Jessica Starmer - BALPA's view (Update - Appeal decision)
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave,
You miss the point in 2000 hours. It is not just an hours figure. In the same way you argue that this case is discriminating against women as more of them are part time, the 2000 hours is not a single figure. It is 2000 hours as a full or 75% pilot, which indicates and implies a certain amount of currency and hours per month. This of course excludes leave and sickness, but they are unlikely to be a major factor.
Consider this all those who think 50% is safe. If you have 2 weeks off a month and put those back to back, it equates to month on, month off. Its not nescessarily working 50% of the time. Those guys on the Airbus a few years ago were working thoughout the month, they weren't working in fits and starts. This ensured they had some continuity. Having a month off at a time for 6 months of the year, means you turn up to work for 30ish% of your work very rusty.
Lack of handling and continuity in the longhaul fleets is a problem, that is why the pilots often have to go back in the sim and stay current. This is true industry wide.
I had 2 years off flying a while ago and it is amazing what you forget. The 19 months JS has had off are significant.
As for going to tribunal for the job you love, I do have sympathy with that view. A tribunal is not something you do lightly. However I wonder how much is JS and how much is BALPA pushing and advising. BALPA gave advice to a pilot in the past that led in part to his suicide. That is not something you do lightly either. It can be argued that the advice BALPA gave was a contributory factor in that case. I wonder how the current advice has affected JS. I may well be wrong, but as I state above, I am wondering not judging.
"I resign" is not easier to say than go to a tribunal however. "I resign" deletes 25 years worth of cash, a tribunal even if lost, may only delete a few months cash. Resignation is forever, a tribunal while stressful and unpleasant is a passing thing.
You miss the point in 2000 hours. It is not just an hours figure. In the same way you argue that this case is discriminating against women as more of them are part time, the 2000 hours is not a single figure. It is 2000 hours as a full or 75% pilot, which indicates and implies a certain amount of currency and hours per month. This of course excludes leave and sickness, but they are unlikely to be a major factor.
Consider this all those who think 50% is safe. If you have 2 weeks off a month and put those back to back, it equates to month on, month off. Its not nescessarily working 50% of the time. Those guys on the Airbus a few years ago were working thoughout the month, they weren't working in fits and starts. This ensured they had some continuity. Having a month off at a time for 6 months of the year, means you turn up to work for 30ish% of your work very rusty.
Lack of handling and continuity in the longhaul fleets is a problem, that is why the pilots often have to go back in the sim and stay current. This is true industry wide.
I had 2 years off flying a while ago and it is amazing what you forget. The 19 months JS has had off are significant.
As for going to tribunal for the job you love, I do have sympathy with that view. A tribunal is not something you do lightly. However I wonder how much is JS and how much is BALPA pushing and advising. BALPA gave advice to a pilot in the past that led in part to his suicide. That is not something you do lightly either. It can be argued that the advice BALPA gave was a contributory factor in that case. I wonder how the current advice has affected JS. I may well be wrong, but as I state above, I am wondering not judging.
"I resign" is not easier to say than go to a tribunal however. "I resign" deletes 25 years worth of cash, a tribunal even if lost, may only delete a few months cash. Resignation is forever, a tribunal while stressful and unpleasant is a passing thing.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inconsistant BALPA processes
When 50 retiring captains lost their Christmas Bonus a couple of years ago (even though they all had a letter from their Chief Pilot guaranteeing payment) they approached BALPA for legal support.
BALPA refused to take on the company on behalf of the few (with total time in the company approaching 1700 years,)
Not even a letter was forthcoming from the legal team or the NEC to explain why!
Perhaps the fact that they had retired and would not be offering their 1% to BALPA played a part.
Returning to the thread regarding ONE pilot with three or four years in the company....
Your defense of why she had 17 months off is not convincing. Nine months (assuming she informed the company on the day of conception and was taken off the roster on the same day) plus nine weeks plus a bit of leave falls short of 17 months
It has been far too easy for her. What a shame she doesn't have to pay for her training (the present cost for a frozen ATPL is approaching £85000 plus the odd £15000 for a type rating). That equates to £20,000 after tax each year for five years. Are you really saying that CEP's are paid £20,000 (plus tax) less than the market rate?
