Jessica Starmer - BALPA's view (Update - Appeal decision)

[MikeGodsell]

My BALPA membership is cancelled from today.

Should I or any member of my family travel by BA airbus, we will off-load ourselves in the unlikely event of the aircraft being flown by Jessica Starmer.

MG

[Helli-Gurl]

suppose the main thing an employer looks for in an employee is the ability to actually be at work, to do the job they were hired to do

Precisely Harry, after this case thanks to Jessica employers are going to see us as a liability and when we go to interviews for jobs and don't get them are BALPA going to be there ensuring we're not being treated unjustly? Do BALPA monitor companies interview/selection to ensure everyone is treated fairly?

I don't think so!

Next they'll be taking the vote off us!

[wiggy]

African Drunk

" If the pilot in question was male, wanting to look after his children, would this ruling help them"

I think the official answer that has been peddled "elsewhere" is that one day it may, indeed in his first posting here DF stated the effects of such rulings "more than likely filters down in time".. ......... so that's alright then.

What is needed now of course is for a case such as you describe to present itself immediately. I'm sure we would then see BALPA backing it with all the enthusiasm it backed the "Jessica" case, making sure TV cameras were present at New Road when the verdict was announced, etc

[CaptainFillosan]

This thread, and the other one, are getting true feelings emerging again. And why not? We are each entitled to an opinion - for what its worth - and I am seriously concerned, and I hoped FL would answer it, that this tribunal was made up of non-flying non aviation 'experts' with an opinion! I cannot stand back and like that.

I think it is bang out of order and, as far as I know, they were in NO position to understand the scene in which we live. Being represented by BALPA has not much credence either because my senses tell me that the tribunal were swayed toward M/s Starmer - via BALPA. BA have many rights to sanctify here too and I reckon that BALPA have come out of this very badly.

I truly believe that this case was badly thought out and should not have been bought - my opinion you understand. But I hope BA win the appeal because they deserve to.

[Cruise Alt]

The easy soloution for BA:

The way it was done while I was instructing to get the hours required for my CV to be even read by an airline (just about the same as JS's total now) and, I believe the way Low Costs want to do it:

1: Pilots paid by the hour for their duty (allowances) + flying equivilent to current salary at say 800 hours flown.

2: Pilots pay for all their check flights / sims.

3: Pilots pay for their own training.

4. Pilots pay for any recurrent / additional training needed.

5. Pilots pay for their own benefits ie health care.

6. Leave Pro rata on hours flown.

7. Seniority based on hours flown in the company.

This solves the problem completely. BA pays a high enough hourly rate so that at, say, 800 hours a year the pay remains the same take home as before. It is then entirely up to the pilot how much they wish to work. No one is disadvantaged by someone not working as much as they are.

[Dave Fielding]

hours
I'll still be careful, but I haven't come here to dodge tricky issues. That would be defeating the object of being here. Our point about hours is that whilst they are as good a measure as we have, they should not be the only one. For example, there are minimum hours requirements set down for command, but merely achieving the hours does not guarantee you the LHS. You have to pass the course first, which comes down to individual ability.

Now, you could argue that the logic of the 2000 threshold says "achieve the hours and then we'll make an assessement of whether you are safe." This is a position not without logic. However, our argument is that BA have produced no data to back this figure up, and neither, incidentally, has anyone on any forum I have participated in. The whole safety argument revolves around one thing: a judgement call. And a call based on no data.

Two vital points flow from this:

1) for 10 years in the 1990s, BA quite happily had its brand new cadet pilots on the Airbus averaging an annual total of about 470 hours, or roughly 67% of what the co-pilots are flying now. That's a lot of data which actually proves that it would appear safe to fly at less than 75% at under 2000hours. BA did not challenge this evidence in the tribunal

2) in its findings, the tribunal noted (para65) that "a larger proportion of women than men within the pool work at both 75% and 50% of full time. The difference increases to be a considerable one as the further one moves from full time through 75% to 50%". In other words, when you get into the 50% zone, the proportion of females to males is very large. There are approximately the same number of males as females on 50% contracts in BA, yet there are 18 times more men than women.

THEREFORE, any restriction on the granting of 50% which does not have sufficient justification (and the tribunal said the BA had not produced any evidence to justify it) must have a significantly bigger impact on females than males, and thus is discriminatory.

