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

[aaaaa]

Poor wun

What a good name you have chosen, you are indeed poor with an attitude like that.

If one has to feel privileged to get a job in the first place (which I disagree with), do you not think that both male and females feel the same, they have both gone through the same or similar amount of hard work and financial investment to get into one of the toughest industries in the world at the present time. It doesn't matter whether or not it is one of the two Flag carriers or a small cargo outfit.

I am not necessarily supporting all that has gone on here but I am sure it is going to make it even tougher for a female to get a job now. A bit hard on a woman who has absolutely no desire to have children, or for that matter is not able to have children. What does she put on the application form in order to even get to an interview now, 'I do not propose having children so I will not be asking for maternity leave'!

There is not meant to be discrimination but there surely is.

I go along with Airbus Girl's comment, lets face it the human race does need to carry on and if a woman wants to be a pilot she should not be denied that because she might get pregnant at some time. A motorcycle accident may or may not be looked on as a self inflicted injury but because of your choice of hobbie or life style the length of time off required due an accident maybe greater than that of maternity leave.

By the way you mention family and and the need to support a family, are you saying that females do not support the family because for sure, you a wide of the mark there. I believe that luckily most men appreciate the jobs their wives do in this day and age to share in the time and money involved in the upbringing of the family.

I didn't mean to get involved in this but some of the comments in this thread have just made me

Sadly I am not a piliot but go for it Airbus girl.

aa

[Decisive Attitude]

Airbus Girl wrote:

I believe this kind of court case helps both male and female pilots to get part-time work if they need it.

I don't agree with this. The case was, as Pointer rightly stated, fought and won on the basis that Jessica had been discriminated against due to gender, on the grounds that more women than men apply for part-time working.

Flying Lawyer's post on the other thread puts this more succinctly than I.

Clearly then the decision of this tribunal and the precedent it may set benefits, in a purely legal sense, the case of women in a similar position. A male would not be able to argue the same case in the same way and consequently it makes the statement quoted above, in a purely legal sense, utterly and completely incorrect.

While BA may feel 'encouraged' to create a new PT working policy as a result of this, but they are certainly not compelled to by any stretch and as a result, it may be inappropriate to make claims such as those quoted above.

[Heliport]

Dave Fielding

"I think it is a credit to everyone that the debate is balanced and reasonable. All those rumours about Pprune appear to be unfounded. Well, in this thread at least."
Thank you so much. Perhaps you haven't heard all those rumours (borne out by the figures) that PPRuNe is the biggest and most successful professional aviation website on the net.

You say "Hours are as good a measure of experience as we have."
Most pilots would probably agree with you but, according to the judgment, your side argued the opposite at the hearing: "The Claimant and the witnesses she produced in support held the view that competence and safety of a pilot could not be satisfactorily measured by reference to hours flown" and it was BA who argued that hours are a reasonable measure of experience: "BA’s witnesses view was that the number of hours flown was a necessary and realistic threshold which had to be achieved in a relatively concentrated period before a pilot could have a safe reduction in duties below 75% of full time.”

You add "Our problem with BA was that they mixed up the absolute (number of hours) with the relative (percentage of a full-time roster)"
No they didn't - at least not according to the judgement, which says BA considers a pilot should have achieved (in it's view) a "necessary and realistic" threshold of experience (measured in hours - as you say, as good a measure of experience as we have) before being allowed to fly less than 75% of full time.

The Tribunal wasn't persuaded that "it would be unsafe or in any way unsuitable for the Claimant or other pilot to fly at 50% of full-time."
Do you agree with that?
Regardless of the experience of the applicant?

"This case has veered occasionally to the personal. It should not do."
Why not? It's about one person's personal claim in which she relied upon her personal circumstances. Should people not express a view on her personal circumstances? Some people have praised her as a person for what they see as her courage. Others have been critical of her as a person for her behaviour. Should neither side make such comments?

"Let nature take it's course?"
You make pregnancy sound like an illness.
Your paragraph is a distortion of what people who hold a different view from you have said. No-one has suggested she shouldn't have the freedom to choose if/when to have children.

"don't see why women should be treated differently. This is a common complaint and one I think is the most difficult for males to comprehend."
She has had both support and opposition from both men and women in these discussions.
Do you assume that those who disagree with your views don't "comprehend" the issues?
Do you assume that, if they did comprehend, they'd agree with you?

