bad Employer won't let her.
Pilot B: Male pilot whose employer, having employed him in 2001, has his contract cut to 50% to plug a gap left after a female employee took maternity leave. Pilot B wants to take action on the basis that he expected more than 50% hours.
Both cases are pretty arguable - and stand a 50% chance of success. But if BALPA supports both then although they appear consistent with regards their duty of care vis-a-vis individual members, BALPA's stance really mucks up the interests of its membership base as a whole, who are now employed in an industry that doesn't have any logic to its working hours provisions. There is no guiding policy (such as safety, legitimate expectations) underlying BALPA's overall approach!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The 51st State
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
British Airways and Balpa, my two favourite organisations. I cannot believe Balpa is going against "the Master".
Some interesting points raised, some very amusing indeed. At least I now understand a bit more about Balpa's seemingly random support of the membership.
I think the subject raises a number of issues:
Economics and the financial viability of any company in Western Europe is decreasing due to increasing amount of employee legislation. People in the UK are very expensive to employ, so it is unlikely that any company that does not "flag out" will survive. Not that Balpa will have much stomach for that particular fight.
I'm glad that it has finally been proven that there is no correlation between experience and flight safety. Now maybe BA can do away with the 3000 hours rule for command and the ATPL requirement for long haul. Maybe BA could promote the first 200 hour 747 Captain.
Gender is irrelevant to this case. The percentage of female pilots, male pilots, or vegetarian pilots is not an issue. Just like you can't force the under 25's to a Tony Christie concert, or force inner city minorities to wander the hills of the Lake District. Maybe female have more sense than males, cos being a pilot ruins your health, your life, and your wealth. You have to be nuts to want to do it. Women are just too pragmatic.
Last point, when did BA start having high standards? I think you will find that the reason for the "unique" SOP's is that they cater for the lower end of the ability spectrum. BA has plenty of safety data which causes concern. I am dissappointed that Balpa holds safety in such low esteem.
Harry
Some interesting points raised, some very amusing indeed. At least I now understand a bit more about Balpa's seemingly random support of the membership.
I think the subject raises a number of issues:
Economics and the financial viability of any company in Western Europe is decreasing due to increasing amount of employee legislation. People in the UK are very expensive to employ, so it is unlikely that any company that does not "flag out" will survive. Not that Balpa will have much stomach for that particular fight.
I'm glad that it has finally been proven that there is no correlation between experience and flight safety. Now maybe BA can do away with the 3000 hours rule for command and the ATPL requirement for long haul. Maybe BA could promote the first 200 hour 747 Captain.
Gender is irrelevant to this case. The percentage of female pilots, male pilots, or vegetarian pilots is not an issue. Just like you can't force the under 25's to a Tony Christie concert, or force inner city minorities to wander the hills of the Lake District. Maybe female have more sense than males, cos being a pilot ruins your health, your life, and your wealth. You have to be nuts to want to do it. Women are just too pragmatic.
Last point, when did BA start having high standards? I think you will find that the reason for the "unique" SOP's is that they cater for the lower end of the ability spectrum. BA has plenty of safety data which causes concern. I am dissappointed that Balpa holds safety in such low esteem.
Harry
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alex Whittingham - sorry to say that the utopia you refer to does not exist. THE EMPLOYER pays the SMP and SPP and only gets a percentage back. As for SSP etc there is no refund at all. It should also to be noted that for smaller companies (not BA of course) the cost of employing substitute staff and training them etc is a very onerous and real cost which the "equalists" dont seem to want to know about.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,806
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry WorkingHard. I spoke from my own experience without checking as carefully as I should. Employers eligible for 'small employers relief' (me) are refunded 100% of SMP and SPP plus an additional 4.5% to cover NI contributrions. Larger employers are apparently refunded at a rate of 92% of the payments made. The point still stands, though, the cost of SMP to even a large employer is relatively small and should be calculated as part of the overall hidden cost of employment.
