Jessica Starmer - BALPA's view (Update - Appeal decision)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bucks
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jessica Starmer - BALPA's view
I have registered on Pprune under my real name and am not hiding my identity. I am the BALPA rep who has supported and represented Jessica Starmer throughout this whole process. I have spent a large amount of time on the BA BALPA forum answering questions about the case, and it has been suggested to me that I come here to do the same.
35 pages of postings is a lot to wade through, so I have skimmed through a lot of pages. Forgive me, therefore, if a point has been made before. It is hard to know where to start in a situation like this, and I felt it more appropriate to start a new thread. Possible the first thing to do is to scotch the rumour that Jessica has rejected a 50% offer. I spoke to her only a few days ago and nothing was mentioned. Indeed, it would make no sense for BA to offer her such a contract when it is appealing the very point. Would you in their shoes?
As for the case, the sentiments expressed here are pretty similar - though slightly less politically correct - than our internal forum. Many opinions arise from insufficient information, a point I always find perplexing given that pilots are trained to get as much information as possible before coming to a conclusion. So, this is my job: to give you as much information as I am able given that the case is still sub judice.
BALPA has a set process for determining whether a legal claim should be progressed. If the Legal Advisory Committee, in consultation with our lawyers, deem that a case has greater than a 50% chance of succeeding, then the NEC would have to have an extremely good reason not to support the case. Accordingly, when Ms Starmer approached us last year after her appeal had failed, we took on the case because it met the required criteria.
BA initially rejected her 50% application on the grounds of resource. The same reasons were upheld at the appeal. It was only when we indicated that if a negotiated solution was unsuccessful we were taking the case to tribunal did the safety argument start to appear.
The basis for our case was firstly that the resource argument for a company the size of BA did not stack up, and secondly that notwithstanding the fact that the rules had apparently changed half-way through the game, this 2000 hour limit was arbitrary, had no basis in fact, and had a disproportionate effect on females as opposed to males. Hence the discrimination, as four times as many applications for PTW in BA come from females as opposed to males.
Whilst it is most unusual for BALPA to disagree with BA on matters of safety, we did on this one. Whilst it can be argued that the safe way to operate is to have the 2000 hour limit, it can equally be argued that the safe way to operate is to fly with as much fuel as the TOPL will allow every flight. This does not happen in reality, as the fuel for each flight is calculated on an individual basis. Thus we argued that applications for PTW should be considered on a case-by-case basis and not by blanket restrictions. Our expert witnesses, BA training captains, testified that it is possible to make such individual assessements based on the skill and experience of the BA training system. In addition, BA also has a mature and well-developed system of recurrent checks which are very capable of detecting any decrease in standards. Indeed, these very systems DID pick up some decrease in some existing 50% contracts, but interestingly the pilots concerned were all highly experienced.
The tribunal agreed with us that BA had not demonstrated any evidence that flying less than 75% was unsafe. We, on the other hand, presented the evidence of the Airbus in the 1990s, when there were only 10 aircraft and relatively little flying. The data we had gathered, which BA did not contest, showed that the brand new P2s, mainly cadet pilots, safely flew over a 10-year period averaging only 67% of what the average Airbus P2 flies today. Furthermore, BA recruited two of these co-pilots after only 2 years in the company and less than 1000 BA hours to be managers, flying at best a 50% roster.
BALPA are delighted that the tribunal found in our favour, and are disappointed that BA are appealing. PTW has only been in Flight Ops in BA for about 4 years and, like many of our policies, has grown organically over the years with the changes in legislation. There are many aspects to it which desperately need updating, particuarly when the changes to the CRA next year probably will have a dramatic effect on our seniority list. PTW may well be the only way to keep any form of movement on the list at all, and it is vital we get it right, both in terms of allocation and bidding / rostering. Cases like Jessica's help this process enormously, as they force all parties to sit down and examine the way we do things.
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. In years to come we as an industry will have increasing difficulty in attracting sufficient pilots. Alienating 50% of the potential workforce would not seem a particularly clever way of addressing the problem. Yet this case goes further than child care, as our General Secretary pointed out. By fighting and winning a case against crude and discriminatory blanket restrictions, it opens the possiblities for many more pilots to work part-time for reasons other than child care. The law dictates that Right to Request cases come top of the heap, and that females are most likely to be the primary carer, therefore require more adjustments to their working practices. To a lot of males, that seems positive discrimination, but that is what the law says. The statistics, if you read the judgement carefully, back this both in BA and nationally. Remember, however, that whatever is agreed at the top of a pile more than likely filters down in time.
Enough for one posting. I await questions and comment.
Regards
Dave
35 pages of postings is a lot to wade through, so I have skimmed through a lot of pages. Forgive me, therefore, if a point has been made before. It is hard to know where to start in a situation like this, and I felt it more appropriate to start a new thread. Possible the first thing to do is to scotch the rumour that Jessica has rejected a 50% offer. I spoke to her only a few days ago and nothing was mentioned. Indeed, it would make no sense for BA to offer her such a contract when it is appealing the very point. Would you in their shoes?
