Female BA pilot wins legal battle for right to work part-time
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, Flying Lawyer, amazing, and rather frightening to see the contrast. I guess I believed that then -- not so long ago actually -- and have now changed my opinion, based on my own experience.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Carnage matey,
Rather than wannabe,you are the naive one if you think an OPC can't be devised to push someone out...I'm told there is a far east airline that does it all the time.
Your condescending tone is childish and unprofessional,and berating wannabe about the cadet scheme is pathetic.
I presume you are one of the 'chosen ones' with the,'world's favourite airline' (everybody laugh).
However I still maintain she has landed a blow for female's job chances,and working so far from home on a shorthaul roster smells a bit.
what is wrong with a 75% roster anyway? -most professions don't get a week off a month,maybe she just found she didn't much like flying ?
Rather than wannabe,you are the naive one if you think an OPC can't be devised to push someone out...I'm told there is a far east airline that does it all the time.
Your condescending tone is childish and unprofessional,and berating wannabe about the cadet scheme is pathetic.
I presume you are one of the 'chosen ones' with the,'world's favourite airline' (everybody laugh).
However I still maintain she has landed a blow for female's job chances,and working so far from home on a shorthaul roster smells a bit.
what is wrong with a 75% roster anyway? -most professions don't get a week off a month,maybe she just found she didn't much like flying ?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: germany
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HA HA HA What a bunch of muppets BA management are.
They actively recruited woman with no flying experience and bypassed all the young lads who had bothered to get ppls etc sitting in flying schools because it was trendy and politically correct.
Good on her
improves everyones T's and C's
Love it.
They actively recruited woman with no flying experience and bypassed all the young lads who had bothered to get ppls etc sitting in flying schools because it was trendy and politically correct.
Good on her
improves everyones T's and C's
Love it.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
having babies is important (so I'm told), and we need the little blighters. But until someone comes up with a better idea, women unfortunately have to bear the burden.
BA's argument was that Jessica Starmer didn't have the experience to be able to safely fly only 50% of her working hours. Her husband did, however. Let's leave aside whether BA were right or wrong as to the safety aspects - I don't know, and neither do many of you. But this was the situation, and ALL BA employees knew it.
Jessica's husband was offered the 50%. Why didn't he take it? Why should everyone assume that SHE had to be the one to look after THEIR kids?
Jessica didn't have a leg to stand on, legally. It wasn't discrimination; she was being refused what she wanted purely on safety grounds. She should never have brought the case. The fact that she won proves to me that the law is 100% an ass!!!
Nobody, but nobody, in aviation that I spoke to, or who posted on here, thought she was right when this case first came up. Why have you all changed your minds now? This makes no sense whatsoever to me. Please can someone explain it all to me, clearly, logically, in words of one syllable!!!!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Anti-ice!
I dont know, I've flown with and trained a few female pilots in my time and not only were they exceedingly good but they were very good, and still are, mates!
However, I am dismayed when someone like that pulls the sexist card and says stuff you! Not only that ,she is saying stuff you to BA ( OK we all recogognise that they are being gutless, shame!) and the rest of the industry.
Where is BALPA on this (over to you,Merv)?
I dont have any problem with females on the flight deck, they have worked harder in most cases than anyone else and as I have said most are very good.
I am just sick and tired of all this gender, racist, social Bullshot in our industry.
I've been flyin for 40 years!
I guess its time I quit!
Sayonnarra suckers.
JO
I dont know, I've flown with and trained a few female pilots in my time and not only were they exceedingly good but they were very good, and still are, mates!
However, I am dismayed when someone like that pulls the sexist card and says stuff you! Not only that ,she is saying stuff you to BA ( OK we all recogognise that they are being gutless, shame!) and the rest of the industry.
Where is BALPA on this (over to you,Merv)?
I dont have any problem with females on the flight deck, they have worked harder in most cases than anyone else and as I have said most are very good.
I am just sick and tired of all this gender, racist, social Bullshot in our industry.
I've been flyin for 40 years!
I guess its time I quit!
Sayonnarra suckers.
JO
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 49
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Wrong! Women have to BEAR the children. Either parent can look after them. What law says it has to be the mother?"
Quite. I agree. I was referring to the physical act of bearing a child.