I understand she is pregnant again. Another 17 months off. Perhaps she will then ask for your support for a company run creche... Where will it end?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boy
No, it's not.
It's about an exchange of views by people holding different opinions with some excellent contributions by well-informed people on both sides of the divide in both threads on the topic - only occasionally spoilt by people claiming those who don't share their views are ignorant and/or prejudiced.
BTW, part-time working itself wasn't an issue at the Tribunal, according to the judgment. The safety or otherwise of part-time working by relatively inexperienced pilots before they've achieved a certain threshold of experience was. I make no comment on that. If I did, I'd be speaking from a position of ignorance.
Let’s get real here. This is about basic ignorance, or prejudice.
It's about an exchange of views by people holding different opinions with some excellent contributions by well-informed people on both sides of the divide in both threads on the topic - only occasionally spoilt by people claiming those who don't share their views are ignorant and/or prejudiced.
BTW, part-time working itself wasn't an issue at the Tribunal, according to the judgment. The safety or otherwise of part-time working by relatively inexperienced pilots before they've achieved a certain threshold of experience was. I make no comment on that. If I did, I'd be speaking from a position of ignorance.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Argus and Flying Lawyer
And, pray, why not? If that's their professional opinion, then so be it.
An opinion unsupported by facts, logic and argument is worth very little. The sterility of a discussion on this “50%” business is given by the simple question: “50% of what?”. Look at the problems of currency for Ultra Long Haul pilots, or of management pilots, or of those involved in projects, or F/Os in some long-haul airlines who rarely get to handle an aircraft. In some of these cases the big issue is when last did you do a landing, while in others it is when last did you fly. In others it is did you fly in the last 28, 36 or 45 days? In fact is the requirement in the U.S. not to have conducted a Take-off and Landing in the last 90 days? Are the people working in such a fashion unsafe?
In actual fact there are pilots flying a lot, and I mean a lot, less than 50% of the average in their organisation. What also of those airlines with a seriously depressed winter schedule where keeping currency is a problem in the slump months (less of them around these days, but they exist).
In other words, in my eyes your question is not too much different from asking “in your professional opinion how long is a piece of string?”. You need criteria, you need context and you need practical examples to test the guidance you produce when viewed from various extremes. This is no more or less than any Aviation Authority does, or the JAA/FAA do when contemplating regulations.
So when I react to those who say “50% flying is unsafe” I am just saying that half a piece of string is a meaningless measurement. KLM is one of several airlines that has had 50% flying for quite a long time. In your professional opinion have they been unwise for all these decades? If so, what makes your opinion of greater value than their experience?
*****
Flying Lawyer. I accept that there is indeed an argument to be had on the merits and that many contributors have done so. I may also have imported some prejudices to my contribution above from reading the other thread on this subject. That being said, I believe that I could cite quite a lot of material that indicates prejudice – pre-judgment - rather than argument. I don’t think that would be worthwhile or productive but I don’t believe I am mistaken. I hope you might agree. As it appears you are a lawyer perhaps you might care to comment upon the sustainability of some of the arguments here in the light of the relevant legislation? It would appear to me that they would not get very far, especially when you look at how such matters have fared in various businesses outside of aviation.
As regards setting a threshold for part-time working I have no argument.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPRuNe Pop and Big Hilly. If you read the last two sentences of shortlys post you'll see the relevance. As Dave himself points out, his day job was well publicised in the press and is well known within BA. In my opinion his day job only adds credence to his assertion that BAs safety argument is groundless and thus is relevant to the discussion.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer:
My reading of DFs posts and the tribunal report from yourself leads me to believe that this isn't the whole story; AFAIK 'part-time working itself' *was* the core of the initial refusal of 50% and appeal - BA argued that they had to refuse 50% on grounds of lack of resources. Safety was not mentioned, the safety argument was introduced by BA at a later stage as a makeweight, it was *not* the primary reason for refusing 50%.
Is my understanding still defective?
R1
BTW, part-time working itself wasn't an issue at the Tribunal, according to the judgment. The safety or otherwise of part-time working by relatively inexperienced pilots before they've achieved a certain threshold of experience was.
Is my understanding still defective?