I didn't mention SSP. That's really a different issue.
I didn't mention SSP. That's really a different issue.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In a nice house
Posts: 981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do sometimes think we are in the dark ages.
Women have children, yes. If they didn't, the human race wouldn't last very long.
Sometimes men want children, but of course its their wives who have to take time off from their jobs because most airlines have a regulation that grounds pregnant pilots. This has nothing to do with JAA or CAA rules or safety, because pregnant pilots can fly if medically fit.
So are we saying that only women in lowly jobs are allowed to have children?
Or that if a couple, both pilots, both want children, can't have them?
If a male pilot wants to go part-time to look after the kids, great.
I believe this kind of court case helps both male and female pilots to get part-time work if they need it. Why BA can't manage two pilots rosters to ensure that one is always at home I don't know. Perhaps they don't want to.
I think its a little bit harsh to say that Jessica is costing BA a fortune. I thought BA Cadets had to pay back their training through their lower pay scales. If BA were a bit more enlightened then they could have had a policy in place to allow for part-time working based on need, and this could be for a certain period of time, say the first 5 years of a child's life, so that when the child is at school full-time, the pilot can come back to work full-time.
I think its a bit chauvinistic to say that only women want children and that women must give up their careers for the next 30 years just because the employer doesn't want to give a bit of flexibility.
Perhaps someone can confirm whether BA's training costs are recouped during the period of lower pay at the start of the cadet pilot's career? It seems that many people here see the fact that BA have paid for the initial training to be the main factor. Jessica is still young. She will no doubt end up giving BA around 30 years, mainly full time with some part time. Surely that still justifies the cost?
On a final point, if you are a male pilot and you go sailing, or skiing, or wake boarding, or riding your motorbike a bit fast, and you have an accident and cannot work, is that your fault? I mean, it was your choice to do the activity, and why should your employer now have to fork out more training costs to train someone else in your position?
Women have children, yes. If they didn't, the human race wouldn't last very long.
Sometimes men want children, but of course its their wives who have to take time off from their jobs because most airlines have a regulation that grounds pregnant pilots. This has nothing to do with JAA or CAA rules or safety, because pregnant pilots can fly if medically fit.
So are we saying that only women in lowly jobs are allowed to have children?
Or that if a couple, both pilots, both want children, can't have them?
If a male pilot wants to go part-time to look after the kids, great.
I believe this kind of court case helps both male and female pilots to get part-time work if they need it. Why BA can't manage two pilots rosters to ensure that one is always at home I don't know. Perhaps they don't want to.
I think its a little bit harsh to say that Jessica is costing BA a fortune. I thought BA Cadets had to pay back their training through their lower pay scales. If BA were a bit more enlightened then they could have had a policy in place to allow for part-time working based on need, and this could be for a certain period of time, say the first 5 years of a child's life, so that when the child is at school full-time, the pilot can come back to work full-time.
I think its a bit chauvinistic to say that only women want children and that women must give up their careers for the next 30 years just because the employer doesn't want to give a bit of flexibility.
Perhaps someone can confirm whether BA's training costs are recouped during the period of lower pay at the start of the cadet pilot's career? It seems that many people here see the fact that BA have paid for the initial training to be the main factor. Jessica is still young. She will no doubt end up giving BA around 30 years, mainly full time with some part time. Surely that still justifies the cost?
On a final point, if you are a male pilot and you go sailing, or skiing, or wake boarding, or riding your motorbike a bit fast, and you have an accident and cannot work, is that your fault? I mean, it was your choice to do the activity, and why should your employer now have to fork out more training costs to train someone else in your position?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Keynsham, spelt k e .......
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave,
I have been a (male) member of BALPA for 34 years and I have to state that I wish to remain associated with an organisation which will stand up for those whose entitlements are not being honoured - well done.
