Jessica Starmer - BALPA's view (Update - Appeal decision)
PPRuNe Supporter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Devon, UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GGV
Unless I have missed something, what does maternity leave have to do with this case?
We have not heard much lately about what this case has done for future female recruits, I wonder if there is anyone who thinks that female wannabees are better off now than before?
Unless I have missed something, what does maternity leave have to do with this case?
We have not heard much lately about what this case has done for future female recruits, I wonder if there is anyone who thinks that female wannabees are better off now than before?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just been to the doctors. Notice on the wall suggesting that two doctors are on maternity leave. Dates given suggest they will both be off work for six/seven months.
I presume Jessica could have come back to her chosen career a little sooner that 17 months (or was it 19).
I presume Jessica could have come back to her chosen career a little sooner that 17 months (or was it 19).
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Over The Hills And Far Away
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the Me generation is reaching working age we can expect much more of this.
Who cares about the consequences as long as I get what I want.
This is only the beginning.
Who cares about the consequences as long as I get what I want.
This is only the beginning.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Send Clowns, you said:
However, you were not subject to a personal attack, but rather to an allusion to what you said in your previous post, namely:
What I suggested was that the point was subtle, but NOT a matter of stupidity. Which brings me back to subtlety ....
Isn't it a sign of stupidity not to read the rules of the site that relate to personal attacks within posts, or are they too subtle?
Forgive me if I'm being stupid ...
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lots of very good views on this item....but..
Rules is Rules, often used to fox the workers, but in this case looks like they Have helped the workers.
Well done and I hope others follow this path...
Rules is Rules, often used to fox the workers, but in this case looks like they Have helped the workers.
Well done and I hope others follow this path...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bucks
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear All
Apologies for my absence. It's that darned job getting in the way again. I was going to say "getting in the way of pleasure", but that might be a little rash.
Many points have been answered by other contributers so I won't go over them again. To clear up some posts:
19 months off
There is no mystery or conspiracy here. Pregancies are generally declared when confirmed around 3 months. That gives 6 months grounded. 6 weeks (only) paid maternity leave plus a further 26 weeks' OML gives another 6 months. Under new legislation, mothers are now entitled to a further 26 weeks unpaid Additional Maternity Leave. That gives 18 months. Add on 4 week's worth of accrued leave and you have your 19 months, much of which is unpaid and in the vast majority of cases, all of what is paid is at a monthly rate of less than would be earned if flying.
Training Costs
From my recollection, cadets pay back 50% of their training costs over the first 5 years (pro-rated if PT) in the company. In addition, their salaries are on a sliding scale percentage of a DEP salary for the first 5 years, only catching up at pp6. Whilst is was a good deal, it certainly is not having everything handed to you on a plate as some have suggested. That accusation could better be aimed at my generation who had everything sponsored by BA. We were incredibly lucky.
Bad things happened to others, therefore why should JS be different?"
I think the substantive point of that post has been answered. However, I raise it because many posts I have read here and elsewhere revolve around the line of "I / my wife / my mother did it so why shouldn't she?" It's an interesting point. Do two wrongs make a right? Did the mothers of the suffragettes tell them that they shouldn't protest because they never had the vote? In the UK today we are working more hours than ever before, and females are achieving positions in business which were unthinkable 20 years ago. Our society is changing rapidly and, I think, is still trying to come to terms with itself over the concepts of working and parenthood. The pendulum hasn't finished swinging by any means.
Surely the only way to progress is to explore ways in which the maximum amount of flexibility is available to the maximum number of people. This is why this case is so important: it is not just about sexual discrimination. It is about opening up the possibilities for flexible working to all pilots, be they male or female, junior or senior. This is BALPA's aim. Does anyone think we should not be striving for this?
JS could go LH at 50%
Theoretically yes, but don't forget that BA can do what they like with a pilot in the first 5 years of their employment. In reality, most FOs have to see out those 5 years before they are allowed to move on. I fly with enough of them desperate to go on to the shiny LH beasts...