As for the case, the sentiments expressed here are pretty similar - though slightly less politically correct - than our internal forum. Many opinions arise from insufficient information, a point I always find perplexing given that pilots are trained to get as much information as possible before coming to a conclusion. So, this is my job: to give you as much information as I am able given that the case is still sub judice.
BALPA has a set process for determining whether a legal claim should be progressed. If the Legal Advisory Committee, in consultation with our lawyers, deem that a case has greater than a 50% chance of succeeding, then the NEC would have to have an extremely good reason not to support the case. Accordingly, when Ms Starmer approached us last year after her appeal had failed, we took on the case because it met the required criteria.
BA initially rejected her 50% application on the grounds of resource. The same reasons were upheld at the appeal. It was only when we indicated that if a negotiated solution was unsuccessful we were taking the case to tribunal did the safety argument start to appear.
The basis for our case was firstly that the resource argument for a company the size of BA did not stack up, and secondly that notwithstanding the fact that the rules had apparently changed half-way through the game, this 2000 hour limit was arbitrary, had no basis in fact, and had a disproportionate effect on females as opposed to males. Hence the discrimination, as four times as many applications for PTW in BA come from females as opposed to males.
Whilst it is most unusual for BALPA to disagree with BA on matters of safety, we did on this one. Whilst it can be argued that the safe way to operate is to have the 2000 hour limit, it can equally be argued that the safe way to operate is to fly with as much fuel as the TOPL will allow every flight. This does not happen in reality, as the fuel for each flight is calculated on an individual basis. Thus we argued that applications for PTW should be considered on a case-by-case basis and not by blanket restrictions. Our expert witnesses, BA training captains, testified that it is possible to make such individual assessements based on the skill and experience of the BA training system. In addition, BA also has a mature and well-developed system of recurrent checks which are very capable of detecting any decrease in standards. Indeed, these very systems DID pick up some decrease in some existing 50% contracts, but interestingly the pilots concerned were all highly experienced.
The tribunal agreed with us that BA had not demonstrated any evidence that flying less than 75% was unsafe. We, on the other hand, presented the evidence of the Airbus in the 1990s, when there were only 10 aircraft and relatively little flying. The data we had gathered, which BA did not contest, showed that the brand new P2s, mainly cadet pilots, safely flew over a 10-year period averaging only 67% of what the average Airbus P2 flies today. Furthermore, BA recruited two of these co-pilots after only 2 years in the company and less than 1000 BA hours to be managers, flying at best a 50% roster.
BALPA are delighted that the tribunal found in our favour, and are disappointed that BA are appealing. PTW has only been in Flight Ops in BA for about 4 years and, like many of our policies, has grown organically over the years with the changes in legislation. There are many aspects to it which desperately need updating, particuarly when the changes to the CRA next year probably will have a dramatic effect on our seniority list. PTW may well be the only way to keep any form of movement on the list at all, and it is vital we get it right, both in terms of allocation and bidding / rostering. Cases like Jessica's help this process enormously, as they force all parties to sit down and examine the way we do things.
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. In years to come we as an industry will have increasing difficulty in attracting sufficient pilots. Alienating 50% of the potential workforce would not seem a particularly clever way of addressing the problem. Yet this case goes further than child care, as our General Secretary pointed out. By fighting and winning a case against crude and discriminatory blanket restrictions, it opens the possiblities for many more pilots to work part-time for reasons other than child care. The law dictates that Right to Request cases come top of the heap, and that females are most likely to be the primary carer, therefore require more adjustments to their working practices. To a lot of males, that seems positive discrimination, but that is what the law says. The statistics, if you read the judgement carefully, back this both in BA and nationally. Remember, however, that whatever is agreed at the top of a pile more than likely filters down in time.
Enough for one posting. I await questions and comment.
Regards
Dave
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is Miss/Mrs Starmer not pregnant again? Does this not show a certain lack of intent to return to her job in any meaningful sense? Does that not perhaps suggest that this claim was more of a financial fishing expedition than a true discrimination case?
Surely time away from work at her relatively inexperienced stage has to be considered as well as just hours? If you are flying 67% of current hours but doing so consistently over 12 months of the year, that MUST be safer than flying at the standard rate and then taking 15 months out to have a baby and trying to then regain currency?
forgive my ignorance on these matters (being male) but at what stage in a pregnancy would the average mum-to-be cease flying and at what point after giving birth would the average new mother return to flying?
I dare to suggest that if there is a period of more than 6 months between those two dates then a serious amount of re-training would be required and a period of consistent and fairly intensive line flying required post re-training to attain the level of currency that would then allow a pilot to drop back to 50% PTW. 50% must work out at less than 350hours per year or under 30 hours per month and that, for a pilot who has been out of the job for a while having a baby, can not be enough.