R1
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leave Jessica alone if she sees any of this she can only get more stressed. BA management have only themselves to blame for this as there are far to many examples of favouritism in the past, many examples of the old pals act and such inept managememt now has to pay the price, as half the airline wants to go on 50% not including FC. I wonder how the shareholders feel about this.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boy
I used the term “professional opinion” to establish a baseline of specialist knowledge that enables a person to give evidence of a fact or a state of affairs.
As a now non practicing aviator, I will pay respectful attention to the views so expressed; and weight them accordingly.
However, this should not be confused with an expert opinion which is admissible whenever the subject before the Court (or a tribunal) is such that competency to form an opinion on the subject can only be acquired by special study or experience.
It is evidence adduced through the latter that will be relevant to the Court’s deliberations.
But opinions proffered by the former are the subject of argument on this thread.
While you take me to task on semantics, you still don’t proffer an opinion on why you think 50% flying is safe.
And your profile is silent on the extent of specialist knowledge and qualification you possess to support any assertion you make that it is.
I used the term “professional opinion” to establish a baseline of specialist knowledge that enables a person to give evidence of a fact or a state of affairs.
As a now non practicing aviator, I will pay respectful attention to the views so expressed; and weight them accordingly.
However, this should not be confused with an expert opinion which is admissible whenever the subject before the Court (or a tribunal) is such that competency to form an opinion on the subject can only be acquired by special study or experience.
It is evidence adduced through the latter that will be relevant to the Court’s deliberations.
But opinions proffered by the former are the subject of argument on this thread.
While you take me to task on semantics, you still don’t proffer an opinion on why you think 50% flying is safe.
And your profile is silent on the extent of specialist knowledge and qualification you possess to support any assertion you make that it is.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Abroad
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HZ123 So does JS's case make it easier or more difficult for the other BA staff /FC wishing to go part time? Time will tell, but IMO, it will make it harder for all those that don't have the statutory right under Right to Request. Will BALPA be taking BA to court on behalf of the rest of us? Somehow, I think not.
BTW, did BALPA ever find the allegedly missing money that disappeared from the BALPA legal fund?
BTW, did BALPA ever find the allegedly missing money that disappeared from the BALPA legal fund?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boy
I agree there has been material which "indicates prejudice – pre-judgment - rather than argument" but IMHO it has been on both sides. eg Some on the 'pro-Starmer' side show little or no sign of having considered with an open mind either BA's safety argument, or the practical implications of their ideals, the adverse effect on other pilots in the fleet etc.
I also suspect some on the anti side may have been more supportive in another instance, but not in the particular circumstances of Mrs Starmer's case which might appear to some as 'taking all' but being prepared to give little, expecting BA and her colleagues to accommodate her wishes but doing little or nothing (herself or husband) to organise their own life to allow for ther life-style choices.
Some might have been more sympathetic if she hadn't so recently been sponsored by BA and/or had worked a little more before expecting her application to be granted ahead of others who've worked for the company for longer:-
Recruited from university and trained ab initio by BA.
May 2001: Employed as First Officer on a full time contract.
Feb 2003 onwards: Pregnant/unable to fly.
October 2003: Began maternity leave.
March 2004 (while still on maternity leave):applied for a contract variation to 50%, having flown only 970 hours with BA in almost three years employment.
I'm not qualified to answer your question about the sustainability of arguments advanced here - I'm not an employment specialist. As an unqualified layman in this context, I think some of the legislation is unfair to men and women who don't have young children - and I prefer a balance of 'rights and responsibilities' to simply 'rights'.
Ranger One
I was responding to just one point. As you say, there were other issues.
"AFAIK 'part-time working itself' *was* the core of the initial refusal of 50% and appeal.
"No, part-time working in itself was not an issue at any stage. BA had a policy of actively attracting and recruiting women pilots and, in 2000, had introduced a PTW system to help those with child care difficulties. It recognised that working mothers were most likely to need to take advantage of the system.
The issue was part-time working in a particular case. Applications weren't granted as of right, but considered on a case by case basis taking into account fleet resource/budget, recency etc
eg Five pilots on the LHR Airbus fleet applied to work part-time in Feb/March 2004 - four women and one man. The four women applied for 50%; the man applied for 75%. One of the women was allowed 50%, the other three (incl Mrs Starmer) were offered 75%. The man's application for 75% was refused entirely.