Quite. I agree. I was referring to the physical act of bearing a child.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: sussex
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its very sad to see JS has won her case.If we all did what she did and demanded as much the UK airline industry would be dead within a year.
Why won't she just leave, the majority in the airline want her to.
Why won't she just leave, the majority in the airline want her to.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airline industry must realize how women cost more because of child bearing and other health costs. For her to throw in this extra cost doesn't do much to encourage hiring female pilots. She probably wouldn't even qualify for reserve flying so people senior to her would have to do that. More reserves that fly full time, twice as much medical insurance for the people in her group, and new hire classes to make up the difference adds up to additional crew costs. Would they have hired her if they knew what she was up to.....NO. Also more simulators and instructors to keep more part time pilots qualified. She only helped herself.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: ex-DXB
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carnage Matey,
Are you her husband?
Id ask her to pay back her training costs before going part time and then sit I'd sit back and watch her hire a baby-sitter in about 1 second flat!
Are you her husband?
Id ask her to pay back her training costs before going part time and then sit I'd sit back and watch her hire a baby-sitter in about 1 second flat!
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whoever said
That would be illegal in UK employment law.
Still some very bitter people on here, many posters seem to be as near-hysterical as the man-made global warming believers
In 10 years time many who berate JS now may turn round and thank her....
How can an employee fail to welcome an improvement to a colleague's t's & c's? Or are all the critics on here management?
Does she maintain a position in her joining order? or does she slip back in proportion to the time actually spent in working as a pilot?
Still some very bitter people on here, many posters seem to be as near-hysterical as the man-made global warming believers
In 10 years time many who berate JS now may turn round and thank her....
How can an employee fail to welcome an improvement to a colleague's t's & c's? Or are all the critics on here management?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WR
I didn’t go that far. Perhaps I should explain what I meant.
BA’s decision, by letter 25 March 2004, was:
‘The RTR Board has considered your written request and your comments at the meeting. Having evaluated the possible impacts on you, your colleagues and BA at this time, I have decided that I am not able to grant your request for 50%, but I am able to agree a change for the alternative option of 75% contract starting January 2005.’
The reasons for the decision were under the headings of:
Burden of Additional Costs
Inability to re-organise work among existing employees
Detrimental effect on quality and performance
Inability to recruit extra employees.
ie The 50% application was refused for budget/resource reasons.
BA didn’t have the resources to allow F/Os to work 50%, so the safety aspect wasn’t considered. (It was academic, because it wasn’t possible for resource reasons.)
Possible procedural/tactical error:
Had BA gone a stage further, considered whether it would be appropriate (even if resources were available) to allow someone of her relatively limited experience/hours, and who at the time of the application hadn’t flown at all for 13 months, to return to work later in the year on a 50% contract and also formally refused on that ground, the ultimate result might have been different.
That's not a criticism; it’s always easy to be wise after the event.
And it might not have made any difference. In my view, she was very lucky with her tribunal.
Some on the pro-Starmer side have alleged (in the various threads) that BA dishonestly claimed there was a specific ‘hours threshold’ at the time her application was refused.
That is simply not true. BA introduced the 2000-hour threshold 3 months or so after the Starmer problem arose. There was no dispute that, until then, individual applications were considered on their individual merits.
The formal specific number of hours threshold seems to have been introduced as a direct result of the Starmer problem and to make BA’s position clear for future applicants for PTW.
I’ve read the (very long) judgments of both the original Employment Tribunal and the review in the Employment Appeals Tribunal which set out the facts, law and arguments in great detail.
IMHO the criticisms of BA made by some (a minority) on this and the previous threads are uninformed, unjustified and unfair.
I've not seen a shred of evidence that BA discriminated against women pilots in the ordinary sense of the word. However, Parliament has given discrimination a different very technical meaning in law and, ironically given their active recruitment of women pilots, BA appears to have been caught by that. (And by Starmer being lucky with her tribunal. Another tribunal might well have come to a different conclusion.)
The majority opinion (from all 3 threads) is that the law is wrong, there was no sex discrimination and it was outrageous that she got what she wanted by playing the sex discrimination card.
I suppose one way of looking at it might be to accept there will always be people who use (or abuse) any system to achieve a result for themselves that most people think is outrageous, but that’s still better than not having the system there for what most people would regard as deserving cases.
Now easier for BA pilots to obtain part-time contracts?
Those in the pro Starmer camp who make that claim are either very naive or must think others are.