Surely time away from work at her relatively inexperienced stage has to be considered as well as just hours? If you are flying 67% of current hours but doing so consistently over 12 months of the year, that MUST be safer than flying at the standard rate and then taking 15 months out to have a baby and trying to then regain currency?
forgive my ignorance on these matters (being male) but at what stage in a pregnancy would the average mum-to-be cease flying and at what point after giving birth would the average new mother return to flying?
I dare to suggest that if there is a period of more than 6 months between those two dates then a serious amount of re-training would be required and a period of consistent and fairly intensive line flying required post re-training to attain the level of currency that would then allow a pilot to drop back to 50% PTW. 50% must work out at less than 350hours per year or under 30 hours per month and that, for a pilot who has been out of the job for a while having a baby, can not be enough.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bucks
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr M.
No, it shows a wish to have her children close together. Nowhere to my knowledge is it written that you cannot do this simply because you are a pilot. Plenty of female pilots have had two or more children close together and thus have taken a large amount of time off and have come back at 50%. This is not a new phenomenon. What is new in Jessica's case is that Jessica's (and two other females who applied for 50% at the same time) application was denied on resource grounds when the department had made zero budget for Airbus P2s 50%. Then the safety argument arose half-way through. It was never considered at the time of the application nor at at the appeal.
As for the question of standards after time off, Jessica successfully completed her return course in 15 days to the high and exacting standards required by BA. The phrase 'cleared for line flying' is a powerful one and means one thing - you are good enough. The same phrase would apply if you had been off long term sick for up to 18 months and returned to flying. BA training has its standards. They are very high, and they will not release anyone on to the line unless they are satisfied that the pilot is capable of doing the job, regardless of how much time they have had off. Incidentally, there then follows a period of 2 months' full-time consolidation before the PT flying commences.
As for your query about when a female is grounded, in BA they are grounded as soon as they declare themselves to be pregnant.
Hope this helps
Dave
Does this not show a certain lack of intent to return to her job in any meaningful sense?
As for the question of standards after time off, Jessica successfully completed her return course in 15 days to the high and exacting standards required by BA. The phrase 'cleared for line flying' is a powerful one and means one thing - you are good enough. The same phrase would apply if you had been off long term sick for up to 18 months and returned to flying. BA training has its standards. They are very high, and they will not release anyone on to the line unless they are satisfied that the pilot is capable of doing the job, regardless of how much time they have had off. Incidentally, there then follows a period of 2 months' full-time consolidation before the PT flying commences.
As for your query about when a female is grounded, in BA they are grounded as soon as they declare themselves to be pregnant.
Hope this helps
Dave
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: cambridge
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave,
Thank you for your response. I would like to start the ball rolling with a few observations, but first: a question:
You said:
"BALPA has a set process for determining whether a legal claim should be progressed. If the Legal Advisory Committee, in consultation with our lawyers, deem that a case has greater than a 50% chance of succeeding, then the NEC would have to have an extremely good reason not to support the case. Accordingly, when Ms Starmer approached us last year after her appeal had failed, we took on the case because it met the required criteria".
I am unfamiliar with the inner workings of BALPA but perhaps you could clarify this: does this mean BALPA has an internal policy of supporting pilot's claims where they stand a 50% chance of succeeding? Surely (please correct me if I am misguided) there is an element of discretion, whereby BALPA can decide whether it agrees with the pilot's claim in the first place?!
You said:
"secondly that notwithstanding the fact that the rules had apparently changed half-way through the game"
Can you confirm this: other posts, many of them seemingly well-informed, suggest that the rules were not changed after the request - but in 2003?
You said:
"This 2000 hour limit was arbitrary, had no basis in fact, and had a disproportionate effect on females as opposed to males"
In law, as you may be aware, these are known as 'indisctinctly applicable' measures - where there is, prima facie, the same burden in law, but a different burden in fact. Surely the tribunal, however, has failed to recognise that there is an element of CHOICE in having a baby (most of the time)? If I don't like sunlight then I shouldn't apply for a job that involves me being in the sun - why should the onus be on my employer to find me a job working at night? Mrs Starmer made a choice in having a child - there is no discrimination based solely on the fact that she is a women. Thus, I would distinguish the argument that the part-time-hours rule is indirectly applicable on the basis that it only affects women after they have exercised their own discretion in having a child. The issue of gender is a red herring. What matters is - as has been argued without acknowledgment on the other thread - lifestyle discrimination. Presumably a male applying for 50% hours in order to look after his child will now be entitled to the same leave?