JS not returning and claiming constructive dismissal
Those are hypothetical questions, I'm afraid, and ones I am certainly not qualified to answer.
The cadet pilot quality argument
For information, the BA cadet scheme started in December 1987, so thinking it through nearly two thirds of the current pilot strength came through the cadet scheme. Indeed, a very high number of the trainers on the Airbus are ex-cadets. It is the best standard and consistancy of training I have ever found on any BA fleet I been part of. I don't think the argument as to the quality or not of the cadets really adds to this debate. Jessica reached - and continues to reach - the required high standard to operate a BA jet. I refer you to the opinions expressed a couple of pages ago concerning the opinions on the fleet as to her competence.
800 hours only on overtime
This is not true. We have pilots on planned rosters alone currently achieving over 800 annual hours on the Airbus.
"No budget for 50% PTW isn't discriminatory"
The answer to this one is in what the tribunal calls the PCP, or Policy, Criterion or Policy. It notes that once you move from 75% to 50% contracts, the number of them is going to be proportionally more female than male. This means that any PCP you apply to 50% contracts (in this case, not giving any) has a disproportionate, and therefore discriminatory, effect on females. Hope that makes sense.
There has been some comment that BALPA is supporting her just because she is female. This is not true. A member brought a case to us requesting support and the case fulfilled all the internal criteria necessary for us to support it. Therefore we did. If a case is brought by male which also fulfills the criteria, we will support that as well. Indeed, the last time BALPA took BA to an ET it was over unfair dismissal of a male.
I would finally like to ask again a question I asked some pages ago which never received a reply: would an employer, holding an application from a female pilot in one hand and a newspaper detailing the JS case in the other, be more or less likely now to throw that application in the bin, knowing that the subject is red hot and we are all looking at it very closely indeed? Female cadets will continue to come out of the training schools. If their male colleagues all found jobs and they didn't, then there is something clear and measurable going on. I sincerely hope that situation does not happen, but we will support any female who thought - and could provide reasonable evidence - that they were being discriminated against. As, indeed, we would support a male who found themselves in the mirror situation.
Best wishes
Dave
Apologies for my absence. It's that darned job getting in the way again. I was going to say "getting in the way of pleasure", but that might be a little rash.
Many points have been answered by other contributers so I won't go over them again. To clear up some posts:
19 months off
There is no mystery or conspiracy here. Pregancies are generally declared when confirmed around 3 months. That gives 6 months grounded. 6 weeks (only) paid maternity leave plus a further 26 weeks' OML gives another 6 months. Under new legislation, mothers are now entitled to a further 26 weeks unpaid Additional Maternity Leave. That gives 18 months. Add on 4 week's worth of accrued leave and you have your 19 months, much of which is unpaid and in the vast majority of cases, all of what is paid is at a monthly rate of less than would be earned if flying.
Training Costs
From my recollection, cadets pay back 50% of their training costs over the first 5 years (pro-rated if PT) in the company. In addition, their salaries are on a sliding scale percentage of a DEP salary for the first 5 years, only catching up at pp6. Whilst is was a good deal, it certainly is not having everything handed to you on a plate as some have suggested. That accusation could better be aimed at my generation who had everything sponsored by BA. We were incredibly lucky.
Bad things happened to others, therefore why should JS be different?"
I think the substantive point of that post has been answered. However, I raise it because many posts I have read here and elsewhere revolve around the line of "I / my wife / my mother did it so why shouldn't she?" It's an interesting point. Do two wrongs make a right? Did the mothers of the suffragettes tell them that they shouldn't protest because they never had the vote? In the UK today we are working more hours than ever before, and females are achieving positions in business which were unthinkable 20 years ago. Our society is changing rapidly and, I think, is still trying to come to terms with itself over the concepts of working and parenthood. The pendulum hasn't finished swinging by any means.