I have been a (male) member of BALPA for 34 years and I have to state that I wish to remain associated with an organisation which will stand up for those whose entitlements are not being honoured - well done.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: the boot
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Food for though:
in ITALY we sure have the worst FTL (and flag carrier...) but at least we lead the way in this subject:
once pregnant you are not fit to fly, company has to pay sick leave and you can go on part time disregarding your gender for the first 5 years of the child.
Cheers
in ITALY we sure have the worst FTL (and flag carrier...) but at least we lead the way in this subject:
once pregnant you are not fit to fly, company has to pay sick leave and you can go on part time disregarding your gender for the first 5 years of the child.
Cheers
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Denmark
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus Girl
Agree totally ! All other is step a backwards towards stoneage ! Other industries take on the responsability to ensure future-asset number 1 of modern society , Airlines does for most jobs, but not Flight deck ... why?
Agree totally ! All other is step a backwards towards stoneage ! Other industries take on the responsability to ensure future-asset number 1 of modern society , Airlines does for most jobs, but not Flight deck ... why?
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In 1989 a KLM 747 got 4 engines stuffed by volcanic ash over Alaska. The Second Officer was the pilot flying. Visibility inside the cockpit and out was minimal. The engines stooped, the crew had to don masks. At 13000 ft the SO managed to restart 2 of the engines.
She had demonstrated great piloting skills and was the company hero.
When I met her some years later, she was a 737 Captain desperately trying to combine flying and raising kids toghether with her pilot husband. KLM made life as hard as possible for them, and in the end she gave up flying because of the company's refusal to grant part-time to either of the parents.
The kind of outcome many ppruners seem to advocate, if posts right here and on the other thread are anything to go by?
Since then, the law has changed in Holland. And KLM has understood that it's way of dealing with the issues of pilots becoming parents wasn't financially smart.
Too late for the girl that saved the 747 over Alaska though.
Tallbloke, both make and female pilots are entitled to PTW for a longish but limited time when they become parents. As Virga says, 75% or 68% or 50%. After that, and production allowing, they can opt for permanently working a lower percentage.
A very large percentage of our 737 pilots work some form of part time. Male and female, they like to see their kids grow up and choose to earn less for the privilege of spending more time at home. (short haul schedules being what they are these days all over Europe, a full time pilot or CC is home 2 days a week).
We haven't had a significant decrease in safety as a result, and we do have both female and male pilots who happily combine parenthood with being a short haul slave.
She had demonstrated great piloting skills and was the company hero.
When I met her some years later, she was a 737 Captain desperately trying to combine flying and raising kids toghether with her pilot husband. KLM made life as hard as possible for them, and in the end she gave up flying because of the company's refusal to grant part-time to either of the parents.
The kind of outcome many ppruners seem to advocate, if posts right here and on the other thread are anything to go by?
Since then, the law has changed in Holland. And KLM has understood that it's way of dealing with the issues of pilots becoming parents wasn't financially smart.
Too late for the girl that saved the 747 over Alaska though.
Tallbloke, both make and female pilots are entitled to PTW for a longish but limited time when they become parents. As Virga says, 75% or 68% or 50%. After that, and production allowing, they can opt for permanently working a lower percentage.
A very large percentage of our 737 pilots work some form of part time. Male and female, they like to see their kids grow up and choose to earn less for the privilege of spending more time at home. (short haul schedules being what they are these days all over Europe, a full time pilot or CC is home 2 days a week).
We haven't had a significant decrease in safety as a result, and we do have both female and male pilots who happily combine parenthood with being a short haul slave.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: is a point of view
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't the clear problem as pointed out earlier; the fact that this whole part-time issue was fought out on sex-discrimination ? i am all for the fact that someone go's part-time but the problem is more...
[list=a]it should be equally possible for men and woman!
