Female BA pilot wins legal battle for right to work part-time
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote Wannabe - "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?"
I raised this point last year too, as i was concerned at the level of vitriol in some posts....
My post was removed, I was given a warning, and it's allowed to continue
It concerned me greatly - and still does - given the position - but the 'ignore user' post is always an option........ you just have to remember it's 1 in 60M.
Don't look back at previous posts Wannabe, unless you really have your wits about you..........
I raised this point last year too, as i was concerned at the level of vitriol in some posts....
My post was removed, I was given a warning, and it's allowed to continue
It concerned me greatly - and still does - given the position - but the 'ignore user' post is always an option........ you just have to remember it's 1 in 60M.
Don't look back at previous posts Wannabe, unless you really have your wits about you..........
Guest
Posts: n/a
Carnage,
yes I am aware how OPCS are devised,and I'll wager I was doing them when you were still at school.However I live in the real world,and in the real world there are dirty tricks applenty.
I would also guess you are a friend of the subject of the thread - ,'jess',maybe you even went through oxford or jerez together ?However I still see her requests as amounting to preferential treatment,maybe she really did want out.her priorites changed with the kid's birth and clearly her husband was earning a decent wage, so I guess she didn't want to do the job anymore and has been discussed there are lots of childcare options.
I personally know of two female pilots (1 BA/1 Virgin)who left to have kids and are not certain as to whether they want to return -but they will just quit if they have had enough,not try all this.
As for your analogy about the roswell alien shooting JFK, Roswell was 1953 and the aliens died in the crash (hence the autopsy) and JFK was shot in 1962 or 63.Man you really need to revise your conspiracies
yes I am aware how OPCS are devised,and I'll wager I was doing them when you were still at school.However I live in the real world,and in the real world there are dirty tricks applenty.
I would also guess you are a friend of the subject of the thread - ,'jess',maybe you even went through oxford or jerez together ?However I still see her requests as amounting to preferential treatment,maybe she really did want out.her priorites changed with the kid's birth and clearly her husband was earning a decent wage, so I guess she didn't want to do the job anymore and has been discussed there are lots of childcare options.
I personally know of two female pilots (1 BA/1 Virgin)who left to have kids and are not certain as to whether they want to return -but they will just quit if they have had enough,not try all this.
As for your analogy about the roswell alien shooting JFK, Roswell was 1953 and the aliens died in the crash (hence the autopsy) and JFK was shot in 1962 or 63.Man you really need to revise your conspiracies
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carnage Matey!
BA offered Ms Starmer 75% part time.
She chose not to take it.
Re "just chauvinistic or plain envious sentiments" and similar comments in previous posts.
For some reason, you don't seem prepared to accept that other people are capable of considering the various issues in this dispute and coming to different, but no less valid, conclusions.
FL
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
She chose not to take it.
Re "just chauvinistic or plain envious sentiments" and similar comments in previous posts.
For some reason, you don't seem prepared to accept that other people are capable of considering the various issues in this dispute and coming to different, but no less valid, conclusions.
FL
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 49
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carnage-matey - I haven't met enough BA pilots to comment on your last post. The ones I have met seem genuinely happy to be given the opportunity to do a well-paid and enjoyable job. They also seem generally well adjusted and not obsessed with seeing 'the management' brought down a peg or two as you put it.
If you really do feel like that about the rest of your team, I would suggest you move on somewhere where you don't develop such anger. It can't be good for you...
If you really do feel like that about the rest of your team, I would suggest you move on somewhere where you don't develop such anger. It can't be good for you...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think where CM's sentiment stems from is the fact that Management - Employee relationships are not what they used to be. I think there is a new line in the sand drawn especially in aviation.
Communication from Top to Bottom is miserable in my view. Most Managers seem to be Micro Managing and not thinking of the bigger picture as often as they should. The invaluable price of employee satisfaction is often ignored to produce short term savings and enhance the bonuses of those managers. The funny thing is that the 'targets' set for them are wrong from the get-go.
We've seen it in easyJet where MS was fired after a string of bad decisions.
Also when Ray got replaced with AH it was apparent that there was a guy at the helm that took interest in the company and all of its employees.
Goodwill needs to come from both sides.
And yes most of us are very happy working for our company. I fly my aircraft with pride however its hard to be the professional when there are so many un-professionals in the business that are only looking after how long they can milk the cow before they retire. Shame.....
And congrats to Mrs Starmer!
Communication from Top to Bottom is miserable in my view. Most Managers seem to be Micro Managing and not thinking of the bigger picture as often as they should. The invaluable price of employee satisfaction is often ignored to produce short term savings and enhance the bonuses of those managers. The funny thing is that the 'targets' set for them are wrong from the get-go.