At that time, Mrs Starmer's application for 50% (and I assume those of the other two women who wanted 50%, and the man who wanted 75%) could not be granted for fleet resource reasons. She was given that reason for the refusal.
"Safety was not mentioned ..... it was *not* the primary reason for refusing 50%."
You're right. Mrs Starmer's application couldn't be granted anyway (regardless of her recency/experience) for resource reasons - so the safety considerations didn't arise. I don't think anyone suggested that, had resources been available at the time, BA wouldn't have then gone on to consider her recency/experience before concluding whether her particular application could be granted. I'd be surprised if such factors weren't considered by any responsible operator.
With the benefit of hindsight (always a wonderful thing) it might have been better if BA had gone on to consider whether, even if resources had been available, it would have granted her application. If the answer to that was 'No' because she was inexperienced, hadn't flown at all for 19 months and, in their opinion, needed more experience in a concentrated period before being allowed to work part-time, and the safety reason had been included in the formal reasons, then the result might have been different. I say 'might' because the Tribunal didn't accept there was any problem with [u]any pilot flying only 50% - regardless of his/her lack of experience.
"the safety argument was introduced by BA at a later stage as a makeweight"
That's certainly the spin Mrs Starmer's side put on it, but it's not how I read the facts. (See above.)
Her lawyers tried to persuade the Tribunal it should not even consider the 'safety' aspect because it wasn't included in the formal reasons for refusal. (I'd have done the same because I'd have been worried I might lose if the safety aspects were examined, given Mrs Starmer's inexperience and lack of recent flying.)
The Tribunal rejected that argument, heard the conflicting safety evidence/arguments, and said it wasn't persuaded there was a safety issue - no doubt to the relief of the Starmer side!
HZ123
If I was a shareholder, I'd be very unhappy with the Tribunal's decision and hope that it would be over-turned on appeal.
maxy101
If the decision is upheld on appeal, I also think it will be harder for those pilots who don't have the statutory right under Right to Request. Funds aren't unlimited, regardless of the size of a company and, if the decision stands, priority will have to be given to those who come within the statutory provisions.
I also wonder how long BA will continue it's voluntary policy of actively recruiting women pilots - the legal requirement is only not to discriminate against women.
I agree there has been material which "indicates prejudice – pre-judgment - rather than argument" but IMHO it has been on both sides. eg Some on the 'pro-Starmer' side show little or no sign of having considered with an open mind either BA's safety argument, or the practical implications of their ideals, the adverse effect on other pilots in the fleet etc.
I also suspect some on the anti side may have been more supportive in another instance, but not in the particular circumstances of Mrs Starmer's case which might appear to some as 'taking all' but being prepared to give little, expecting BA and her colleagues to accommodate her wishes but doing little or nothing (herself or husband) to organise their own life to allow for ther life-style choices.
Some might have been more sympathetic if she hadn't so recently been sponsored by BA and/or had worked a little more before expecting her application to be granted ahead of others who've worked for the company for longer:-
Recruited from university and trained ab initio by BA.
May 2001: Employed as First Officer on a full time contract.
Feb 2003 onwards: Pregnant/unable to fly.
October 2003: Began maternity leave.
March 2004 (while still on maternity leave):applied for a contract variation to 50%, having flown only 970 hours with BA in almost three years employment.
I'm not qualified to answer your question about the sustainability of arguments advanced here - I'm not an employment specialist. As an unqualified layman in this context, I think some of the legislation is unfair to men and women who don't have young children - and I prefer a balance of 'rights and responsibilities' to simply 'rights'.
Ranger One
I was responding to just one point. As you say, there were other issues.
"AFAIK 'part-time working itself' *was* the core of the initial refusal of 50% and appeal.
"No, part-time working in itself was not an issue at any stage. BA had a policy of actively attracting and recruiting women pilots and, in 2000, had introduced a PTW system to help those with child care difficulties. It recognised that working mothers were most likely to need to take advantage of the system.