How come there is so much talk about equality while the grounds for the claim lay at un-equality
i can see that an airline could object when a pilot who is just about to earn theire share, is to abruptly "stop flying" there could be a clause that they should pay back a part of the training when pregnant within the first xx period
BALPA should fight for a industry wide ruling on these cases, clearly the victory of the mentioned female pilot was personal and gain oriented. (in my limited view)[/list=a]
Pointer
All for One and None for All
[list=a]it should be equally possible for men and woman!
How come there is so much talk about equality while the grounds for the claim lay at un-equality
i can see that an airline could object when a pilot who is just about to earn theire share, is to abruptly "stop flying" there could be a clause that they should pay back a part of the training when pregnant within the first xx period
BALPA should fight for a industry wide ruling on these cases, clearly the victory of the mentioned female pilot was personal and gain oriented. (in my limited view)[/list=a]
Pointer
All for One and None for All
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bucks
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear All
Some extrememly interesting postings and I think it is a credit to everyone that the debate is balanced and reasonable. All those rumours about Pprune appear to be unfounded. Well, in this thread at least.
To answer the points which haven't already been answered by others (apologies for not putting names to points):
management-related duties
I would be very wary of running this argument. The CAA makes reference only to hours of experience and the number of take-offs and landings in a given period. This was all the tribunal focussed on. To start arguing that a related activity counted towards recency / experience would muddy the waters to an impossible degree. Hours are as good a measure of experience as we have: our problem with BA was that they mixed up the absolute (number of hours) with the relative (percentage of a full-time roster)
the rights of the few
Such is the way advances are made in employment terms and conditions. It is necessary for a responsible association such as BALPA to recognise such issues and support them. This requires leadership, which sometimes entails opening the membership's eyes to what is possible. I give you an example: PTW is now accepted by most (at least) as a necesssary part of life. Enshrined in legislation and written into company policies globally, albeit in an imperfect way sometimes. BA Flight Ops has only had PTW since November 2000, if you can believe it, and in the early years very, very few pilots took up any form of PTW at all. They were in a tiny, tiny minority. It was BALPA who, in conjunction with a brave female member, sponsored, wrote, and negotiated that agreement which is now enjoyed by a significant percentage of th BA pilot workforce. Hopefully, post October 2006, it will be enjoyed by many more.
If we had run some form of consultative ballot on negotiating a PTW agreement which so far has only benefitted a small minority, would we have received support in 2000? Sometimes, you have to keep your eyes on the bigger picture. This case has veered occasionallly to the personal. It should not do. The principle of greater PTW access for all, plus intelligent and tailored working round of individual requirements, is what we are aiming for.
19 months off
This is correct, though it was technicallly 19 months off flying. BA grounds its females once they declare they are pregnant, and pays them an average of the previous 3 months' allowances on top of the basic wage. Very much hit and miss as to whether you were on leave, on a course, sick etc in those 3 months. The implications go further, as SMP is 90% of this figure. BA, along with all the other UK airlines as far as we can gather (unless anyone tells us otherwise) pays the bare legal minimum of 6 weeks SMP. This is despite the fact that you haven't a chance of seeing a CAA doctor about getting your ticket back for a minimum of 8 weeks after the birth, and BA Health Services themselves recommend that you do not fly for a minimum of 9 weeks after the birth. In terms of benchmarking, for jobs of comparable qualifications and remuneration, 6 weeks is way behind the mark. The RAF, for example, pays 14 weeks (from memory). Our european competitors pay even more, as I'm sure our colleagues will attest to.
Flying is in many ways one of the last bastions of male chauvanism. There is much work to do to drag its maternity handling up to levels of T&Cs enjoyed by our female pilot's peers in other jobs.
why didn't she have her children before joining BA?
Interesting: since when has BA - or any other employer for that matter - been into family planning? You can't have it both ways. Here, and elsewhere, the argument against Jessica is that it is her right to choose to have children, so she should just accept what she is given. Yet at the same time she is told variously to have her children before she joins, or only after a certain amount of time in the airline, or not at all (let's not go there) or space them out a bit so she can get lots of flying inbetween. We either let nature take its course and work round it, or we go down a road which to me at least seems faintly Orwellian. She either has the freedom to choose, or not at all. And do we really want the latter?