You said:
"In addition, BA also has a mature and well-developed system of recurrent checks which are very capable of detecting any decrease in standards. Indeed, these very systems DID pick up some decrease in some existing 50% contracts, but interestingly the pilots concerned were all highly experienced"
This seems to contradict the basis of BALPA's argument, surely? Firstly, the suggestion that the recurrent checks in place will detect a decrease in standards is irrelevant - because by that time the damage is done! If the standards have slipped then BA will have to spend funds on retraining before the pilot can resume service. There is no point claiming that these checks can counterbalance the decrease in the pilot's abilities, because by this argument fails to consider the commercial interests of the employer - something that the law leans against these days. Secondly, the fact that the decreases in ability were picked up in experienced pilots does not lead to the logical conclusion that they ability won't decrease in less experienced pilots - rather, it shows that if it can happen to the best, it is at least possible it will happen to those with less hours, even if BA hasn't produced empirical evidence to show this is the case.
You said:
"The tribunal agreed with us that BA had not demonstrated any evidence that flying less than 75% was unsafe."
I want to draw attention to this remark for interest, if nothing else. Surely the question here isn't whether it is safe or unsafe, but whether it is safe to the standards of safety that BA requires. Aviation is a tough industry and airlines rightly demand the best of their cadets throughout the training process. To argue that flying less than 75% is still safe is to argue that airlines aren't free to impose stricter requirements on their employees. Consider, for example, the case of an applicant to a flying school who wishes to embark on a sponsored fatpl. Why shouldn't that flying school impose very high standards of competence and ability, so as to ensure that their standards are the very best. What BALPA seems to have done (and I would be interested to hear your response) is say that as long as the minimum threshold is reached we are content - what ever happened to the idea of striving to excel?
You said:
"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."
I appreciate that many people will bring calls of 'sexist', but I think political correctness has distorted the situation here. You suggest that being a mother and being a pilot should in no way be incompatible. Yet these are CHOICES. You don't HAVE to be a mother. Consider the following: being fat and being an athlete. Or being blind and being a driving instructor. Some jobs are incompatible with some lifestyles, and rightly so! Of course it is important to strive for equality in employment, but the point is that there should be no ARBITRARY discrimination between men and women. If you want a 9-5 job then you don't become a pilot - simple as that! I find it tiring that the gender discrimination argument is confused with lifestyle discrimination. There is no discrimination between men and women - there is only discrimination between mothers and non-mothers. To assert that women are more likely to be mothers is to ignore the fact that this is largely a matter of choice - if a male pilot wanted to adopt a child, presumably you would agree that they ought to be given part-time working hours?
My summary is simple: it's not sexist to point out that having a child is a lifestyle choice. Clearly we want to fight to remove barriers to employment based upon gender. But to use the fact that only 2.9% of commercial pilots are female is to stoop to a very low level and bring in an irrelevant statistic to the argument. I am very sorry that there aren't more female pilots - there clearly should be. But first, all pilots - male and female - must show their dedication to the job and recognise that they are in a highly competitive industry and are lucky to be so. If they want to have children then to me that seems no different to deciding that they want to emigrate to Australia - some lifestyle choices are incompatible with some jobs. It is not sexist to think that.
I for one hope that BA's appeal succeeds. If Mrs Starmer is concerned about her children's welfare and is also concerned about equality, why doesn't her husband take 75% hours - between them they would have just as much time off as if she took 50%. Or is that because she thinks that raising children is a woman's job: perpetuating the very idea she is trying to combat?
Thank you for your response. I would like to start the ball rolling with a few observations, but first: a question:
You said:
"BALPA has a set process for determining whether a legal claim should be progressed. If the Legal Advisory Committee, in consultation with our lawyers, deem that a case has greater than a 50% chance of succeeding, then the NEC would have to have an extremely good reason not to support the case. Accordingly, when Ms Starmer approached us last year after her appeal had failed, we took on the case because it met the required criteria".
I am unfamiliar with the inner workings of BALPA but perhaps you could clarify this: does this mean BALPA has an internal policy of supporting pilot's claims where they stand a 50% chance of succeeding? Surely (please correct me if I am misguided) there is an element of discretion, whereby BALPA can decide whether it agrees with the pilot's claim in the first place?!
You said:
"secondly that notwithstanding the fact that the rules had apparently changed half-way through the game"
Can you confirm this: other posts, many of them seemingly well-informed, suggest that the rules were not changed after the request - but in 2003?
You said:
"This 2000 hour limit was arbitrary, had no basis in fact, and had a disproportionate effect on females as opposed to males"
In law, as you may be aware, these are known as 'indisctinctly applicable' measures - where there is, prima facie, the same burden in law, but a different burden in fact. Surely the tribunal, however, has failed to recognise that there is an element of CHOICE in having a baby (most of the time)? If I don't like sunlight then I shouldn't apply for a job that involves me being in the sun - why should the onus be on my employer to find me a job working at night? Mrs Starmer made a choice in having a child - there is no discrimination based solely on the fact that she is a women. Thus, I would distinguish the argument that the part-time-hours rule is indirectly applicable on the basis that it only affects women after they have exercised their own discretion in having a child. The issue of gender is a red herring. What matters is - as has been argued without acknowledgment on the other thread - lifestyle discrimination. Presumably a male applying for 50% hours in order to look after his child will now be entitled to the same leave?