Hope I haven't dodged any tricky areas there....

personal attacks
Hmmm. of course people have a right to express their feelings, but when they become rude and insulting I have to start questioning it. On this page of the thread alone we have two comments:

a) "[Yossarian] coincidently was a character who didn't want to fly"
b) "someone as seemly as full as themselves as JS"

Now, have either of these people making these comments met Jessica? On what basis are they making these personal attacks? What is it adding to the debate? I wonder how these people would feel if someone else made such comments about them in public based on a small slice of the story without, apparently, thinking a little more about it. And by that I mean, has anybody on this forum ever taken their employer to court? Have any of you any idea what a trauma it is? Does anyone seriously think that Jessica woke up one morning and thought "I fancy a bit more than 75% so I'll take BA to court"? She did so because she was staring down the barrel of having to give up the job she loves and has dreamt about and worked for since she was a little girl. If she really doesn't want to fly and isn't committed, why didn't she just walk away? " I resign" are two very easy words, and a lot easier than everything she has gone through over the past year.

This is as near to emotion as I will get on this forum, because long experience has taught me that data wins arguments and emotion loses them. I am breaking no confidences when I tell you that the layout of the tribunal room meant that when you sat in the witness seat and answered questions from BA's counsel, over their shoulder was sitting the ranks of the senior management in BA Flight Ops. You are 26 years old, the nation's media are outside and indeed inside the tribunal, and you are looking your big, big boss in the eye and taking them to court. It is stressful beyond belief. Believe me, I sat in that seat after Jessica to give evidence.

Contrary to certain opinions, Jessica is not a silly little girl, nor is she greedy and self-seeking. She is a highly-intelligent, quiet and unassuming young lady who would far rather not be doing this. She also happens to be a very good pilot, as her training record in BA plus her status as a national standard glider pilot shows. She is doing what she is doing to save her dream. Taking your employer to tribunal is no cake walk, and there has to be a very good reason to do so. BALPA's stringent mechanisms would not allow us to support any case which does not have a greater than 50% chance of winning. I would ask you to bear this in mind when coming to any judgement about Jessica's character, and furthermore ask what such judgements bring to the debate.

PTW / reserve
You are correct. Work is ongoing to look at this issue, as an ever-increasing reserve burden is falling on an ever-decreasing pool of full-time pilots. This is a situation which cannot be sustained.

PTW / seniority
All arguments about the rate of moving up the seniority list as a PTW are, I'm afraid, irrelevant. You cannot be disadvantaged in your status by being PT, and moving up the list more slowly would deny you promotion opportunities, which is illegal.

Setting back the cause of females in the industry
This statement has been made several times, and I think it is probably worth expanding this argument. Can you detail please exactly why this case will be to the detriment of females, going into as much depth as you can, and we'll try and have the debate around these points rather than broad opinions. This isn't a dig - it is a genuine attempt to work through the issue because I think it is important.

OK, off to have a day in the garden (it's Bank holiday, the sun is shining, and I'm inside defending Jessica. What does that tell you? Yes OK, I need a life...)

Dave

[sammypilot]

Dave,

In Flying Lawyers summary of the judgement, it was mentioned that Mrs. Starmer was away from flying for 19 months using leave and, to quote, "other means" to extend her period of absence. I have asked this before but it hasn't been answered. Are we ever likely to know what those "other means" were or do you feel unable to disclose them?

[Tallbloke]

Can you detail please exactly why this case will be to the detriment of females

Come on Dave don't be so naive. It is well known that recruiters get sent hundreds of CV's and that a great many of these are sorted in a fairly arbitrary way ie by school, modular / integrated, young/old etc. none of which have anything to do with experience and ability. Who is to say employers are not now more likely put applications from women on the same pile as the older modular applicants? It might well be as illegal as the ageism but how would you prove it is taking place? I agree it will probably have less effect on female BALPA members, but if an environment is created where employers are less likely to hire women in the first place, then the number of female members will decline, which is the opposite of what everyone would want.

[Omark44]

Having myself experienced being off work for nearly six weeks due to illness, following twenty four years of continuous flying, I would have thought that after nineteen months away from work such an enormous break in continuity and consolidation, following an obviously very limited overall experience of flying, Mrs Starmer would have required complete retraining, starting at just a little on the up side of first solo.

[Heliport]

Dave

People will hold different views on whether it's necessary to actually meet someone in order to form a valid opinion about them, or whether an opinion can reasonably be formed based on their behaviour. The old adage 'actions speak louder than words' may have some force. It's true there have been some strong criticisms of her, and it's obviously a matter of opinion whether they are justified, but you might also concede that some of those who condemn her have been commendably restrained in not commenting upon Captain Starmer's personal circumstances when she met him.