We've seen it in easyJet where MS was fired after a string of bad decisions.
Also when Ray got replaced with AH it was apparent that there was a guy at the helm that took interest in the company and all of its employees.
Goodwill needs to come from both sides.
And yes most of us are very happy working for our company. I fly my aircraft with pride however its hard to be the professional when there are so many un-professionals in the business that are only looking after how long they can milk the cow before they retire. Shame.....
And congrats to Mrs Starmer!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: England
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Congratulations to Mrs Starmer.
Although I may not entirely agree with some aspects of this case, I feel that the individual had the courage to fight her case with balpa's support and won. Jessica was already on a 75% contract when she took the company to a tribuneral, looking for a 50 % contract. Where I feel there is some resentment amongst individual's is in relation to her already having 75% yet wanting 50%. As the case showed in this instance, she had a case and she won. There is also some resentment towards Balpa, as their PR machine stated that the case would result in part-time opening up for other pilots. Unfortunately, this has definately not been the case, even though they would like you to believe it has. If the company are not legally obliged to give you part-time under the right to request, then they will not if they do not have sufficient resources.
I totally agree with Carnage. We wouldn't even be talking about this if it wasn't for the attitude of some BA managers.
Although I may not entirely agree with some aspects of this case, I feel that the individual had the courage to fight her case with balpa's support and won. Jessica was already on a 75% contract when she took the company to a tribuneral, looking for a 50 % contract. Where I feel there is some resentment amongst individual's is in relation to her already having 75% yet wanting 50%. As the case showed in this instance, she had a case and she won. There is also some resentment towards Balpa, as their PR machine stated that the case would result in part-time opening up for other pilots. Unfortunately, this has definately not been the case, even though they would like you to believe it has. If the company are not legally obliged to give you part-time under the right to request, then they will not if they do not have sufficient resources.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another empty kitchen
Working for an airline.
The applicant applies, and is accepted.
This comes with a certain amount of responsibility.
The responsibility of actually turning up for work, and flying the schedule to which one is assigned.
NOT asking for maternaty leave every couple of years.
Sound harsh?
I don't think so.
Now, I have certainly flown with several female First Officers, and they were first rate, one was on secondment from BA.
They have to be, in an otherwise male dominated profession.
IF the part time works for the airline...fine.
Otherwise, these gals should stay at home or find another profession.
Simple as that.
The applicant applies, and is accepted.
This comes with a certain amount of responsibility.
The responsibility of actually turning up for work, and flying the schedule to which one is assigned.
NOT asking for maternaty leave every couple of years.
Sound harsh?
I don't think so.
Now, I have certainly flown with several female First Officers, and they were first rate, one was on secondment from BA.
They have to be, in an otherwise male dominated profession.
IF the part time works for the airline...fine.
Otherwise, these gals should stay at home or find another profession.
Simple as that.
Está servira para distraerle.
Why should you be abused, scratchingthesky?
The only barrage here should fall upon the skeletal remains of those feminists who have brought the reputation of womanhood into such ridicule and disrepute. It is the likes of Emmeline Pankhurst and her ilk who must bear the burden of responsibility for the first stirrings of this grotesque social monster that goes by the misnomer of political correctness and which now haunts those of both sexes in their every attempted achievement!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Hautes Pyrenees,France
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Overstress
Seniority 'slippage' for whatever reason is Not against Employment Law!
My point was raised simply because the seniority issue is valid given this
female pilots contribution to the Fleet monthly flying hours demand in her new position of childminder. A pilots seniority determines pay,allowances,days off,etc, and ultimately pension. How can a pilot who elects to stay at home be supported within the seniority structure for future benifits without making a contribution. I do feel that Balpa have very seriously eroded their credibility by supporting this case.
The prospect of "all of us thanking this pilot in ten years time" is risible
A return to reality is clearly demanded for the deluded who see merit in this pilots actions particularly after such a brief experience of work
Seniority 'slippage' for whatever reason is Not against Employment Law!
My point was raised simply because the seniority issue is valid given this
female pilots contribution to the Fleet monthly flying hours demand in her new position of childminder. A pilots seniority determines pay,allowances,days off,etc, and ultimately pension. How can a pilot who elects to stay at home be supported within the seniority structure for future benifits without making a contribution. I do feel that Balpa have very seriously eroded their credibility by supporting this case.