You said:
"In addition, BA also has a mature and well-developed system of recurrent checks which are very capable of detecting any decrease in standards. Indeed, these very systems DID pick up some decrease in some existing 50% contracts, but interestingly the pilots concerned were all highly experienced"
This seems to contradict the basis of BALPA's argument, surely? Firstly, the suggestion that the recurrent checks in place will detect a decrease in standards is irrelevant - because by that time the damage is done! If the standards have slipped then BA will have to spend funds on retraining before the pilot can resume service. There is no point claiming that these checks can counterbalance the decrease in the pilot's abilities, because by this argument fails to consider the commercial interests of the employer - something that the law leans against these days. Secondly, the fact that the decreases in ability were picked up in experienced pilots does not lead to the logical conclusion that they ability won't decrease in less experienced pilots - rather, it shows that if it can happen to the best, it is at least possible it will happen to those with less hours, even if BA hasn't produced empirical evidence to show this is the case.
You said:
"The tribunal agreed with us that BA had not demonstrated any evidence that flying less than 75% was unsafe."
I want to draw attention to this remark for interest, if nothing else. Surely the question here isn't whether it is safe or unsafe, but whether it is safe to the standards of safety that BA requires. Aviation is a tough industry and airlines rightly demand the best of their cadets throughout the training process. To argue that flying less than 75% is still safe is to argue that airlines aren't free to impose stricter requirements on their employees. Consider, for example, the case of an applicant to a flying school who wishes to embark on a sponsored fatpl. Why shouldn't that flying school impose very high standards of competence and ability, so as to ensure that their standards are the very best. What BALPA seems to have done (and I would be interested to hear your response) is say that as long as the minimum threshold is reached we are content - what ever happened to the idea of striving to excel?
You said:
"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."
I appreciate that many people will bring calls of 'sexist', but I think political correctness has distorted the situation here. You suggest that being a mother and being a pilot should in no way be incompatible. Yet these are CHOICES. You don't HAVE to be a mother. Consider the following: being fat and being an athlete. Or being blind and being a driving instructor. Some jobs are incompatible with some lifestyles, and rightly so! Of course it is important to strive for equality in employment, but the point is that there should be no ARBITRARY discrimination between men and women. If you want a 9-5 job then you don't become a pilot - simple as that! I find it tiring that the gender discrimination argument is confused with lifestyle discrimination. There is no discrimination between men and women - there is only discrimination between mothers and non-mothers. To assert that women are more likely to be mothers is to ignore the fact that this is largely a matter of choice - if a male pilot wanted to adopt a child, presumably you would agree that they ought to be given part-time working hours?
My summary is simple: it's not sexist to point out that having a child is a lifestyle choice. Clearly we want to fight to remove barriers to employment based upon gender. But to use the fact that only 2.9% of commercial pilots are female is to stoop to a very low level and bring in an irrelevant statistic to the argument. I am very sorry that there aren't more female pilots - there clearly should be. But first, all pilots - male and female - must show their dedication to the job and recognise that they are in a highly competitive industry and are lucky to be so. If they want to have children then to me that seems no different to deciding that they want to emigrate to Australia - some lifestyle choices are incompatible with some jobs. It is not sexist to think that.
I for one hope that BA's appeal succeeds. If Mrs Starmer is concerned about her children's welfare and is also concerned about equality, why doesn't her husband take 75% hours - between them they would have just as much time off as if she took 50%. Or is that because she thinks that raising children is a woman's job: perpetuating the very idea she is trying to combat?
Last edited by bazzaman96; 1st May 2005 at 10:44.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer
Thank you for a helpful and informative post. (Summary of the Tribunal's judgment on the other thread.)
IMHO, the question of what are 'reasonable requirements' is a matter for expert evidence, not only from pilots but also from others holding recognised qualifications in aviation management and safety.
You say some expert witnesses were called but only from within BA. A pity. Doubtless this situation will be reviewed on appeal. But from what you say, I have some difficulty in accepting that a lay tribunal can hold itself out as an expert finder of fact, citing a lack of "cogent evidence", when the expert evidence led by BA, albeit from within its own ranks, was to the contrary.
Seems like a case made in heaven for judicial review on errors of law including: failing to take into account relevant considerations, taking irrelevant considerations into account, the Tribunal misconceiving its function and BAs legitimate expectation that its legal liberty to manage its safety affairs as it sees fit according to law has been unlawfully interfered with.
Isn't the Asisminic doctrine still good law in England?
Thank you for a helpful and informative post. (Summary of the Tribunal's judgment on the other thread.)
IMHO, the question of what are 'reasonable requirements' is a matter for expert evidence, not only from pilots but also from others holding recognised qualifications in aviation management and safety.