Surely the only way to progress is to explore ways in which the maximum amount of flexibility is available to the maximum number of people. This is why this case is so important: it is not just about sexual discrimination. It is about opening up the possibilities for flexible working to all pilots, be they male or female, junior or senior. This is BALPA's aim. Does anyone think we should not be striving for this?
JS could go LH at 50%
Theoretically yes, but don't forget that BA can do what they like with a pilot in the first 5 years of their employment. In reality, most FOs have to see out those 5 years before they are allowed to move on. I fly with enough of them desperate to go on to the shiny LH beasts...
JS not returning and claiming constructive dismissal
Those are hypothetical questions, I'm afraid, and ones I am certainly not qualified to answer.
The cadet pilot quality argument
For information, the BA cadet scheme started in December 1987, so thinking it through nearly two thirds of the current pilot strength came through the cadet scheme. Indeed, a very high number of the trainers on the Airbus are ex-cadets. It is the best standard and consistancy of training I have ever found on any BA fleet I been part of. I don't think the argument as to the quality or not of the cadets really adds to this debate. Jessica reached - and continues to reach - the required high standard to operate a BA jet. I refer you to the opinions expressed a couple of pages ago concerning the opinions on the fleet as to her competence.
800 hours only on overtime
This is not true. We have pilots on planned rosters alone currently achieving over 800 annual hours on the Airbus.
"No budget for 50% PTW isn't discriminatory"
The answer to this one is in what the tribunal calls the PCP, or Policy, Criterion or Policy. It notes that once you move from 75% to 50% contracts, the number of them is going to be proportionally more female than male. This means that any PCP you apply to 50% contracts (in this case, not giving any) has a disproportionate, and therefore discriminatory, effect on females. Hope that makes sense.
There has been some comment that BALPA is supporting her just because she is female. This is not true. A member brought a case to us requesting support and the case fulfilled all the internal criteria necessary for us to support it. Therefore we did. If a case is brought by male which also fulfills the criteria, we will support that as well. Indeed, the last time BALPA took BA to an ET it was over unfair dismissal of a male.
I would finally like to ask again a question I asked some pages ago which never received a reply: would an employer, holding an application from a female pilot in one hand and a newspaper detailing the JS case in the other, be more or less likely now to throw that application in the bin, knowing that the subject is red hot and we are all looking at it very closely indeed? Female cadets will continue to come out of the training schools. If their male colleagues all found jobs and they didn't, then there is something clear and measurable going on. I sincerely hope that situation does not happen, but we will support any female who thought - and could provide reasonable evidence - that they were being discriminated against. As, indeed, we would support a male who found themselves in the mirror situation.
Best wishes
Dave
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: England.
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would finally like to ask again a question I asked some pages ago which never received a reply: would an employer, holding an application from a female pilot in one hand and a newspaper detailing the JS case in the other, be more or less likely now to throw that application in the bin.....
To repeat, with emphasis.....from my experiences of employers outside BA, there will be no hesitation whatsoever in enforcing a policy (undocumented, obviously) of no heterosexual female pilot recruits. It'd be amusing to see BALPA prove discrimination by any company outside BA.
Of course, I stipulated outside BA. BA is a unique culture, circulating the sun on a different planet to the rest of UK aviation. I blame decades of taxpayer supported Nationalisation and a huge wad of Heathrow slots, but that's another subject.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bucks
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To reply to the last two posts:
1) I'm afraid I don't know how much it cost(ed) BA to train cadets. Having done some recruitment at OATS last year I recall the cheapest course was around £51k, but that is probably out of date or wrong. No doubt others can answer this question better than I can.
2) I take your point. The only thing I would say is that you mention your previous experience. Do you think things would be different now? Do you think that as a result of Jessica's case females might feel empowered - with BALPA's backing - to stand up against this sort of thing?
I stress I don't know the answer and am speculating as much as the next man. The debate is, I guess, over whether the issue has taken a step backwards because of the case. I don't know. What I do passionately believe, however, is that ultimately we will take many strides forward because of the ground we have broken here. And I say again that these advances are not confined to females: all those who aspire to PTW for whatever reason now have a better chance than they did before the case.