The issue was part-time working in a particular case. Applications weren't granted as of right, but considered on a case by case basis taking into account fleet resource/budget, recency etc
eg Five pilots on the LHR Airbus fleet applied to work part-time in Feb/March 2004 - four women and one man. The four women applied for 50%; the man applied for 75%. One of the women was allowed 50%, the other three (incl Mrs Starmer) were offered 75%. The man's application for 75% was refused entirely.
At that time, Mrs Starmer's application for 50% (and I assume those of the other two women who wanted 50%, and the man who wanted 75%) could not be granted for fleet resource reasons. She was given that reason for the refusal.
"Safety was not mentioned ..... it was *not* the primary reason for refusing 50%."
You're right. Mrs Starmer's application couldn't be granted anyway (regardless of her recency/experience) for resource reasons - so the safety considerations didn't arise. I don't think anyone suggested that, had resources been available at the time, BA wouldn't have then gone on to consider her recency/experience before concluding whether her particular application could be granted. I'd be surprised if such factors weren't considered by any responsible operator.
With the benefit of hindsight (always a wonderful thing) it might have been better if BA had gone on to consider whether, even if resources had been available, it would have granted her application. If the answer to that was 'No' because she was inexperienced, hadn't flown at all for 19 months and, in their opinion, needed more experience in a concentrated period before being allowed to work part-time, and the safety reason had been included in the formal reasons, then the result might have been different. I say 'might' because the Tribunal didn't accept there was any problem with [u]any pilot flying only 50% - regardless of his/her lack of experience.
"the safety argument was introduced by BA at a later stage as a makeweight"
That's certainly the spin Mrs Starmer's side put on it, but it's not how I read the facts. (See above.)
Her lawyers tried to persuade the Tribunal it should not even consider the 'safety' aspect because it wasn't included in the formal reasons for refusal. (I'd have done the same because I'd have been worried I might lose if the safety aspects were examined, given Mrs Starmer's inexperience and lack of recent flying.)
The Tribunal rejected that argument, heard the conflicting safety evidence/arguments, and said it wasn't persuaded there was a safety issue - no doubt to the relief of the Starmer side!
HZ123
If I was a shareholder, I'd be very unhappy with the Tribunal's decision and hope that it would be over-turned on appeal.
maxy101
If the decision is upheld on appeal, I also think it will be harder for those pilots who don't have the statutory right under Right to Request. Funds aren't unlimited, regardless of the size of a company and, if the decision stands, priority will have to be given to those who come within the statutory provisions.
I also wonder how long BA will continue it's voluntary policy of actively recruiting women pilots - the legal requirement is only not to discriminate against women.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You haven't missed anything - I haven't made a general point.
I've been trying in my summary of the judgment and other posts to help people understand the issues the Tribunal had to decide, and the reasons it gave for the decision it reached.
I emphasise 'understand' the Tribunal's reasons - people can decide for themselves if they agree with them.
Because of a position I hold in the legal system (in addition to being a barrister) it wouldn't be appropriate for me to express my opinion of the Tribunal's reasoning or ultimate finding.
The finding re the safety aspect was a matter of fact, not law. There are many people here more qualified than me to express informed opinions on that aspect.
As for the lawyers' conduct of the case .... I wasn't in the case so I'm not in a position to comment.
Sometimes, when you lose, you can't help wonder whether a different approach might have worked. On other occasions you feel the court/tribunal was so favourably disposed to the other side that it wouldn't have made any difference to the result whatever you'd done.
I've been trying in my summary of the judgment and other posts to help people understand the issues the Tribunal had to decide, and the reasons it gave for the decision it reached.
I emphasise 'understand' the Tribunal's reasons - people can decide for themselves if they agree with them.
Because of a position I hold in the legal system (in addition to being a barrister) it wouldn't be appropriate for me to express my opinion of the Tribunal's reasoning or ultimate finding.
The finding re the safety aspect was a matter of fact, not law. There are many people here more qualified than me to express informed opinions on that aspect.
As for the lawyers' conduct of the case .... I wasn't in the case so I'm not in a position to comment.
Sometimes, when you lose, you can't help wonder whether a different approach might have worked. On other occasions you feel the court/tribunal was so favourably disposed to the other side that it wouldn't have made any difference to the result whatever you'd done.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer - thanks for the full explanation, I'm clearer now.