Not giving an opinion on the case itself, just setting the record straight on one point -
"You are 26 years old, the nation's media are outside"
The "nation's media" didn't just happen to be passing through Watford. There was no media interest in the claim until BALPA, presumably with the agreement of the (undoubtedly) highly-intelligent and (allegedly) "quiet and unassuming" Mrs Starmer, chose to create it.
BALPA's own website triumphantly gives details of how it very successfully managed to manipulate media coverage, giving the story to the Press "only on the Sunday before the Monday hearing, so that it hit Monday morning’s papers and Monday morning television and radio programmes."
BALPA's Press Release gave Mrs Starmer's side of the argument. Mrs Starmer gave interviews to the Press, and so did the BALPA Officials fighting her case - including you.

BALPA's timing gave BA no chance to give the other side of the argument to the Press before the tribunal started - even if they'd thought that was the right way to go about things.
What would BALPA's reaction have been if BA had released details of her claim and her personal circumstances, and BA's side of the argument, to the Press on the day before the hearing was due to start?

The Press are fickle, and they rarely miss a chance to criticise our industry.
Will the same Press be quite as generous if there's an accident in which one of the pilots is inexperienced low hours part-time - even if the accident has got nothing at all to do with inexperience, low hours part-time?

[Helli-Gurl]

Dave,

I agree totally with Tallbloke, infact wouldn't have put it any differently myself, applications from women now are very likely to be put into the undesirable pile illegal tho this may be and I am sure BALPA wont be monitoring the situation to ensure this doesn't happen, to be honest this really isn't for BALPA to do but having lit the blue touch paper with case BALPA are now involved.

Also how do you plan to take this issue up with the smaller companies ? where this sort of thing is rife.

Not all companies are large enough to tackle this issue like BA, nor do they have large PC HR departments that make sure a cross section of society are interviewed when they apply and in fairness to BA they do go out of their way to ensure they are seeing a selection of candidates from different backgrounds.

In small companies, the CV lands on the bosses desk, he's having a hard day, his one female pilot has called in sick with period pains, he's been reading this thread on PPrune and if the CV he picks up is from a woman, then it gets filed under 'B' for Bin.

I Fly for one of these small companies and have seen it happen , CVs just get dumped in the bin due to age, race, country of origin and sex, withouttheir ability to fly the aircraft or past flying experience ever being taken into account.

The only reason we have two female pilots on the books is that customers sometimes ask for us,it's as simple as that otherwise we would not be there.

It's hard enough getting into flying when you're a woman as by it's nature it's a very male dominated profession and now employers have been handed on a plate the perfect excuse to ease their selection worries.

[bazzaman96]

Dave,

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to reply on these forums: it's good to see BALPA engaging with their members.

I wondered if I could pick up on a few of the points made in your last post, which don't appear to have been addressed in my earlier questions:

1) Setting higher standards

You said "Our point about hours is that whilst they are as good a measure as we have, they should not be the only one. For example, there are minimum hours requirements set down for command, but merely achieving the hours does not guarantee you the LHS. You have to pass the course first, which comes down to individual ability."

BALPA seems to have approached the tribunal with the argument that BA have not adduced evidence that flying 50% hours is unsafe. Whether it is or it is not, can you clarify whether airlines are therefore no longer free to impose stricter standards on their staff than are necessary? Aviation is a career where high standards are expected at all times - does BALPA's argument now mean that provided you meet the minimum criteria, you ought not to be discriminated against? As I asked previously, whatever happened to the idea of striving to excel?

The point is simple: the international consumer sees BA as a flagship airline, with an outstanding safety record. BA sets its own high standards internally. Now that BALPA has stepped in, does this set a precedent indicating the airlines cannot impose stricter requirements over and above the basic threshold required to do a job safely? BA wanted Jessica to work 75%. BALPA said that 50% is just as safe. For BA to impose their super-safe regime it discriminates against Jessica. In other words, BA cannot demand more than others demand, from their staff. Why shouldn't they be able to, given that many people fly with BA because of their image as a very safe and well-regulated airline? I would argue that BALPA's argument hasn't made flying less safe, but has removed the opportunity for airlines to make improve safety by demanding more from their pilots.