The majority of pilots wanting part-time contracts will now find it much more difficult. Those who can't use the sex discrimination argument will have to wait longer while precedence is given to those who can.
Whirlybird
I don’t think anyone has except QDM.
I’ve summarised, in this and previous threads, the relevant law and the reasons given for the decisions.
I’m not going to try to defend either the law or the decision. I work in the legal system but that doesn't mean I think the law is always right or that the legal system always achieves a sensible or fair result.
overstress
If they are prepared to stand back and look at the merits (or otherwise) objectively?
If they consider someone has gained unfair advantage over colleagues by playing the 'discrimination card'?
If they consider a colleague has been self-centred and selfish?
If they consider improved t's & c's a colleague has achieved for himself/herself will make life more difficult for others?
Most people have moved on from the old 'us and them solidarity' days of automatically supporting a colleague regardless of what they actually think of the colleague's behaviour or the merits of their demand.
FL
”Flying Lawyer tells us that this was largely due to earlier procedural errors”
BA’s decision, by letter 25 March 2004, was:
‘The RTR Board has considered your written request and your comments at the meeting. Having evaluated the possible impacts on you, your colleagues and BA at this time, I have decided that I am not able to grant your request for 50%, but I am able to agree a change for the alternative option of 75% contract starting January 2005.’
The reasons for the decision were under the headings of:
Burden of Additional Costs
Inability to re-organise work among existing employees
Detrimental effect on quality and performance
Inability to recruit extra employees.
ie The 50% application was refused for budget/resource reasons.
BA didn’t have the resources to allow F/Os to work 50%, so the safety aspect wasn’t considered. (It was academic, because it wasn’t possible for resource reasons.)
Possible procedural/tactical error:
Had BA gone a stage further, considered whether it would be appropriate (even if resources were available) to allow someone of her relatively limited experience/hours, and who at the time of the application hadn’t flown at all for 13 months, to return to work later in the year on a 50% contract and also formally refused on that ground, the ultimate result might have been different.
That's not a criticism; it’s always easy to be wise after the event.
And it might not have made any difference. In my view, she was very lucky with her tribunal.
Some on the pro-Starmer side have alleged (in the various threads) that BA dishonestly claimed there was a specific ‘hours threshold’ at the time her application was refused.
That is simply not true. BA introduced the 2000-hour threshold 3 months or so after the Starmer problem arose. There was no dispute that, until then, individual applications were considered on their individual merits.
The formal specific number of hours threshold seems to have been introduced as a direct result of the Starmer problem and to make BA’s position clear for future applicants for PTW.
I’ve read the (very long) judgments of both the original Employment Tribunal and the review in the Employment Appeals Tribunal which set out the facts, law and arguments in great detail.
IMHO the criticisms of BA made by some (a minority) on this and the previous threads are uninformed, unjustified and unfair.
I've not seen a shred of evidence that BA discriminated against women pilots in the ordinary sense of the word. However, Parliament has given discrimination a different very technical meaning in law and, ironically given their active recruitment of women pilots, BA appears to have been caught by that. (And by Starmer being lucky with her tribunal. Another tribunal might well have come to a different conclusion.)
The majority opinion (from all 3 threads) is that the law is wrong, there was no sex discrimination and it was outrageous that she got what she wanted by playing the sex discrimination card.
I suppose one way of looking at it might be to accept there will always be people who use (or abuse) any system to achieve a result for themselves that most people think is outrageous, but that’s still better than not having the system there for what most people would regard as deserving cases.
Now easier for BA pilots to obtain part-time contracts?
Those in the pro Starmer camp who make that claim are either very naive or must think others are.
The majority of pilots wanting part-time contracts will now find it much more difficult. Those who can't use the sex discrimination argument will have to wait longer while precedence is given to those who can.
Whirlybird
Why have you all changed your minds now?
This makes no sense whatsoever to me. Please can someone explain it all to me, clearly, logically, in words of one syllable!!!!
I’m not going to try to defend either the law or the decision. I work in the legal system but that doesn't mean I think the law is always right or that the legal system always achieves a sensible or fair result.
overstress
How can an employee fail to welcome an improvement to a colleague's t's & c's?
If they consider someone has gained unfair advantage over colleagues by playing the 'discrimination card'?
If they consider a colleague has been self-centred and selfish?