[cavortingcheetah]

Dear Dave Fielding,

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to put your head in The
Dragon's Maw in order to explain BALPA's point of views.
I for one am hugely pleased that you have found PPrune to be such a relief. I cannot imagine what rumours you may have heard.
Pprune is a bastion of cognitive freedom and moderation. Indeed, I would wager that much of Pprune's content is infinitely intellectually superior to that which may be encountered on other aviation websites.
A well seasoned misogynist, with an eye to the vicarious effect upon opportunities for future female flying aspirants could well derive a certain degree of satisfaction from the antics of your client. A cynic might raise an eyebrow or two at the intrusion of the judgement of laymen into a rather specialised field of operation. He might view it as analogous to a veterinary practitioner assisting a thoracic surgeon in the execution (probably the wrong word) of his duties.
We shall, of course, have to see what the appeal brings. I take it that BALPA will continue its present course of representation with your existing client. Any costs incurred in this are presumably paid for by means of membership dues?
Many thanks again. cc

[Dave Fielding]

There are a few opinions and points of view written here which I can't really argue against because they are opinions on something which may or may not happen. I don't agree with them, and think that the laws are strict on sexual discrimination during recruitment & promotion. I know the EOC report found that a shocking number of employers openly flout the law with regard to pregnant staff. I certainly hope that BA will not do the same and indeed would be most surprised if they did. I'm not sure if the fact could be easily concealed: wouldn't a simple head count of the number of female pilots now and in a year's time reveal the answer? Or am I missing something?

airbusgirl's point is a belief rather than a stated fact or a claim. The point is correct about the law; what she is refering to is the industrial consequences of this judgement. For too long, PTW for both RTR and lifestyle have been denied for general and blanket reasons, mostly along the lines of "we can't afford it." This judgement allows us to approach the company with a platform to build a better way of doing things. From my perspective as a rep, this can only be positive.

Heliport:
1) I started to write a long answer here going into details about how we argued the case with regard to hours and I've scrubbed it. The case is still live, and with your forbearance, I would like to take some advice on just how detailed I can be in a public forum (is this classed as a public forum?). To date, I have only written what came out in the tribunal itself, which may or may not make it public knowledge. I'd better not go further without some advice. Sorry about that.

2) the 'personal' thing - fair play. I should have said "veered into personal abuse", for some of the things said about her have been inexcusable.

3) if you check on the previous page to this, lou scannon asked why she didn't have her children before entering the airline.

4) as for comprehension, I wrote this because I think it is the single biggest beef I have come across in all the months of advocating Jessica's case. And in a way I kind off understand, because discrimination laws are on the face of it supposed to make things equal, and this case seems to be doing the opposite. It is not until the crucial fact about it being assumed that the female is the primary carer and therefore suitable adjustments to working conditions should be made, does it make more sense.

Maybe "comprehension" has connotations I hadn't realised in this debate. I would certainly never intimate that anyone who didn't agree with me was blind and mad, nor do I agree with Madonna, who stated that "everyone is entitled to their own opinion, as long as it is the same as mine", though it would be useful sometimes...

cc - thanks for the kind words. Yes, to the best of my knowledge BALPA will be supporting Jessica through the appeal. The usual mechanisms will be in place.

Best wishes

Dave

[ornithopter]

Dave,

A few points.

Ms Starmer apparently said "all I want is to be able to care for my daughter" or words to that effect. Now correct me if I am wrong, but she is based in London doesn't exactly live near to where she works. What part of the tribunal took account of the fact that travelling time was time wasted that could be used looking after her child? Why should BA pay for that?

Is her husband not part time already? What stopped her presumably more experienced pilot husband from getting 50% and looking after the kids? Surely then all she needs is 2000 hours then she can go 50% and spend more time with the kids. Not perhaps first choice, but my parents gave up an awful lot to bring me up - it seems she wants her cake and a full tummy.

Sexixm - BA presumably has written a policy. Where in this policy does it say it is restricted to women? How can it be sexist if the policy is applied the same way to both sexes?

Evidence of safety - if there is no proof in the fact that 50% is dangerous (based on a very small percentage of pliots), then what do we wait for? Do we reduce working hours until it becomes dangerous (ie we have proof that danger has occurred) before we stop it - or do we make a reasoned judgement. What if someone wants 30%, or 10%? Will you say "we have no evidence that 10% is dangerous" - well of course not as no one has done it!!!! If hours is as good a measure of experience as we have then come for an aerobatics and spinning session with me. If have a significant number of hours flying aeros, but none for about 5 years. Would you trust me to recover from the spin properly? (I'm attacking the logic of your argument here, not suggesting airline pilots spin regularly!)