The prospect of "all of us thanking this pilot in ten years time" is risible
A return to reality is clearly demanded for the deluded who see merit in this pilots actions particularly after such a brief experience of work
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
POHL: better check your source then. Have a look at the DTI's website here
As promotion is so closely linked to seniority in BA, the interpretation of the law is that seniority cannot suffer by going part-time, as UK employment law in the reference I've given states that part-timers must be given equal opportunity for promotion.
The pension is dealt with simply - as the pay is reduced during the part time period, so are the pension contributions.
Also,as one of the 'deluded' who see merits in this pilot's actions, what exactly do you deem to be sufficient experience for someone to go part-time? On second thoughts, don't answer as I don't think it's relevant - look at the facts of historical hours flown on JS's fleet and you will see why the tribunal rejected that argument.
FL: as greatly as I respect you and your work, I'm surprised at the implications in some of your posts.
To all those who don't 'get' Carnage's viewpoint, you have to understand that the relationship between Flt Ops and BA pilots is not as it should be...
As promotion is so closely linked to seniority in BA, the interpretation of the law is that seniority cannot suffer by going part-time, as UK employment law in the reference I've given states that part-timers must be given equal opportunity for promotion.
The pension is dealt with simply - as the pay is reduced during the part time period, so are the pension contributions.
Also,as one of the 'deluded' who see merits in this pilot's actions, what exactly do you deem to be sufficient experience for someone to go part-time? On second thoughts, don't answer as I don't think it's relevant - look at the facts of historical hours flown on JS's fleet and you will see why the tribunal rejected that argument.
FL: as greatly as I respect you and your work, I'm surprised at the implications in some of your posts.
To all those who don't 'get' Carnage's viewpoint, you have to understand that the relationship between Flt Ops and BA pilots is not as it should be...
Last edited by overstress; 12th Mar 2007 at 19:45.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What so many of you fail to grasp is that flying airliners is just a job.
It isn't winning the lottery, or some sacred vocation that only a few can achieve. it's just a job, albeit a pretty good one.
Jessica has not stolen anyone else's opportunities. She got the job on her own merit, and, like many of us with a few years in, has her family as her priority now, not the company.
I've flown with her as my co-pilot and she is bloody good at her job. Better, I imagine, than many of those taking swipes at her. So get over it, it's the 21st century now. I know many wannabees can't imagine that spending time with your family is more worthwhile or valuable than time in the flight deck, but it is, and those of you who get your dream job will one day see that.
And no, I'm not married to her...
It isn't winning the lottery, or some sacred vocation that only a few can achieve. it's just a job, albeit a pretty good one.
Jessica has not stolen anyone else's opportunities. She got the job on her own merit, and, like many of us with a few years in, has her family as her priority now, not the company.
I've flown with her as my co-pilot and she is bloody good at her job. Better, I imagine, than many of those taking swipes at her. So get over it, it's the 21st century now. I know many wannabees can't imagine that spending time with your family is more worthwhile or valuable than time in the flight deck, but it is, and those of you who get your dream job will one day see that.
And no, I'm not married to her...
...the thin end thereof
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 1998
Location: London
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It isn't winning the lottery, or some sacred vocation that only a few can achieve.
That sounds absolutely bang on. Time was when I thought being a pilot was like winning the lottery (although even winning the lottery is not really like 'winning the lottery' if you see what I mean).
FWIW, my view on this - I can see both sides. On the one hand, there was a time when I'd have given my left arm to be a BA trainee, and get it all paid for me with a great job at the end. I'd have considered it pretty rich of anyone, male or female, to start dictating to BA their terms and conditions of employment.
On the other hand, once you're trained you're a valuable asset to the company (and you've had a lot of money invested in you), and as such you can set the agenda yourself to some degree. That's what Ms Starmer has done, and although not a pilot myself and therefore probably not qualified to comment, I don't really see a problem with that.
411A
Now, I have certainly flown with several female First Officers, and they were first rate, one was on secondment from BA.
They have to be, in an otherwise male dominated profession.
Isn't that the problem here? The fact is that the profession is very male dominated. What you're suggesting is that women have to be better than the males if they are to get on. Or in other words, a male pilot can be second rate, but a female can't be. That seems pretty unfair to me, and it's probably because there's a lot of truth in it that BA did for a time follow a 'PC' policy and recruited some women who weren't interested enough to see it through. That obviously doesn't apply to Ms Starmer, reading the comments above from some who have worked with her.
If this debate is about equality, then it's clear there isn't equality for women in such a male dominated profession. I wonder what the reaction would have been if it were a male pilot who'd been involved.
That sounds absolutely bang on. Time was when I thought being a pilot was like winning the lottery (although even winning the lottery is not really like 'winning the lottery' if you see what I mean).