2) The Gender Argument

I'd like to stress again that surely this argument isn't a question of men v women, but a question of pregnant women v women. Could you clarify, if I (a man) wanted to adopt a young child, would BALPA support me in requesting 50% working hours? Surely this would be answered in the affirmative: demonstrating that this isn't a gender issue, like others on the forums have argued, confusingly.

Interestingly (and this is purely for interest - it has no bearing on the dispute here!), you may recall that about 8 months ago there were a series of articles in the national press about a UKIP MEP, called Godfrey Bloom, who had got into trouble over remarks he made at an after-dinner speech for Cambridge University Womens's Rugby Club, where he argued that women suffer from discrimination from employers who are reluctant to take them on, knowing full well that many will become pregnant. While I disagree with his and UKIP's position, it's interesting how the entire frenzy over his comments is exactly the subject matter of the discussion here!

3) Helli-Girl's argument: cynicism against women

One final question, more hypothetical. Some people have argued here that this result will harm women in the long term because employers will approach their CVs with cynicism, knowing that many women will, inevitably (if you accept your own comments earlier) have children and therefore take time out. There is no way to know if that is true or not. As a note of caution, however, there is surely the possibility that in 5, 10 years time, when looking at the major airlines in Britain, we see that only 2.9% of pilots are female, and some people attribute that to employer cynicism, when that is not the case. The danger is that if we try and identify the reason why such a low percentage of women become pilots it is easy to mis-identify it as being due to employer cynicism, and by trying to take action against the cynicism of employers, by clamping down on those that do not take enough female pilots, you are in fact employing reverse-discrimination against men and women with no intention of having children. Note that this is a hypothetical situation, but not an altogether unlikely one.

Clearly men and women should have equal rights and more should be done to encourage women to move into aviation, but I just wanted to show that some of the arguments used in this discussion, namely that this result will cause employers to lean towards hiring men, if true, have the potential to actually discriminate against men if organisations such as BALPA take a firm line of preventing employer cynicism, if it doesn't actually exist.

[Harry Wragg]

Dave is obviously an idealist which is very commendable in this day and age. The points he make are perfectly valid and hopelessly unrealistic. In the real world (which seemingly exists outside BA) things are very different. The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions.

I think the fact that BA employees tend to live in this deluded "bubble" world is one of the reasons it has so many problems. Employment legislation, rules, and regulations make BA virtually unmanageable.

Going outside to enjoy the sun is only thing that has made sense so far. So I'm off out.

Harry

[shortly]

Dave, thank you for being game enough to dip your toes in the water here. No real ogres on site, more a group of professional aviators most of whom do not agree with the course Jessica and Balpa would have us take. Now there are only 2.9% ladies in the seats, this issue being so up front at present can only ensure that figure gets smaller. That's one issue, a lawyer would probably recommend legislating in some form of discrimination against men at the selection point to ensure the percentage of females chosen for employment gets larger. Maybe set a minimum % of females in the job by a certain time. It's been done elsewhere. Down go standards. Notwithstanding a couple of earlier posts to the contrary, a professional pilot needs to stay in practice and fly regularly to stay safe. I don't know what that figure in % hours terms would be, and it would vary depending on experience, type of operation and locale, to suggest but a few of the issues involved. Jessica is inexperienced, apparently not really motivated towards flying and has been off the scene for a large chunk of time in the near past. her needs for exposure to operations are probably far higher than say 50%. Balpa has decided to continue pushing this barrow, I don't agree that this issue is so important as to require the expenditure of the resources needed. There are far more important issues in aviation which should be taking up your valuable time. Can I ask you a question, are you a pilot? Would you consider someone without a suitable professional background could really understand what is going on here?

[Hand Solo]

Dave is a short haul Captain with BA.

[Boy]

Approximately 100 years ago in my home city it was extremely rare to see a female studying medicine (too “hysterical” for the job). Now a significant majority of first year medical students at a local university are female. In the U.S. there is a growing problem with encouraging medical students to take up various specialisations that demand too much in terms of time and irregular hours. It is both males and females that express a strong desire to have a family life. They want their lives organised differently and they see this as a lifestyle issue, not a gender issue.

As for aviation, well here it’s apparently back to attitudes of more than 100 years ago. It is 20 plus years since the first of many female pilots joined my airline. I remember the captains who vowed to resign from either the pilots association or airline rather than fly with females who, in their view, were clearly going to be sub-standard pilots. There was much talk of “political correctness” and kitchen sinks. There is simply no doubt that for many pilots this was a step too far. Sincere perhaps, but it was simply a prejudice. This was made clear when it began to dawn on some that many of the ladies were more competent than many of their male colleagues. The reaction of some was far from gallant. The cockpit behaviour of some of the more diehard captains continued until they retired and the stories of very bad behaviour came out later. ( I guess the presence of the females “made them do it”).