Women pilots - great, lets have more, and lets give them time to do what humans do and be paid maternity. Also, lets look at why there are only 2.9%. Women and Men are fundamentally, and scientifically provably different. Flying is largely a spatial task and females are provably not as apt at these as men. They are much better than men at a lot of other things. One reason there are not many female pilots is that it simply does not attract them as a task. Much the same as a teaching/nurturing role does not attract as many men. This is no refelction on women - I love flying with them, but it is provably true.

Grounding during pregnancy - one can't criticise BA for grounding someone during pregnancy. BA has a duty of care to it's employee's and passngers. BALPA would be the first to take the company to task if a pregnant pilot kept flying at the company's behest and gave birth to an abnormal baby. BA are doing themselves and the pregnant pilots a favour.

We do need to support a good way of bringing up kids and letting people be pregnant and have a family. But this case seems way over the top to me. Where is BALPA's support on other very important things? What about the attendance management policy? Sometimes it is a real shame we as members cannot take BALPA to a tribunal, because I am sure you would lose.

Bidline - why are you a strict defender of bidline - it is clearly "seniorityist" and one of the reasons that the lady in question could not guarantee time off in opposition to her husband. Surely this is a major part of the case. It is not "BA rostering systems" it is "BALPA forcing BA to roster in a certain way". I would be much happier to have "pregnancy lines" in the bid pack than take the case to a tribunal and spend a lot of hard earned members cash on a questionable case. It wouldn't be hard. Assign trips at the training stage for both partners in sympathy with each other and chuck the rest into the normal bidline pot.

Oh and one more thing - you told us in your first post that many people are judging without getting all the facts. Maybe your judgement is impaired regarding your initial thoughts about Pprune? Was this same impairment the thing that got you to sign up to the attendance management programme? Perhaps you should be in posession of the full facts before you make descisions which effect others lives...

[Heliport]

Dave Fielding

Thanks for your replies.

Hours: Nothing you say in discussion, even on this public forum, is going to influence the result of the appeal but, just like everyone else here, you're entitled to answer or not answer points - and dodge them if they're a little tricky.

It's true there have been some strong criticisms of her, but nothing IMHO "inexcusable." If people are disgusted by her behaviour (as many clearly are) why they should not say so?

Lou Scannon asking why she didn't have her children before entering the airline isn't the same as telling her when she should have children. Numerous people have suggested if she wants to be an airline pilot and a mother, she should have organised her life a little better. Is that point of view unreasonable?

[ATRIXO]

BA case

Nevertheless we cannot ignore the conclusions of the court. No doubt BA will deal with the safety aspects and apprpriate training accordingly.
I have to say that it is vey easy to esculate the difficulties in retraining post child female pilots


.

[RatherBeFlying]

Women take the career hit in many professions when they have children. Also many women and their husbands have sadly discovered that putting off children until well established in a career puts them past the time when they can conceive or exposes them to problematic pregnancies and poor outcomes.

Provisions for maternity leave and PTW is all about supporting the human race.

[Wiley]

In Ms Starmer’s case, I’m reminded of the classic Joe Heller novel ‘Catch 22’ – (which, coincidentally, was about a character who didn’t want to fly). When Yossarian tells the USAAF shrink (and anyone else who’ll listen) that he doesn’t want to fly any more combat missions, he is asked: “But what if everyone thought that way? We wouldn’t be able to fight the war.”

Yossarian replies “Then I’d be mad not to think the same, wouldn’t I?.”

Transpose this purposely absurd situation to BA and today and ask yourself “What if everyone wanted to fly a 50% roster? The airline wouldn’t be able to operate - at least economically.” (I’m standing by for the protests from those who don’t seem to care about the last word in that sentence as long as they have their ‘rights’ protected and improved. My reply to such protestations would include the words ‘golden goose’ and ‘cooked’.)

Many may not understand the depths of feeling this topic has brought glaringly to the surface in so many of us. Most of us, (even those who were the incredibly lucky ones – like Ms Starmer – and were sponsored), feel we worked very hard to be accepted into a flag carrier airline. Along the way, we all knew far too many incredibly hard working and committed people who put in as much if not more effort and did not make the grade – (and not always because of lack of ability). We also know too many people who, if given the opportunity Ms Starmer has been given, would grasp it with both hands and give their employer a fair return for his investment.