If they consider improved t's & c's a colleague has achieved for himself/herself will make life more difficult for others?
Most people have moved on from the old 'us and them solidarity' days of automatically supporting a colleague regardless of what they actually think of the colleague's behaviour or the merits of their demand.
FL
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anti-discrimination law is a minefield yet nec for a few bigots.
I defer to FL's opinion re the handling of the BA case
IMO women have the additional rights afforded by maternity leave legislation and I approve of some paternity leave. Beyond that additional childcare rights should be applicable to one partner by mutual consent.
The sacked ex-army oficer Tory MP was denounced as racist for referring to black/ginger ba*tard recruits. An error in part if he had not known the parents' marital status or was blind. The valid point he went on to make was that a minority of the minority will use discrimination as a weapon for compensation when not supported by the facts.
Even in Officer training SNCO's refer to white etc recruits as 'plonker' or 'tosser' but correctly add 'Sir' or could that be 'Cur'
Re Wimbledon. Women can play 3 sets per match, Men 5. Either change this to 3 or 5 for both genders or pay £x for each set won per Round
Small employers cannot afford Corporate legal representation and most employees do not risk Tribunals without the support of Trade Unions or a pilot's pay for fear of a black mark on their record.
In creating a baby the male contribution is transient, the female 9 months Beyond that one partner needs to provide nurture, the other (financial, emotional) support. The next generation will pay all our pensions (Gordon willing)
I defer to FL's opinion re the handling of the BA case
IMO women have the additional rights afforded by maternity leave legislation and I approve of some paternity leave. Beyond that additional childcare rights should be applicable to one partner by mutual consent.
The sacked ex-army oficer Tory MP was denounced as racist for referring to black/ginger ba*tard recruits. An error in part if he had not known the parents' marital status or was blind. The valid point he went on to make was that a minority of the minority will use discrimination as a weapon for compensation when not supported by the facts.
Even in Officer training SNCO's refer to white etc recruits as 'plonker' or 'tosser' but correctly add 'Sir' or could that be 'Cur'
Re Wimbledon. Women can play 3 sets per match, Men 5. Either change this to 3 or 5 for both genders or pay £x for each set won per Round
Small employers cannot afford Corporate legal representation and most employees do not risk Tribunals without the support of Trade Unions or a pilot's pay for fear of a black mark on their record.
In creating a baby the male contribution is transient, the female 9 months Beyond that one partner needs to provide nurture, the other (financial, emotional) support. The next generation will pay all our pensions (Gordon willing)
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've not seen a shred of evidence that BA discriminated against women pilots in the ordinary sense of the word.
However, the point is, most of my old mates don't care.
They are just happy to see an insufferably arrogant Flight Ops management get a good kicking at the hands of a court.
Any court, any issue, it doesn't matter, so long as they got a kicking!
And if it happened because they didn't take the correct legal approach, or exercise due care and diligence, well isn't that just typical.
As an aside, is GMFO's position tenable?
Will he now resign?
I think we should be told?
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In creating a baby the male contribution is transient, the female 9 months. Beyond that one partner needs to provide nurture, the other (financial, emotional) support.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anti-ice: Your 'pushy' and 'jump the queue' comments are only relevant to your small world in BA which is cabin crew, and where you all wait your turn for a part time contract out of personal preference rather than personal need. Thats not the way it works in Flight Ops, where people get part time according to whether they need it before those who just happen to want it. Perhaps we should all be getting upset about the many cabin crew who join BA and disappear off on maternity within a couple of years never to return to full time work. Are they pushy and jumping the queue too?
I find your comments about the distance someone lives from their place of work rather hypocritical when many many crew on Eurofleet live distances exceeding 100 miles from LHR, and your suggestion that somebody might get twenty single days of work indicate you don't really have the first clue about typical patterns of work on the A320.
Wannabee1974 - I checked my contract and there's nothing in there to say I don't have the right to request part time working in my first five years, so I really don't see why you think she's fighting against what she signed up for. I know BA granted 75% part time around the same time to a female FO on the same fleet with only about 18 months more experience based purely on her lifestyle choice. She had no care commitments, so clearly BA did not have an issue with that!