WRT to the safety argument, as lay people, I'm pretty sure the tribunal would have looked at the regs, on the grounds that if there was a real safety issue here the CAA would have regulated it. 'Was there anything in CAA regs to prevent JS from resuming her flying career at 50%? No? So what's the problem...?'
R1
WRT to the safety argument, as lay people, I'm pretty sure the tribunal would have looked at the regs, on the grounds that if there was a real safety issue here the CAA would have regulated it. 'Was there anything in CAA regs to prevent JS from resuming her flying career at 50%? No? So what's the problem...?'
R1
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Argus
Sorry that my statement, quoted above – joined by an argument to my concluding question for you regarding 50% flying in KLM (also Braathens and other operators) did not clarify the fruitlessness of a debate in which somebody declares “50% flying is unsafe” and somebody else says “50% flying is safe”. Both statements are meaningless without criteria (and therefore are not just a matter of semantics).
I was just trying to point out the practicalities of the matter; practicalities which any authority, ops. manager or legislator must consider when drawing up minimum requirements for any particular operational situation, whether it involves management pilots, part-time pilots of various descriptions, ad hoc corporate pilots, instructors, pilots mixing long and short haul, mixed-type/variant flying, etc.
Also in many cases in real operational life an acceptable level of flying is often much less than 50% of the norm. Is it appropriate to ask you how you would justify the argument that less than 50% is unsafe? I would have thought you could immediately spot the multitude of existing exceptions that could be cited to rebut such a claim.
If your desire is to engage me in a debate about a particular pilot, I am not willing to do so for reasons that are, I hope, apparent to you from the comments of a moderator above.
Flying Lawyer
In your post you say, for example,
All of these make it clear that we are dealing with perceptions and judgments about a particular individual whom I don’t know and about whose situation I am reluctant to make judgments without a lot more information than is available here. I have been more interested in the principles that apply because I am unwilling to discuss an individual case, especially if this involves deducing or assuming motivational dispositions such as characterise your comments above. (Though I do note that all of the above citations could easily be applied to somebody who has suffered an above average sickness record).
I will comment on the safety argument. A pilot was returned to flying status in the last two weeks by a court in what I believe to be an aviation first. As I understand the situation, the operator declared his suspension was on safety grounds – but only after they got to court. The original letter of suspension said nothing about safety, but lots about other things. Unfortunately for the airline the judge took the view that if it really was about safety it would (a) have said that in the letter, (b) the pilot would have been interviewed first about the safety issue, and (c) it would not have been necessary for the chief pilot to swear an affidavit on the day of the trial saying he agreed with the original decision – made by a non-pilot - to suspend the pilot.
The lesson is clear: if you have safety grounds for a decision, then you should make them clear and have your evidence to hand. To introduce safety grounds after a decision has apparently been made on other grounds is, at a minimum, careless and incompetent. The safety argument is powerful, and IMHO much more powerful than any other argument. All the more reason that it be properly supported and advanced with proportionality and strict impartiality.
The sterility of a discussion on this “50%” business is given by the simple question: “50% of what?”.
I was just trying to point out the practicalities of the matter; practicalities which any authority, ops. manager or legislator must consider when drawing up minimum requirements for any particular operational situation, whether it involves management pilots, part-time pilots of various descriptions, ad hoc corporate pilots, instructors, pilots mixing long and short haul, mixed-type/variant flying, etc.
Also in many cases in real operational life an acceptable level of flying is often much less than 50% of the norm. Is it appropriate to ask you how you would justify the argument that less than 50% is unsafe? I would have thought you could immediately spot the multitude of existing exceptions that could be cited to rebut such a claim.
If your desire is to engage me in a debate about a particular pilot, I am not willing to do so for reasons that are, I hope, apparent to you from the comments of a moderator above.
Flying Lawyer
In your post you say, for example,
“… which might appear to some as 'taking all' but being prepared to give little …”
“… doing little or nothing to organise her own life to allow for her life-style choices …”
“Some might have been more sympathetic if she hadn't …”
I will comment on the safety argument. A pilot was returned to flying status in the last two weeks by a court in what I believe to be an aviation first. As I understand the situation, the operator declared his suspension was on safety grounds – but only after they got to court. The original letter of suspension said nothing about safety, but lots about other things. Unfortunately for the airline the judge took the view that if it really was about safety it would (a) have said that in the letter, (b) the pilot would have been interviewed first about the safety issue, and (c) it would not have been necessary for the chief pilot to swear an affidavit on the day of the trial saying he agreed with the original decision – made by a non-pilot - to suspend the pilot.