FWIW, my view on this - I can see both sides. On the one hand, there was a time when I'd have given my left arm to be a BA trainee, and get it all paid for me with a great job at the end. I'd have considered it pretty rich of anyone, male or female, to start dictating to BA their terms and conditions of employment.
On the other hand, once you're trained you're a valuable asset to the company (and you've had a lot of money invested in you), and as such you can set the agenda yourself to some degree. That's what Ms Starmer has done, and although not a pilot myself and therefore probably not qualified to comment, I don't really see a problem with that.
411A
Now, I have certainly flown with several female First Officers, and they were first rate, one was on secondment from BA.
They have to be, in an otherwise male dominated profession.
Isn't that the problem here? The fact is that the profession is very male dominated. What you're suggesting is that women have to be better than the males if they are to get on. Or in other words, a male pilot can be second rate, but a female can't be. That seems pretty unfair to me, and it's probably because there's a lot of truth in it that BA did for a time follow a 'PC' policy and recruited some women who weren't interested enough to see it through. That obviously doesn't apply to Ms Starmer, reading the comments above from some who have worked with her.
If this debate is about equality, then it's clear there isn't equality for women in such a male dominated profession. I wonder what the reaction would have been if it were a male pilot who'd been involved.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
correction
A correction to Flying Lawyer's summary of the case and the timeline.
Jessica Starmer's first child was born in October 2003.
Mr Starmer's divorce from his first wife was completed shortly afterwards also in October 2003. Did one thing have something to do with the other? - Is this really a woman who is being heralded as a champion of family values and the winner of a moral victory?
Jessica Starmer's first child was born in October 2003.
Mr Starmer's divorce from his first wife was completed shortly afterwards also in October 2003. Did one thing have something to do with the other? - Is this really a woman who is being heralded as a champion of family values and the winner of a moral victory?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wedge asks:
On the same facts?
A male pilot could not have used the same legal argument to get what he wanted.
Mrs Starmer claimed BA's refusal to agree to her changing to a 50% contract was sex discrimination against women.
The tribunal was persuaded that, according to the law, it was.
That might seem bizarre because, as a fact, women were more likely to have PTW applications granted. (Don't blame me. I didn't make the law.)
This next part is going to make some think the law is even more of an ass than they already do and, to be frank, I can understand why:
Given that the tribunal was persuaded that BA's policy re part-time work applications (based on lack of pilot resources) constituted unlawful sex discrimination against women (NB: not against women with children), she would still have won even if she didn't have a child.
The child care aspect took up only a few lines as background in long, very detailed reasons given for the decision.
Once her counsel had established that she was a member of a group being discriminated against (ie Women. NB: Not women with children) whether or not she had a child was irrelevant.
Does that mean a woman without a child would have won by using precisely the same legal argument?
Yes, it does.
ellie186
I confined myself to a brief chronology as background to the claim, just enough to explain the relevant law and the Tribunals reasons for the decision - so that people could make up their own minds about the merits or otherwise of Mrs Starmer's claim and the eventual outcome of the legal process.
Opinions will obviously differ greatly about that, but it did strike me at the time (after conversations with friends on the fleet) that it was quite a gamble in the particular circumstances to bring the 'family values' stuff into play in the press, posed photographs with child etc.
That said, it was done well.
"We deliberately held back the story, releasing it only on the Sunday before the Monday hearing, so that it hit Monday morning’s papers and Monday morning television and radio programmes."
And "firm refusals for interviews over and above the two we sanctioned."
Balpa's Media/Press department had a job to do and, credit where it's due, they manipulated the press extremely effectively, and could correctly claim "this resulted in sympathetic reporting, not least in an excellent feature in the Daily Mail."
(All quotes from Balpa.)
I wonder what the reaction would have been if it were a male pilot who'd been involved.
A male pilot could not have used the same legal argument to get what he wanted.
Mrs Starmer claimed BA's refusal to agree to her changing to a 50% contract was sex discrimination against women.
The tribunal was persuaded that, according to the law, it was.
That might seem bizarre because, as a fact, women were more likely to have PTW applications granted. (Don't blame me. I didn't make the law.)
This next part is going to make some think the law is even more of an ass than they already do and, to be frank, I can understand why:
Given that the tribunal was persuaded that BA's policy re part-time work applications (based on lack of pilot resources) constituted unlawful sex discrimination against women (NB: not against women with children), she would still have won even if she didn't have a child.
The child care aspect took up only a few lines as background in long, very detailed reasons given for the decision.