BA and BALPA ignoring the real world
The plight of the smaller companies is always a difficult one. It is far easier to absorb the disruption caused by maternity in a large organisation, particularly one where the job is not person-centered but rather seat-centered (ie exactly the same job is done but by different people. Most unusual in skilled professions). I have plenty of friends who either run or are part of small companies who have detailed to me at length in our discussions over the case just how difficult it is. All I can say is that case law hammered out in the big companies should make life easier for those in the smaller ones who perhaps do not have the luxury of resources or lack or persecution for sticking your head above the parapet and fighting these cases. Like it or not, BA is traditionally an industry leader, and we should not be shy of setting precedents which can be used by others.
Like I say, I have never worked for a small company and my exposure is restricted to my years of conversations and friendship with BALPA colleagues in the smaller carriers. I hesitate to tread in this area, as you can imagine. I am keen to hear how you all think what we are doing in BA could impact for better or worse on the rest of the industry.
paying back training costs
BA recoups much of the traning costs it puts into cadets in two ways:
1) by reducing starting salaries over the first 5 years, and
2) getting the cadets to pay back a proportion of their training costs out of their pay packets every month for the first 5 years. This is pro-rated for PTW, but from memory I think the upper limit is 7 years. Therefore, on a 50% contract, Jessica will suffer financially more than a more senior pilot changing to a 50% PTW.
"I don't see why women should be treated differently"
This is a common complaint and one I think is the most difficult for males to comprehend. As has been stated in this forum elsewhere, it is a universally-accepted fact in law that females are more likely to be the primary carer and that reasonable adjustments must be made to accommodate this. Jessica's ET, in their ruling, stated that:
Inconsistant BALPA processes
Bazzaman (? Go to IST a lot do you?) - the answer to your question is that the NEC are the ultimate arbiters of any decision as to proceed with a case. They are the ones who will take advice to ensure consistancy of approach. As has been helpfully pointed out in this thread, imagine the scenario flipped round. Under what circumstances can you see the NEC overturning the considered opinion of both our own LAP and also our lawyers? There would be a riot. I would suggest it would have to be a very special and politically impossible case for the NEC to refuse to take it. Can you imagine the fallout? I can't actually think of a scenario where they would refuse it, though I'm open to suggestions.
I'd also love to argue you point about the two cases, but I can't understand why a pilot would be forced to work less to cover for a colleague who was absent on maternity.
Finally, thank you to all who have expressed their support for Jessica and BALPA. Much appreciated, and I confess that the fears I had about coming onto this forum have proved unfounded. Thanks you. The debate that has flowed from the case has certainly been healthy and, I think, a good thing for our industry.
Best wishes
Dave
Some extrememly interesting postings and I think it is a credit to everyone that the debate is balanced and reasonable. All those rumours about Pprune appear to be unfounded. Well, in this thread at least.
To answer the points which haven't already been answered by others (apologies for not putting names to points):
management-related duties
I would be very wary of running this argument. The CAA makes reference only to hours of experience and the number of take-offs and landings in a given period. This was all the tribunal focussed on. To start arguing that a related activity counted towards recency / experience would muddy the waters to an impossible degree. Hours are as good a measure of experience as we have: our problem with BA was that they mixed up the absolute (number of hours) with the relative (percentage of a full-time roster)
the rights of the few
Such is the way advances are made in employment terms and conditions. It is necessary for a responsible association such as BALPA to recognise such issues and support them. This requires leadership, which sometimes entails opening the membership's eyes to what is possible. I give you an example: PTW is now accepted by most (at least) as a necesssary part of life. Enshrined in legislation and written into company policies globally, albeit in an imperfect way sometimes. BA Flight Ops has only had PTW since November 2000, if you can believe it, and in the early years very, very few pilots took up any form of PTW at all. They were in a tiny, tiny minority. It was BALPA who, in conjunction with a brave female member, sponsored, wrote, and negotiated that agreement which is now enjoyed by a significant percentage of th BA pilot workforce. Hopefully, post October 2006, it will be enjoyed by many more.