Best wishes
Dave
1) I'm afraid I don't know how much it cost(ed) BA to train cadets. Having done some recruitment at OATS last year I recall the cheapest course was around £51k, but that is probably out of date or wrong. No doubt others can answer this question better than I can.
2) I take your point. The only thing I would say is that you mention your previous experience. Do you think things would be different now? Do you think that as a result of Jessica's case females might feel empowered - with BALPA's backing - to stand up against this sort of thing?
I stress I don't know the answer and am speculating as much as the next man. The debate is, I guess, over whether the issue has taken a step backwards because of the case. I don't know. What I do passionately believe, however, is that ultimately we will take many strides forward because of the ground we have broken here. And I say again that these advances are not confined to females: all those who aspire to PTW for whatever reason now have a better chance than they did before the case.
Best wishes
Dave
PPRuNe Supporter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Devon, UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Dave,
Employers are sent hundreds of CVs every week. There is anecdotal evidence elsewhere which states that some recruiters simply sort them by age, eg which side of 28 the candidate is. This creates 2 piles. Interviewees are then selected, when required, from one of the piles. Guess which one. (This is discrimination BTW and we all know it happens, but I guess age discrimination is not as sexy)
There is no doubt given the huge number of CVs received by companies that they all must use some form of arbitrary filtering procedure in order to reduce the number of CVs they have down to a managable size. I don't think employers are now going to look more favourably at female wannabees now than they would have done before this tribunal. I am of course refering to the world of the wannabees, not experienced plots, and obviously therefore I am talking about the world outside BA. I wonder if BALPA has had any support whatsoever from any female fATPL holders looking for their first job?
Employers are sent hundreds of CVs every week. There is anecdotal evidence elsewhere which states that some recruiters simply sort them by age, eg which side of 28 the candidate is. This creates 2 piles. Interviewees are then selected, when required, from one of the piles. Guess which one. (This is discrimination BTW and we all know it happens, but I guess age discrimination is not as sexy)
There is no doubt given the huge number of CVs received by companies that they all must use some form of arbitrary filtering procedure in order to reduce the number of CVs they have down to a managable size. I don't think employers are now going to look more favourably at female wannabees now than they would have done before this tribunal. I am of course refering to the world of the wannabees, not experienced plots, and obviously therefore I am talking about the world outside BA. I wonder if BALPA has had any support whatsoever from any female fATPL holders looking for their first job?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
millerscourt - A BA cadet course used to cost around £51K to £56K from day 1 to completion of the Jet Orientation Course. From then on the TEPs get a BA contract and undergo exactly the same type rating training as DEPs. According to the latest pay scales, in the first five years of their employment by BA the TEP will be paid £55056 pounds less than a DEP. Add to that the 25% or so BA avoid having to pay into the pension scheme by having a lower salary and you can see that the TEP scheme was very cost effective for BA. I might also add that a number of self sponsored TEPs who paid for there own ab-initio courses are employed by BA. Despite the fact that they paid for their own licences they are still paid roughly £40000 less than a DEP over the first 5 years.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: cambridge
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave,
As I commented back on one of the first few pages of this thread, the argument you gave (which, incidentally, I agree with) that by discussing this issue we are raising the profile of women pilots and giving employers food for thought when it comes to recruitment, may in fact found a case of positive discrimination against males.
As has been indicated previously, only 2.9% of commercial pilots are female (source earlier in the thread). If employers are now in a position where they are considering between a male and female candidate, then I am sure you will agree with me that you ought not to be selecting women JUST because they are women, to balance the numbers. Ability and suitability must prevail.