You say some expert witnesses were called but only from within BA. A pity. Doubtless this situation will be reviewed on appeal. But from what you say, I have some difficulty in accepting that a lay tribunal can hold itself out as an expert finder of fact, citing a lack of "cogent evidence", when the expert evidence led by BA, albeit from within its own ranks, was to the contrary.
Seems like a case made in heaven for judicial review on errors of law including: failing to take into account relevant considerations, taking irrelevant considerations into account, the Tribunal misconceiving its function and BAs legitimate expectation that its legal liberty to manage its safety affairs as it sees fit according to law has been unlawfully interfered with.
Isn't the Asisminic doctrine still good law in England?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave, forgive a layman adding his tuppence worth to this thread, but I think your drawing a parallel with low time ex-cadets being recruited into management (and therefore flying only the equivalent of a 50% roster) with Ms Starmer is spurious.
I wouldn’t argue for a minute that sitting at a desk in company head office, doing whatever company-related duties that might entail, is equivalent to flying the line. But those duties, whatever they may be, are company-related. The manager’s head is into whatever it is he is doing, be it re-writing a manual - or any one of the myriad other things the company finds to occupy the minds of its aspiring leadership.
Being at home raising your child/children cannot be compared with it. The person placed in that incredibly important position needs to have her/his head on a totally different plane (if you’ll forgive the unfortunate - and unintentional - pun).
Some will call me a Neanderthal for saying it, but in my opinion, the lady is taking the piss, and if the vast majority of comments on the other thread are anything to go by, it would seem that many other pilots hold a similar view. BALPA has fallen into the classic trap unions have suffered for too long now, of spending 95% of its time, effort and money representing the ‘needs’ of 5% of its membership - in this case, clearly to the detriment of the other 95%.
I wouldn’t argue for a minute that sitting at a desk in company head office, doing whatever company-related duties that might entail, is equivalent to flying the line. But those duties, whatever they may be, are company-related. The manager’s head is into whatever it is he is doing, be it re-writing a manual - or any one of the myriad other things the company finds to occupy the minds of its aspiring leadership.
Being at home raising your child/children cannot be compared with it. The person placed in that incredibly important position needs to have her/his head on a totally different plane (if you’ll forgive the unfortunate - and unintentional - pun).
Some will call me a Neanderthal for saying it, but in my opinion, the lady is taking the piss, and if the vast majority of comments on the other thread are anything to go by, it would seem that many other pilots hold a similar view. BALPA has fallen into the classic trap unions have suffered for too long now, of spending 95% of its time, effort and money representing the ‘needs’ of 5% of its membership - in this case, clearly to the detriment of the other 95%.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Heart of Darkness
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies if this has been mentioned before ( in this case I have to admit to not having read the entire thread ! ).... It would appear that BA and their legal advisers have been somewhat remiss in not bringing forward medical testimony relating to memory retention...there must be volumes of studies involving the brains' ability/inability to absorb and retain complex data over short and long periods.... The tribunal themselves must surely have been aware that any successful barrister would be able to demonstrate the ability to study over a short period extremely complex evidence and succesfully cross-examine an expert witness on their own subject...only to forget 80% of what they learned within a month....
The need for long exposure to new complex data for it to be retained over a long period is evident in many disciplines and surely must have been studied in depth over the past hundred years.... This need would appear to support BA's policy of flying for a prescribed concentrated period...
The need for long exposure to new complex data for it to be retained over a long period is evident in many disciplines and surely must have been studied in depth over the past hundred years.... This need would appear to support BA's policy of flying for a prescribed concentrated period...
It would appear that BALPA are more concerned with the rights of
a few working mothers in BA, but are neglecting the rights of the rest your members .
Flagging out is one of the biggest threats to our industry in recent years, but BALPA spends vast resources on one case, that quite frankly doesnt seem to affect anyone other than female BA pilots.
I resigned from BALPA a few years ago because of cases like this one, and have no regrets about leaving, in fact a few more resignations might give them something to think about in HQ....
a few working mothers in BA, but are neglecting the rights of the rest your members .
Flagging out is one of the biggest threats to our industry in recent years, but BALPA spends vast resources on one case, that quite frankly doesnt seem to affect anyone other than female BA pilots.
I resigned from BALPA a few years ago because of cases like this one, and have no regrets about leaving, in fact a few more resignations might give them something to think about in HQ....
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: netherlands
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To all concerned,
It is funny to read some of the comments that you British pilots make. Be advised that in the Netherlands everyone is entiteled to part-time jobs. So at KLM we have pilots that fly 80%, 67% and even 50%. (The pay is according to the % that you fly) This applies to both genders. There are also rules in place that pregnant women are banned from flying during certain periods of the pregnancy and then they also get a long maternity leave. So what is your problem with your union trying to get some decent rules for your female pilots?