If we had run some form of consultative ballot on negotiating a PTW agreement which so far has only benefitted a small minority, would we have received support in 2000? Sometimes, you have to keep your eyes on the bigger picture. This case has veered occasionallly to the personal. It should not do. The principle of greater PTW access for all, plus intelligent and tailored working round of individual requirements, is what we are aiming for.
19 months off
This is correct, though it was technicallly 19 months off flying. BA grounds its females once they declare they are pregnant, and pays them an average of the previous 3 months' allowances on top of the basic wage. Very much hit and miss as to whether you were on leave, on a course, sick etc in those 3 months. The implications go further, as SMP is 90% of this figure. BA, along with all the other UK airlines as far as we can gather (unless anyone tells us otherwise) pays the bare legal minimum of 6 weeks SMP. This is despite the fact that you haven't a chance of seeing a CAA doctor about getting your ticket back for a minimum of 8 weeks after the birth, and BA Health Services themselves recommend that you do not fly for a minimum of 9 weeks after the birth. In terms of benchmarking, for jobs of comparable qualifications and remuneration, 6 weeks is way behind the mark. The RAF, for example, pays 14 weeks (from memory). Our european competitors pay even more, as I'm sure our colleagues will attest to.
Flying is in many ways one of the last bastions of male chauvanism. There is much work to do to drag its maternity handling up to levels of T&Cs enjoyed by our female pilot's peers in other jobs.
why didn't she have her children before joining BA?
Interesting: since when has BA - or any other employer for that matter - been into family planning? You can't have it both ways. Here, and elsewhere, the argument against Jessica is that it is her right to choose to have children, so she should just accept what she is given. Yet at the same time she is told variously to have her children before she joins, or only after a certain amount of time in the airline, or not at all (let's not go there) or space them out a bit so she can get lots of flying inbetween. We either let nature take its course and work round it, or we go down a road which to me at least seems faintly Orwellian. She either has the freedom to choose, or not at all. And do we really want the latter?
BA and BALPA ignoring the real world
The plight of the smaller companies is always a difficult one. It is far easier to absorb the disruption caused by maternity in a large organisation, particularly one where the job is not person-centered but rather seat-centered (ie exactly the same job is done but by different people. Most unusual in skilled professions). I have plenty of friends who either run or are part of small companies who have detailed to me at length in our discussions over the case just how difficult it is. All I can say is that case law hammered out in the big companies should make life easier for those in the smaller ones who perhaps do not have the luxury of resources or lack or persecution for sticking your head above the parapet and fighting these cases. Like it or not, BA is traditionally an industry leader, and we should not be shy of setting precedents which can be used by others.
Like I say, I have never worked for a small company and my exposure is restricted to my years of conversations and friendship with BALPA colleagues in the smaller carriers. I hesitate to tread in this area, as you can imagine. I am keen to hear how you all think what we are doing in BA could impact for better or worse on the rest of the industry.
paying back training costs
BA recoups much of the traning costs it puts into cadets in two ways:
1) by reducing starting salaries over the first 5 years, and
2) getting the cadets to pay back a proportion of their training costs out of their pay packets every month for the first 5 years. This is pro-rated for PTW, but from memory I think the upper limit is 7 years. Therefore, on a 50% contract, Jessica will suffer financially more than a more senior pilot changing to a 50% PTW.