My concern is that the 'fight for equality' you believe this case has raised, if it makes employers feel intimated for rejecting women, raises the potential (note, this is a possibility only) that positive discrimination will take place whereby employers do not want to be seen to be discriminating against women and so take on a disproportionate quantity of women in relation to those actually applying, simply in order to quash gender discrimination accusations. Clearly we want to encourage women to get into aviation, but it is not BALPA's job to engineer the applications in the first place.
A rather practical illustration of this is at my university. Cambridge has an applicant make-up of roughly 40% Private, 60% state school, which reflects pretty accurately the proportion of applicants for those sectors. The government wants more state school pupils here, which I agree is an excellent thing. But to compare it with the case in question - we should be doing this by encouraging more state school applicants to apply initially, rather than discriminating in their favour when they do. In other words, we should work to ensure that women recognise that aviation is a viable career for them (which it is, provided they accept - as many on pprune believe - that it is not always 100% compatible with the lifestyle choice of having a child), but we shouldn't let the JS ruling scare employers into tinkering the figures in their favour.
As I commented back on one of the first few pages of this thread, the argument you gave (which, incidentally, I agree with) that by discussing this issue we are raising the profile of women pilots and giving employers food for thought when it comes to recruitment, may in fact found a case of positive discrimination against males.
As has been indicated previously, only 2.9% of commercial pilots are female (source earlier in the thread). If employers are now in a position where they are considering between a male and female candidate, then I am sure you will agree with me that you ought not to be selecting women JUST because they are women, to balance the numbers. Ability and suitability must prevail.
My concern is that the 'fight for equality' you believe this case has raised, if it makes employers feel intimated for rejecting women, raises the potential (note, this is a possibility only) that positive discrimination will take place whereby employers do not want to be seen to be discriminating against women and so take on a disproportionate quantity of women in relation to those actually applying, simply in order to quash gender discrimination accusations. Clearly we want to encourage women to get into aviation, but it is not BALPA's job to engineer the applications in the first place.
A rather practical illustration of this is at my university. Cambridge has an applicant make-up of roughly 40% Private, 60% state school, which reflects pretty accurately the proportion of applicants for those sectors. The government wants more state school pupils here, which I agree is an excellent thing. But to compare it with the case in question - we should be doing this by encouraging more state school applicants to apply initially, rather than discriminating in their favour when they do. In other words, we should work to ensure that women recognise that aviation is a viable career for them (which it is, provided they accept - as many on pprune believe - that it is not always 100% compatible with the lifestyle choice of having a child), but we shouldn't let the JS ruling scare employers into tinkering the figures in their favour.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To play the devils advocate here.....
Cambridge claims to be promoting better access to state school pupils, yet simultaneously throws up barriers in their way by requesting additional exams over and above A Levels such as STEP papers or admissions tests. The additional coaching required for these is highly unlikely to be available to the average state school applicant hence they do not apply. Thus the university can claim to be supporting state applicants whilst really the status quo remains.
BA has made good capital for years by recruting female pilots. They feature in both in-house and external publications with a regularity which is totally disproportionate to their number within the whole pilot community. However BA wanted to have its cake and eat it. It wanted the prestige of advancing the cause of women pilots but without the cost of doing so. Now the tribunal has ruled that they must pay the price of that prestige and the management are looking rather red faced.
Cambridge claims to be promoting better access to state school pupils, yet simultaneously throws up barriers in their way by requesting additional exams over and above A Levels such as STEP papers or admissions tests. The additional coaching required for these is highly unlikely to be available to the average state school applicant hence they do not apply. Thus the university can claim to be supporting state applicants whilst really the status quo remains.
BA has made good capital for years by recruting female pilots. They feature in both in-house and external publications with a regularity which is totally disproportionate to their number within the whole pilot community. However BA wanted to have its cake and eat it. It wanted the prestige of advancing the cause of women pilots but without the cost of doing so. Now the tribunal has ruled that they must pay the price of that prestige and the management are looking rather red faced.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: cambridge
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certainly I'm not sure that's true - because such STEP papers and admissions tests use the same syllabus and material as the students are already studying for their 'standard' A-Levels. The difference is in the difficulty.