It is funny to read some of the comments that you British pilots make. Be advised that in the Netherlands everyone is entiteled to part-time jobs. So at KLM we have pilots that fly 80%, 67% and even 50%. (The pay is according to the % that you fly) This applies to both genders. There are also rules in place that pregnant women are banned from flying during certain periods of the pregnancy and then they also get a long maternity leave. So what is your problem with your union trying to get some decent rules for your female pilots?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I make a comment on Bazzaman's posting where it is stated "Surely the question here isn't whether it is safe or unsafe, but whether it is safe to the standards of safety that BA requires"
It reminds me of another avialtion case Alidair Ltd v Taylor 1978 IRLR 82 CA where the Court of Appeal stressed that what was important was the genuine belief of the employer. Perhaps BA should have made use of this fact earleir in the exercise.
Reading the developing saga of Ms Starmer (in the 35 page version) I was rather uncomfortable at the failure of posters to stress the safety issue. There was , I seem to recall, mention that trainers fly few hours.
However, as a passenger I would be happier flying with a trainer who. one has to assume, has learnt the skills, experienced the problems and knows the answers.
I appreciate they may be exceptions to this rule but as a passenger I would be concerned about the ability of this lady to deal as effectively with an emergency as someone who started the same time as she did but have accumumlated the hours of experience that usually bring increased skills.
The outcome of this case will be (or should be) that airlines will carry out an exercise that anticipates requests from both sexes to fly or work shorter hours. The exercise should that form the basis of a response to the employee rather than a shoot from the hip type denial of the request which leads to trouble at the tribunal.
It reminds me of another avialtion case Alidair Ltd v Taylor 1978 IRLR 82 CA where the Court of Appeal stressed that what was important was the genuine belief of the employer. Perhaps BA should have made use of this fact earleir in the exercise.
Reading the developing saga of Ms Starmer (in the 35 page version) I was rather uncomfortable at the failure of posters to stress the safety issue. There was , I seem to recall, mention that trainers fly few hours.
However, as a passenger I would be happier flying with a trainer who. one has to assume, has learnt the skills, experienced the problems and knows the answers.
I appreciate they may be exceptions to this rule but as a passenger I would be concerned about the ability of this lady to deal as effectively with an emergency as someone who started the same time as she did but have accumumlated the hours of experience that usually bring increased skills.
The outcome of this case will be (or should be) that airlines will carry out an exercise that anticipates requests from both sexes to fly or work shorter hours. The exercise should that form the basis of a response to the employee rather than a shoot from the hip type denial of the request which leads to trouble at the tribunal.
PPRuNe Supporter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Devon, UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Virga 67, are both male and female pilots entitled to part time work in The Netherlands when a family has a child?
As a mere wannabe I am less likely to join BALPA now than I was 3 weeks ago. How much support from ordinary members has there been for this case, or has the union begun to realise it may have shot itself in the foot?
As a mere wannabe I am less likely to join BALPA now than I was 3 weeks ago. How much support from ordinary members has there been for this case, or has the union begun to realise it may have shot itself in the foot?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tallbloke
Are you suggesting that Balpa refer every case to the members to decide?
Nothing would ever get done!
If you pay your fees, have a winnable case (and like it or not, she won!) then Balpa should go ahead.
Stormin
Which 'successful and profitable business' are you referring to? Not BA surely!
Are you suggesting that Balpa refer every case to the members to decide?
Nothing would ever get done!
If you pay your fees, have a winnable case (and like it or not, she won!) then Balpa should go ahead.
Stormin
Which 'successful and profitable business' are you referring to? Not BA surely!
PPRuNe Supporter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Devon, UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlapsOne
No, I am not suggesting members should decide on every case, but I personally would want any body that I paid to represent me to generally represent the views of it's members. Do most BALPA members think the union has done the right thing by them in taking this case to tribunal?
No, I am not suggesting members should decide on every case, but I personally would want any body that I paid to represent me to generally represent the views of it's members. Do most BALPA members think the union has done the right thing by them in taking this case to tribunal?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Here there and everywhere
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tallbloke, if you found yourself in trouble after an incident and went to your union for help, would you not expect to get it in accordance with the relevant laws, rules, agreements and your legitimate entitlements as a member?
How would you feel if you then heard that "the word is out that you were more wrong than right in what you did" and that the union had decided that, since it would be unpopular with many union members, they were going to decline to fight your case? I suspect you would be rather displeased. You might argue that your entitlement to support should not be subject to a popularity contest! You might even argue that this is just the type of difficult situation you had in mind when you joined.
*******
To my mind Virga67's comments from outside the U.K. really put this matter in a proper perspective. He has the advantage of a bit of distance and experience of the long-standing arrangements in KLM.
Flying is now no different from a host of other occupations, in which more and more people want flexibility in how they arrange their work. Is there anything wrong with seeking appropriate arrangements for everybody in accordance with changes in the law?