Given the expense of initial – and continuation/recency – training, I wouldn’t think there’d be too many who believed the company’s demand that the employee gain 2000 hours - approximately three years on the job – before being granted a 50% roster was unreasonable.

[Ghengis Cant]

I haven't read such a wealth of PC drivel in ages.

As a part time pilot with a fifty percent roster and a substantial load more hours than this young lady I know exactly how rusty you get......and how quickly.

It is amazing and indeed quite scary that functions you perform without conscious thought when you are "in the groove" often quite unexpectedly become unfamiliar. My brief to my coopilot after any break of more than ten days or so includes the invitation to "watch me like a hawk as I may be rusty" and I generally do not act as PF for the first sector.

Add inexperience to sleepless nights, hormones and worry about the childs nappy rash or child care arrangements and you have one hell of a cocktail.

BA were dead right and I hope for the safety of all who travel that they win the appeal.

Balpa need to take a reality check and concentrate on representing the interests of all their members, not going off on expensive politically correct adventures .

I'd like to know how much this nonsense has cost.

Add an appeal and BA's costs (for which they will be liable if they loose on appeal I believe ) and you are looking at the thick side of a hundred grand.....................Not what I pay my subscriptions for.

[Hand Solo]

I'm only doing six sectors this month, two of them will be as the heavy pilot, and I'll have a continous stretch of 12 days off between them. Thats on a full time roster. Does that make me unsafe?

It is amazing and indeed quite scary that functions you perform without conscious thought when you are "in the groove" often quite unexpectedly become unfamiliar

I presume from this you fly short haul? Perhaps you should pay a visit to BAs long haul fleets where recency and handling practice can be in such short supply that nothing is performed without conscious thought first. You seem to have confused being slick with being safe.

[cavortingcheetah]

GC
Your words of wisdom and sound advice are irrefutably spot on.

'Watch me like a hawk.' always used to produce wry amusement upon the faces of the F/Os when I was a 50%er. Perhaps they did anyway!
I wonder whether someone seemingly as full of themselves as JS would appear to be would have the common sense and indeed, humility, to adopt such a course of action.

[wiggy]

Dave F

Thanks for joining this much maligned forum, its not that bad and indeed judging by the writing styles this thread appears at least appears to be, how shall I put it, "rage free"

You mentioned early on the fact that the existing PTWK contract was in part drawn up by a brave female pilot a few years back. Now IMHO the agreement was very cleverly drawn up, because as I understand it BA Part Time Workers undertake no reserve/standby commitments, and can gain some advantage over their senior colleagues at one of the stages of work allocation/award (back to bidline rules, sorry chaps/chappesses)

It is no surprise, IMHO, that many of the full time workers feel they are being disadvantaged by the part time workers and is certainly not giving equality for all. Perhaps a rewrite of the PTWK contract to correct these apparent anomalies would reduce some of the "anti' feeling we are seeing here and in "the other place"

[Airbus Girl]

If flying a 50% roster with low total hours is unsafe, why do the CAA not regulate against it? Why do the CAA not change the rules and have a figure of more than 350 hours per year as a minimum to stay current?
Presumably because they do not feel the need to, from a safety aspect.

[African Drunk]

Out of interest does BALPA feel part time crew should gain senority at the same rate as 100% rostered pilots?

And secondly if the pilot in question was male, wanting to look after his children, would this ruling help them?

[Helli-Gurl]

As a female commercial pilot I can only feel that Jessica Starmer has set back the cause of us females that wish to work as pilots in the world of commercial aviation by years if not decades.

If this case sets a precedent, what credible employers are going to give us girls a serious look?

[HZ123]

Quite. It seems that many of these comments are clearly directed at her sex. I suppose if this had been a male F/O we would all be fully supportive of him.

[Aloue]

Genghis Cant says:

As a part time pilot with a fifty percent roster and a substantial load more hours than this young lady I know exactly how rusty you get......and how quickly.

Am we to take it then that you have therefore stopped being a part time pilot? If not, what are you trying to tell us?

[Harry Wragg]

I 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. Not much point having 50000 employees, all of whom are not there!

I'm off to write a letter to BALPA to see if they will support my case for every Sunday off. After all can't someone be a pilot and a Christian.

Lifes not fair, and BALPA are there to ensure that it stays that way.

Harry