That is, in itself, a good parallel. BA wants to set high standards of its staff and demands commitment in return. I see no reason why it shouldn't be disappointed by a woman's decision to put her career on hold in order to give birth.
Anyway, all this is very well and good...but what will actually be done about it? It seems (although one assumes this website isn't the best indicator of what public opinion is!) that the majority of pilots and those working in aviation are overwhelmingly against the tribunal's finding. In which case, is there a mechanism through which their collective grievance can be channeled? Petition to BALPA? Letter of protest?
Just seems rather unproductive to complain but not to do anything.
That is, in itself, a good parallel. BA wants to set high standards of its staff and demands commitment in return. I see no reason why it shouldn't be disappointed by a woman's decision to put her career on hold in order to give birth.
Anyway, all this is very well and good...but what will actually be done about it? It seems (although one assumes this website isn't the best indicator of what public opinion is!) that the majority of pilots and those working in aviation are overwhelmingly against the tribunal's finding. In which case, is there a mechanism through which their collective grievance can be channeled? Petition to BALPA? Letter of protest?
Just seems rather unproductive to complain but not to do anything.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a female's point of view (mine!), I'd have to say that what she's done hasn't empowered me, it's actually quite embarassing and I would hazard a guess has allowed female progression into the flight deck to take a giant leap backwards....
Any low-cost/small operator will get hundreds of CV's.... There is absoutely no way to know how they filter them, but I'm pretty sure a female's cv will go to the bottom of the pile.....
If a female pilot with quite a lot of experience applies for a job with a different airline, when she's around the 30-ish mark, the new airline will no doubt be slightly concerned that she's reaching that 'Bridget Jones' age when she'll most probably consider having a few sprogs, and will therefore again put her CV to the bottom of the pile.....
Airlines won't want to take a risk on a woman who could at any point turn around and demand a cushy roster because she has a little one at home.....
Any low-cost/small operator will get hundreds of CV's.... There is absoutely no way to know how they filter them, but I'm pretty sure a female's cv will go to the bottom of the pile.....
If a female pilot with quite a lot of experience applies for a job with a different airline, when she's around the 30-ish mark, the new airline will no doubt be slightly concerned that she's reaching that 'Bridget Jones' age when she'll most probably consider having a few sprogs, and will therefore again put her CV to the bottom of the pile.....
Airlines won't want to take a risk on a woman who could at any point turn around and demand a cushy roster because she has a little one at home.....
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming they were previously prepared to take a risk by employing a women who could be off on pregnancy/maternity for the best part of a year. How many people really believe there are employers out there going "Well I'm really cash strapped and need the most out of my staff. I was prepared to take a gamble by employing and type rating a women, in the knowledge that she could take a year off at any time, but now I have to give her part time as well, hey it just doesn't add up." If they're not going to employ women because of maternity issues after this tribunal I have grave doubts that they would have employed women before the tribunal anyway.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I may be so bold as to sum up Hand Solo's comments and those of er82 - I think this IS probably the thin edge of the wedge. In the managements door!
I think lady pilots are going to have to battle with the "Starmer Syndrome" for a long time to come. It ain't gonna be good for the girls who, I have to say, I support 100%.
I think lady pilots are going to have to battle with the "Starmer Syndrome" for a long time to come. It ain't gonna be good for the girls who, I have to say, I support 100%.
PPRuNe Handmaiden
"empowered females". I don't think so.
There's not many of us female pilots around. I have been asked in an interview (Australia, Qantas regional airline)
"are you married?"
ans. No.
"are you in a long term steady relationship"
ans. No.
"are you planning any children soon"
ans. No.