How would you feel if you then heard that "the word is out that you were more wrong than right in what you did" and that the union had decided that, since it would be unpopular with many union members, they were going to decline to fight your case? I suspect you would be rather displeased. You might argue that your entitlement to support should not be subject to a popularity contest! You might even argue that this is just the type of difficult situation you had in mind when you joined.
*******
To my mind Virga67's comments from outside the U.K. really put this matter in a proper perspective. He has the advantage of a bit of distance and experience of the long-standing arrangements in KLM.
Flying is now no different from a host of other occupations, in which more and more people want flexibility in how they arrange their work. Is there anything wrong with seeking appropriate arrangements for everybody in accordance with changes in the law?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Manchester
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BALPA Action
Dear Dave / Dear BALPA
Although I am a cabin crew member with the T&G and non BALPA member, I as a female (and CPL holder) fully support what BALPA has done for Jessica and this issue, job well done.
Now its time to put some of these resources into crew health issues like contaminated air.
I fly on the Embraer and cannot understand why flight crew are scared to write these matters up when we tell them about the fumes and passenger comment.
Hopefully my days down the back are coming to an end but you can't work part time if you end up sick like so many are.
See:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=172223
Although I am a cabin crew member with the T&G and non BALPA member, I as a female (and CPL holder) fully support what BALPA has done for Jessica and this issue, job well done.
Now its time to put some of these resources into crew health issues like contaminated air.
I fly on the Embraer and cannot understand why flight crew are scared to write these matters up when we tell them about the fumes and passenger comment.
Hopefully my days down the back are coming to an end but you can't work part time if you end up sick like so many are.
See:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=172223
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGLL
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave,
Thanks for posting here and adding some balance to the debate. I've been keeping an eye on this ever since page 1 of the original thread, but have stayed on the sidelines for most of the time.
I am an 'ordinary member' and I support the case, as do most of my intake. The Flight Ops department within BA need a PTWK policy. It needs a policy for those blips in your life where you need flexibility, for instance after returning from a long illness, caring for an sick relative, or having children. At the moment there is no such policy, and as we on the airbus are working flat out there is not likely to be any access to PTWK soon.
I personally do not want PTWK but I would like to know that if I needed it in a some time to come, then I would have access to it.
For those who want statistics, full time on the Airbus at LHR at the mo is approximately 750 hours, so 50% would be approx 375 hours per year (31hrs/month average). In those hours you are likely to do 20 sectors, so 10 landings per month. For that anyone would get paid 50%, would accrue leave at 50%, and would get 50% of the pension contributions.
It has been mentioned elsewhere that the cost of having someone at 50% are approximately 1%. So 2 people at 50% cost 102% of the cost of a full time pilot.
So Jess will cost 1% more than I do when she returns to line flying, but she will be more rested, more relaxed, and happier to be at work than 283 Airbus P2's at the moment.
Thanks BALPA - Jess needed you to fight POD and his crude attempts at crushing her. And thanks Dave for taking the time to post here.
Thanks for posting here and adding some balance to the debate. I've been keeping an eye on this ever since page 1 of the original thread, but have stayed on the sidelines for most of the time.
How much support from ordinary members has there been for this case, or has the union begun to realise it may have shot itself in the foot
I personally do not want PTWK but I would like to know that if I needed it in a some time to come, then I would have access to it.
For those who want statistics, full time on the Airbus at LHR at the mo is approximately 750 hours, so 50% would be approx 375 hours per year (31hrs/month average). In those hours you are likely to do 20 sectors, so 10 landings per month. For that anyone would get paid 50%, would accrue leave at 50%, and would get 50% of the pension contributions.
It has been mentioned elsewhere that the cost of having someone at 50% are approximately 1%. So 2 people at 50% cost 102% of the cost of a full time pilot.
So Jess will cost 1% more than I do when she returns to line flying, but she will be more rested, more relaxed, and happier to be at work than 283 Airbus P2's at the moment.
Thanks BALPA - Jess needed you to fight POD and his crude attempts at crushing her. And thanks Dave for taking the time to post here.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Tribunal fought shy of it and the BALPA representative, in his well written piece, didn't mention it but can anybody say why this young lady was absent for 19 months, way beyond pregnancy and maternity leave allowances.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: The Deep South (Sussex)
Posts: 783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sammypilot:
If what you say is true (19 months off). This brings her dedication to the profession even more into question.
I appreciate her decision to have two (so far) children close together. Why did she not have the children then apply for a BA scholarship and employment ...or even pay for her own training?
This would have then enabled her to follow both ambitions without taking a place in the system that other girls and guys so desperately value.
If what you say is true (19 months off). This brings her dedication to the profession even more into question.
I appreciate her decision to have two (so far) children close together. Why did she not have the children then apply for a BA scholarship and employment ...or even pay for her own training?
This would have then enabled her to follow both ambitions without taking a place in the system that other girls and guys so desperately value.