The lesson is clear: if you have safety grounds for a decision, then you should make them clear and have your evidence to hand. To introduce safety grounds after a decision has apparently been made on other grounds is, at a minimum, careless and incompetent. The safety argument is powerful, and IMHO much more powerful than any other argument. All the more reason that it be properly supported and advanced with proportionality and strict impartiality.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boy
Mrs Starmer had 'flying status'
she was never suspended
the operator didn't declare suspension was on safety grounds
there was no letter of suspension
there was no judge
affidavits didn't come into it ..... etc etc
Just as well you don't want to comment on the specific case.
(Understand your point that BA might have been wiser to go on to consider the safety factors, even if it was all academic because of the fleet resources/budget problem.)
Mrs Starmer had 'flying status'
she was never suspended
the operator didn't declare suspension was on safety grounds
there was no letter of suspension
there was no judge
affidavits didn't come into it ..... etc etc
Just as well you don't want to comment on the specific case.
(Understand your point that BA might have been wiser to go on to consider the safety factors, even if it was all academic because of the fleet resources/budget problem.)
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not going to get involved in the specifics of the debate other than, to reinforce Boy's point, as a military pilot I regularly averaged around 300-350 hours per year - and many miltary pilots had to get by with far less. Despite the low figure, I was far more current, confident and skillful than I am now as a 750-hour-per-year A340 pilot. The context of the hours is far more relevant than the figure itself.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heliport, well you seem to have really got the wrong end of the stick. I apologise for failing to be clear enough.
If you re-read carefully, you may conclude that I was attempting, apparently to little avail, to make the general point that to introduce a safety argument after the fact is rather unwise. I obviously failed to make the point clear. The specific matters you cite are thus of little relevance to the general point I made.
If you re-read carefully, you may conclude that I was attempting, apparently to little avail, to make the general point that to introduce a safety argument after the fact is rather unwise. I obviously failed to make the point clear. The specific matters you cite are thus of little relevance to the general point I made.
Está servira para distraerle.
What Ho! scroggs.Isn't your point about how little you flew as a military pilot an absolutely perfect justification for the government to cut back on armed forces personnel and thus save all us poor tax payers a fortune?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the one thing that has cheesed off many people in this case was the fact that she had been with BA such a short space of time, before dragging them through the courts over this issue.
BA staff have had to endure cost savings for 8 years now, way before Miss S joined the company , and many appreciate that just one individuals actions can impact on the rest very easily.
There is such a thing in life as 'waiting your turn' and many in BA have waited years in BA just for a 75% contract which she seemd to get so easily before 'demanding' even more....
It's not so much the issue, it is the way she has gone about it.
After you have done alot of hard graft , you may expect to be able ask for special circumstances in return, but as she has already done less than half of the hard work of her hard pressed contemporaries, it is very hard to find any reason to identify with the way she has behaved.
Citing her 'tiring' (worrying) long 240 mile round trip drive (her choice) and her sudden lack of desire for 'early mornings' 'trips' and a full time job are not going to win her much sympathy in the airline world with those who are being worked off their feet ......
BA staff have had to endure cost savings for 8 years now, way before Miss S joined the company , and many appreciate that just one individuals actions can impact on the rest very easily.
There is such a thing in life as 'waiting your turn' and many in BA have waited years in BA just for a 75% contract which she seemd to get so easily before 'demanding' even more....
It's not so much the issue, it is the way she has gone about it.
After you have done alot of hard graft , you may expect to be able ask for special circumstances in return, but as she has already done less than half of the hard work of her hard pressed contemporaries, it is very hard to find any reason to identify with the way she has behaved.
Citing her 'tiring' (worrying) long 240 mile round trip drive (her choice) and her sudden lack of desire for 'early mornings' 'trips' and a full time job are not going to win her much sympathy in the airline world with those who are being worked off their feet ......