Reason for those questions. 2 FOs were on maternity leave. They'd been with the company for quite a few years and they wanted to have some kids. (I believe they'd been with the co for ~5-8 years)
I did get the job. Now I am in the UK and with a new employer. They probably would have ~10-15 female pilots out of ~360+ pilots. (Not a UK company BTW)
If employers feel that female pilots will cost them a lot of money and loss of productivity then they will not employ us. Pure and simple. I would like to think that a female pilot "grounded" due maternity could return something to the company in the way of ground jobs. Such as interviews, manual revision/proof reading, conducting CRM courses or being sim buddies when required.
I am nearly 40 and no kids. I don't think it is morally right for me to start a new job, be paid to train and have a type rating paid for by the company and without a suitable return of service expect 50% roster and maternity leave.
I am very conscious that acceptance of female pilots is a comparatively new thing. We're still working on our passengers but they too will accept us. This decision by the courts has done nothing to help us be accepted as equals.
I don't know JS personally and perhaps there's more to the case than what has been written here. My view is a personal one.
There's no point in winning a battle if you're going to lose the war.
There's not many of us female pilots around. I have been asked in an interview (Australia, Qantas regional airline)
"are you married?"
ans. No.
"are you in a long term steady relationship"
ans. No.
"are you planning any children soon"
ans. No.
Reason for those questions. 2 FOs were on maternity leave. They'd been with the company for quite a few years and they wanted to have some kids. (I believe they'd been with the co for ~5-8 years)
I did get the job. Now I am in the UK and with a new employer. They probably would have ~10-15 female pilots out of ~360+ pilots. (Not a UK company BTW)
If employers feel that female pilots will cost them a lot of money and loss of productivity then they will not employ us. Pure and simple. I would like to think that a female pilot "grounded" due maternity could return something to the company in the way of ground jobs. Such as interviews, manual revision/proof reading, conducting CRM courses or being sim buddies when required.
I am nearly 40 and no kids. I don't think it is morally right for me to start a new job, be paid to train and have a type rating paid for by the company and without a suitable return of service expect 50% roster and maternity leave.
I am very conscious that acceptance of female pilots is a comparatively new thing. We're still working on our passengers but they too will accept us. This decision by the courts has done nothing to help us be accepted as equals.
I don't know JS personally and perhaps there's more to the case than what has been written here. My view is a personal one.
There's no point in winning a battle if you're going to lose the war.
Registered User **
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: poll position
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the problem here. This young intelligent lady of breeding age wants to have kids. Good on her. There are enough government funded chavs and lowlifes breeding so the more the middle classes are encouraged to breed we stand a better chance of evening out the balance. The government should subsidise companies to keep middle class people in the sack and in work at the same time.
The bonus is that the taxes paid also keep the chavs in council houses and argos jewellry so its a win win.
dicks
The bonus is that the taxes paid also keep the chavs in council houses and argos jewellry so its a win win.
dicks
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dyck, just tell it how it is.
redsnail and er82, you are right. I am trying to find another job, making a choice: IF I do get another job (yeah, I dream on) it would not occur to me to drop pregnant within the first 3 years of that new employment, being old fashioned somehow, I still have a sense of loyalty and honour, prob to my own detriment. ( as management don't show the same in return, but that's another story).
So, I am torn-between in the JS case. Sorry, but having everything shuved up your backside by your employer (ie cadet scheme ((and yes, of course I'm jealous, I would have rather had an easy ride, getting qualified))). Then work a little and then start the family so soon, is taking the mick. You could have waited just that tad longer.
On the other hand, JS will stay with BA until she retires, whereas a young boy-cadet, will leave for better things as soon as he can, because, let's face it: BA as an employer is no longer the cream of the crop these days. Working your a$$ off to the point of being unsafe, take note AMcL, is not exactly a cool prospect. (still undercrewed?hmm, wonder why)
Also: why is it such a big problem to work pt?? Do they begrudge parttimers the off-time? remember you also get only paid part-money (X-Trail rather than Cayenne), get part-leave etc. the fact about bidline is to be sorted, why the inequality, there?
What baffles me is Mr. Starmer's role in all this. What about him going pt? If both do 75% that'll be 150%, too. Or can't he be bothered?????