Once her counsel had established that she was a member of a group being discriminated against (ie Women. NB: Not women with children) whether or not she had a child was irrelevant.
Does that mean a woman without a child would have won by using precisely the same legal argument?
Yes, it does.
ellie186
A correction to Flying Lawyer's summary
Is this really a woman who is being heralded as a champion of family values?
That said, it was done well.
"We deliberately held back the story, releasing it only on the Sunday before the Monday hearing, so that it hit Monday morning’s papers and Monday morning television and radio programmes."
And "firm refusals for interviews over and above the two we sanctioned."
Balpa's Media/Press department had a job to do and, credit where it's due, they manipulated the press extremely effectively, and could correctly claim "this resulted in sympathetic reporting, not least in an excellent feature in the Daily Mail."
(All quotes from Balpa.)
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 13th Mar 2007 at 04:29.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Hautes Pyrenees,France
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
overstress
your Dti reference is very generalised and clearly would demand further interpretation by relevant parties. I would refer you to real life and the way in which these seniority issues have been dealt with historically in BA.
I do not think ,given the company opposition to this case, that old BA views have changed. What clearly has changed is Balpa's stance on the historic principles of BA seniority.
Seniority questions regarding absence due to 'critical' family circumstances were always dealt with sympathetically and rightly so. Here we have a completely different scenario and I would suggest that the sympathy vote distinctly strained amongst the BA pilot commumity.
If you are thinking of starting a 'liberal employment' airline yourself just be prepared to double just about every factor except revenue. Quadrupal that just to break even!
your Dti reference is very generalised and clearly would demand further interpretation by relevant parties. I would refer you to real life and the way in which these seniority issues have been dealt with historically in BA.
I do not think ,given the company opposition to this case, that old BA views have changed. What clearly has changed is Balpa's stance on the historic principles of BA seniority.
Seniority questions regarding absence due to 'critical' family circumstances were always dealt with sympathetically and rightly so. Here we have a completely different scenario and I would suggest that the sympathy vote distinctly strained amongst the BA pilot commumity.
If you are thinking of starting a 'liberal employment' airline yourself just be prepared to double just about every factor except revenue. Quadrupal that just to break even!
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
POHL, yes the reference is generalised, but covers the principle which I felt you had wrong. It is indeed the case that part-timers in BA do not 'slip' down the list.
The 'sympathy vote' may have been strained, but most people seem to recognise that a bridge has been crossed, interpret that as you like!
Part-time is in everyone's minds now as our working lives have been extended by 5 years. This will be an issue that must be addressed in the near future.
I have no plans to start an airline, but the UK employment market is supposed to be one of equal opportunities!
The 'sympathy vote' may have been strained, but most people seem to recognise that a bridge has been crossed, interpret that as you like!
Part-time is in everyone's minds now as our working lives have been extended by 5 years. This will be an issue that must be addressed in the near future.
I have no plans to start an airline, but the UK employment market is supposed to be one of equal opportunities!
I haven't looked at the forum for quite a while.
But, am I right in thinking that this lady has got BA to back down at BALPA's (ie. my) expense having not done, what, a full year in the right seat? And, did this person pay for their training? And isn't her partner a skipper? and does this person retain seniority? Not quite sure I'll be paying my subs for much longer.
Am I being totally cynical? Answers from pilots only please.
Regards.
FK10
But, am I right in thinking that this lady has got BA to back down at BALPA's (ie. my) expense having not done, what, a full year in the right seat? And, did this person pay for their training? And isn't her partner a skipper? and does this person retain seniority? Not quite sure I'll be paying my subs for much longer.
Am I being totally cynical? Answers from pilots only please.
Regards.
FK10
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To answer your questions:
1) BA pilots contribute 60% of BALPAs subscriptions but account for only 40% of BALPAs expenditure, so BA's pilots probably funded most of the case.
2) She joined May 2001, grounded Feb 2003. Well over a year in the right hand seat in a high frequency, multiple sectors per day short haul environment,
3) All BA cadets pay back their training costs and more by way of reduced salary and additional pay claw back for their first five years.
4) What has her husbands occupation got to do with it?
5) This person retains seniority because the law in the UK requires it.
1) BA pilots contribute 60% of BALPAs subscriptions but account for only 40% of BALPAs expenditure, so BA's pilots probably funded most of the case.
2) She joined May 2001, grounded Feb 2003. Well over a year in the right hand seat in a high frequency, multiple sectors per day short haul environment,
3) All BA cadets pay back their training costs and more by way of reduced salary and additional pay claw back for their first five years.
4) What has her husbands occupation got to do with it?
5) This person retains seniority because the law in the UK requires it.