Fadetogrey - you are still being naive if you think an OPC would be devised in BA to push Jess out. Let me tell you how it works. The trainers devise an OPC. It's much the same for everyone. Any attempt to do something different to someone would immediately raise suspiscion. If thats failed it's all written up, with clear reasons for the failure. Re-training takes place, with emphasis on the deficient areas. Then the OPC takes place again, with a different trainer. If it's failed then more retraining takes place anda meeting of trainers, including training standards captains determines the next course of action. If you believe all these TCs and TSCs can be nobbled (and I know lots of them and they can't be) then you probably believe that the Roswell alien shot JFK. If you believe they could do all that without leaving an incriminating paper trail that leads straight to a constructive dismissal case then you are deluded.
nilcostoptionmyass - BA recruited plenty of lads with PPLs, and plenty of lads with zero hours and some women too. Their philosophy was always to take the people they thought would be best for BA from the widest pool possible. Why should they restrict themselves to those in flying schools? They'd be excluding all the people who couldn't afford to get PPLs in favour of those who could get Daddy to fund it.
Whirlybird - It amazes me that people don't listen to those who have flown the aircraft, endured the same learning curve and are intimately familiar with the hours/safety issue. 8 years ago FOs were joining BA on the A320 with 200 hours and then flying 400 hours per year for three years. Nobody claimed it was a safety issue then. Now somebody has joined, done a full year in a high intensity, mulit-sector short haul operation and has applied to fly around 350 hours per year (after a period of full time on return from maternity leave) and that's unsafe is it?
Craggenmore - no I'm not her husband, and she's already paying back her training costs and will continue to do so until she has paid BA over and above what they paid for her training. Thats the deal.
I find your comments about the distance someone lives from their place of work rather hypocritical when many many crew on Eurofleet live distances exceeding 100 miles from LHR, and your suggestion that somebody might get twenty single days of work indicate you don't really have the first clue about typical patterns of work on the A320.
Wannabee1974 - I checked my contract and there's nothing in there to say I don't have the right to request part time working in my first five years, so I really don't see why you think she's fighting against what she signed up for. I know BA granted 75% part time around the same time to a female FO on the same fleet with only about 18 months more experience based purely on her lifestyle choice. She had no care commitments, so clearly BA did not have an issue with that!
Fadetogrey - you are still being naive if you think an OPC would be devised in BA to push Jess out. Let me tell you how it works. The trainers devise an OPC. It's much the same for everyone. Any attempt to do something different to someone would immediately raise suspiscion. If thats failed it's all written up, with clear reasons for the failure. Re-training takes place, with emphasis on the deficient areas. Then the OPC takes place again, with a different trainer. If it's failed then more retraining takes place anda meeting of trainers, including training standards captains determines the next course of action. If you believe all these TCs and TSCs can be nobbled (and I know lots of them and they can't be) then you probably believe that the Roswell alien shot JFK. If you believe they could do all that without leaving an incriminating paper trail that leads straight to a constructive dismissal case then you are deluded.
nilcostoptionmyass - BA recruited plenty of lads with PPLs, and plenty of lads with zero hours and some women too. Their philosophy was always to take the people they thought would be best for BA from the widest pool possible. Why should they restrict themselves to those in flying schools? They'd be excluding all the people who couldn't afford to get PPLs in favour of those who could get Daddy to fund it.
Whirlybird - It amazes me that people don't listen to those who have flown the aircraft, endured the same learning curve and are intimately familiar with the hours/safety issue. 8 years ago FOs were joining BA on the A320 with 200 hours and then flying 400 hours per year for three years. Nobody claimed it was a safety issue then. Now somebody has joined, done a full year in a high intensity, mulit-sector short haul operation and has applied to fly around 350 hours per year (after a period of full time on return from maternity leave) and that's unsafe is it?
Craggenmore - no I'm not her husband, and she's already paying back her training costs and will continue to do so until she has paid BA over and above what they paid for her training. Thats the deal.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 49
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carnage Matey - without wanting to sounds as presumptious as you are about other people... You sound so bitter and hateful about BA, who I'm presuming are your employer. I wonder why you stay?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are being very presumptious. I'm neither bitter nor hateful. I do recognise when BA are trying to ride roughshod over their staff to further managements interests. We've all seen it in BA Flight Ops, which is why I enjoy seeing the management brought down a peg or two. I also recognise when people are bringing up a load of baloney arguments on this thread in order to disguise what are often just chauvinistic or plain envious sentiments.