Captain Fielding, I admire you, and as a BALPA member thank you with all my heart for all your time, effort and sweat you put into this. There are clearly a lot of issues to be dealt with within our community and this is just the tip of the iceberg. (for all the whingers who get out of BALPA: good riddance, we don't need you)
It starts with the ridiculous amount of money we have to stamp up to become qualified: why does 1 hour of Aztec flying for your IR or 1 hour in a SIM have to cost £400? (somebody is ca$hing in big time)
A Uni-leaver these days has accrued a debt of £12,000 . My heart bleeds!! Ive just paid off my 60Grand debt this year after flying commercially for 7years: stupid, eh??
2.9% are women. prob because women aren't so stupid to fork out 60, 70 or 85grands worth to land a 20grand turboprop job!!!
Now, I'm getting carried away. I know I am ranting, and BRAKEDWELL, I'll answer your Q tomoorow, when I have flown with my fellow, knackered ladypilot to Timbuktu and back.
I always hated drawing the pc/sexist card: No boss/recruiter in their right mind is gonna look at a 20-40year old lady pilots cv in any more favour than before. It's a fact. I am surprised there IS 2.9% of us in the first place, as, with my growing experience with myself and my fellow girls, we more and more seem to get the stick.
right: flak jacket donned.
Capt Fillosan, thank you.
redsnail and er82, you are right. I am trying to find another job, making a choice: IF I do get another job (yeah, I dream on) it would not occur to me to drop pregnant within the first 3 years of that new employment, being old fashioned somehow, I still have a sense of loyalty and honour, prob to my own detriment. ( as management don't show the same in return, but that's another story).
So, I am torn-between in the JS case. Sorry, but having everything shuved up your backside by your employer (ie cadet scheme ((and yes, of course I'm jealous, I would have rather had an easy ride, getting qualified))). Then work a little and then start the family so soon, is taking the mick. You could have waited just that tad longer.
On the other hand, JS will stay with BA until she retires, whereas a young boy-cadet, will leave for better things as soon as he can, because, let's face it: BA as an employer is no longer the cream of the crop these days. Working your a$$ off to the point of being unsafe, take note AMcL, is not exactly a cool prospect. (still undercrewed?hmm, wonder why)
Also: why is it such a big problem to work pt?? Do they begrudge parttimers the off-time? remember you also get only paid part-money (X-Trail rather than Cayenne), get part-leave etc. the fact about bidline is to be sorted, why the inequality, there?
What baffles me is Mr. Starmer's role in all this. What about him going pt? If both do 75% that'll be 150%, too. Or can't he be bothered?????
Captain Fielding, I admire you, and as a BALPA member thank you with all my heart for all your time, effort and sweat you put into this. There are clearly a lot of issues to be dealt with within our community and this is just the tip of the iceberg. (for all the whingers who get out of BALPA: good riddance, we don't need you)
It starts with the ridiculous amount of money we have to stamp up to become qualified: why does 1 hour of Aztec flying for your IR or 1 hour in a SIM have to cost £400? (somebody is ca$hing in big time)
A Uni-leaver these days has accrued a debt of £12,000 . My heart bleeds!! Ive just paid off my 60Grand debt this year after flying commercially for 7years: stupid, eh??
2.9% are women. prob because women aren't so stupid to fork out 60, 70 or 85grands worth to land a 20grand turboprop job!!!
Now, I'm getting carried away. I know I am ranting, and BRAKEDWELL, I'll answer your Q tomoorow, when I have flown with my fellow, knackered ladypilot to Timbuktu and back.
I always hated drawing the pc/sexist card: No boss/recruiter in their right mind is gonna look at a 20-40year old lady pilots cv in any more favour than before. It's a fact. I am surprised there IS 2.9% of us in the first place, as, with my growing experience with myself and my fellow girls, we more and more seem to get the stick.
right: flak jacket donned.
Capt Fillosan, thank you.