"I don't see why women should be treated differently"
This is a common complaint and one I think is the most difficult for males to comprehend. As has been stated in this forum elsewhere, it is a universally-accepted fact in law that females are more likely to be the primary carer and that reasonable adjustments must be made to accommodate this. Jessica's ET, in their ruling, stated that:
we accept that women in our society generally have the day to day primary responsibility for childcare
Bazzaman (? Go to IST a lot do you?) - the answer to your question is that the NEC are the ultimate arbiters of any decision as to proceed with a case. They are the ones who will take advice to ensure consistancy of approach. As has been helpfully pointed out in this thread, imagine the scenario flipped round. Under what circumstances can you see the NEC overturning the considered opinion of both our own LAP and also our lawyers? There would be a riot. I would suggest it would have to be a very special and politically impossible case for the NEC to refuse to take it. Can you imagine the fallout? I can't actually think of a scenario where they would refuse it, though I'm open to suggestions.
I'd also love to argue you point about the two cases, but I can't understand why a pilot would be forced to work less to cover for a colleague who was absent on maternity.
Finally, thank you to all who have expressed their support for Jessica and BALPA. Much appreciated, and I confess that the fears I had about coming onto this forum have proved unfounded. Thanks you. The debate that has flowed from the case has certainly been healthy and, I think, a good thing for our industry.
Best wishes
Dave
PPRuNe Supporter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Devon, UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Dave,
Do you think operators are more or less likely to hire female pilots after this tribunal? What are the chances of getting to interview now? The outcome of this case has ramifications beyond present BA BALPA members.
Do you think that the outcome is supported by the majority of union members?
Personally I was actively trying to join BALPA earlier this year, a process I have put on hold, mostly because of this case.
Do you think operators are more or less likely to hire female pilots after this tribunal? What are the chances of getting to interview now? The outcome of this case has ramifications beyond present BA BALPA members.
Do you think that the outcome is supported by the majority of union members?
Personally I was actively trying to join BALPA earlier this year, a process I have put on hold, mostly because of this case.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Heart of Darkness
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK...let's put it in straight and simple terms...The pilot market is one of the toughest careers on offer...we undertake the training often at huge cost with no guarantees of a solid future....to get into the 'Flag-Carrier' a pilot has to be above average and totally commited...
The fact is that most males will feel ( I think justifiably ) miffed at a creature ( male or female ) coming into the industryand taking a seat from a pilot who would feel privilaged to have the job and needs to support a family....and then treats it as a convenience ....comes and goes as it suits them...
Airbus girl....If you think that getting pregnant equates to a motorcycle accident I suggest you get some advice on contraception before it's too late...
The fact is that most males will feel ( I think justifiably ) miffed at a creature ( male or female ) coming into the industryand taking a seat from a pilot who would feel privilaged to have the job and needs to support a family....and then treats it as a convenience ....comes and goes as it suits them...
Airbus girl....If you think that getting pregnant equates to a motorcycle accident I suggest you get some advice on contraception before it's too late...
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: England.
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO.....
(1) -- Airlines, certainly those without the size advantages of BA, or their scruples, will now discriminate (though, obviously, not openly) against women. Men will be recruited in favour of women. Such practise is easily concealed under several categories of excuse.
(2) -- Existing female pilots (outside BA, as above) may now suffer discrimination. Again, easily concealed.
(3) -- BALPA will see membership numbers decline as existing and prospective members vote with their feet against this misuse of resources. Legal Insurance schemes will blossom, that being the only reason a vast number of BALPA members are in BALPA to start with.
(1) -- Airlines, certainly those without the size advantages of BA, or their scruples, will now discriminate (though, obviously, not openly) against women. Men will be recruited in favour of women. Such practise is easily concealed under several categories of excuse.
(2) -- Existing female pilots (outside BA, as above) may now suffer discrimination. Again, easily concealed.
(3) -- BALPA will see membership numbers decline as existing and prospective members vote with their feet against this misuse of resources. Legal Insurance schemes will blossom, that being the only reason a vast number of BALPA members are in BALPA to start with.