Then, of course, there were the inevitable pregnancies and, in this wonderfully male world, we saw the total inability of most pilots to comprehend that women sometimes have babies. Worse, they do so in a manner that is often rather inconvenient from an operational point of view. “I mean, they want time off!” Or, if their airline insists on grounding them, “there they are, at home doing nothing and I am picking up the work”. My observations over this period suggest to me that no data, no rational argument and no discussion of the realities will ever work to persuade those who are just, well, offended - for want of a better word - that women might want to fly AND bring order to their personal lives. No, say the men, if you chose aviation you MUST suffer. You must have your children at a convenient time, you must take the employers needs into account, you must live closer to the airport, etc., etc. Then there are those who say, quite seriously, “if you wanted to have a family you should chosen another job”.

Let’s get real here. This is about basic ignorance, or prejudice. Arguments about minimum hours of flying, distraction, etc. are advanced by those who frequently seem to forget that absolutely similar arguments can be made about male pilots who, for example, engage in various non-flying duties. In fact, many of the arguments made against female pilots have a parallel with analogous situations in which men find the arrangements acceptable. For example, we have pilots in many airlines operating 50% flying, half a line, or whatever. Make that a female pilot flying 50% so as to have time with her children and we suddenly have a safety argument. We even have professional pilots in this thread announcing that 50% flying is unsafe and one stating that he and his family will never fly with a particular pilot, whom he names … I mean what kind of nonsense is this? Not EVER? Are there no questions to be asked? Is this the attitude of someone who is in the slightest interested in facts, or what currency arrangements have been made to take account of the situation? In fact is it the attitude of someone who is actually interested in anything other than his point of view? (perhaps a distant echo of the female medical students at the turn of the century who were allegedly hysterical?).

As things stand females are seriously under-represented in airline flight operations. The law of the land makes clear that discrimination on grounds of gender is unacceptable. These are the key facts. It will take time, but ultimately these are the facts that matter. Whether it be BALPA, other organisations or individuals who pursue their entitlements, those entitlement will remain - namely that they not be subject to adverse treatment on the basis of gender.

I admire Dave’s commitment to seeking a fair and rational debate. I wish him luck in dealing with representatives of a profession in which everything from ab initio cadets, low-time pilots to “locals” and females have been deemed “unsuitable” on the grounds of, let’s be honest, prejudice masquerading as safety. As has been demonstrated in the past few decades, if you have a will, such safety issues as arise can be dealt with in any operational area. Dealing with pilot attitudes is clearly somewhat more problematic.

[PPRuNe Pop]

Hand solo I think your comment is inappropiate and therefore irrelevant. Dave Fielding has been good enough to join the debate and is entitled to anonimity in regards to his day job and you, I suggest, were wrong in displaying it here. Perhaps you would be good enough to reconsider your post.

[Big Hilly]

Hand solo, I agree entirely with PPRuNe Pop's post. Your post contributes nothing to the argument of the case. Dave does a great deal of work for Pilots Ts & Cs within BA and a great deal of other work that many on here are unaware of.

He stood up for a fellow employee and has chosen to do so once again on here. . . Maybe, just maybe he deserves to be cut a little slack?

BH

[Dave Fielding]

PPP
Thank you for your kind concern, I appreciate it. However, the fact that I was quoted in the press during the tribunal as being a BA captain, kind of gives the game away. I have no problems with revealing my title and day job. I'm new to this forum, so maybe you tell me if contributors who use their real names regularly get dead rabbits through the letterbox...?

Some very interesting posts since my last. We seem to be drilling nicely into the real issues of the debate - thank you all. I would love to respond in detail but I have a very early report in the morning, so can I leave you for the moment with one question to our female rotary colleague, who makes some very pertinent comments:

given that this case has made headline news across the world, and the situation of female pilots is squarely under the spotlight, do you think that the employer you mention will think twice now about filing that female application in the bin?

Gotta dash

Dave

[Argus]

Boy

We even have professional pilots in this thread announcing that 50% flying is unsafe...

And, pray, why not? If that's their professional opinion, then so be it. And I'll have regard to that opinion.

So why, in your professional opinion, is 50% flying safe?