Female BA pilot wins legal battle for right to work part-time

[interpreter]

Carnage Matey

I am afraid you are once again getting carried away on the raft of left-wing ideology. Who said BA could not have a policy of looking after good staff just because they are pragmatic about recruiting female pilots? Not I. I am afraid you are completely blind to the economics of aviation - and for that matter all business. Wealth creation and wealth creation alone allows a nation to be generous to those less fortunate than others etc. and so it is for business. The corporate responsibility of BA is to ALL employees and if they are to recruit those where the contribution will be less than the norm then all the others have good reason to object. That is all they are doing.

[millerscourt]

Carnage Matey sounds like a Luddite type of the Red Robbo persuasion that brought British Leyland to its knees.

[Carnage Matey!]

Originally Posted by Interpreter

I am afraid you are completely blind to the economics of aviation - and for that matter all business. Wealth creation and wealth creation alone allows a nation to be generous to those less fortunate than others etc. and so it is for business. The corporate responsibility of BA is to ALL employees and if they are to recruit those where the contribution will be less than the norm then all the others have good reason to object. That is all they are doing.

Will you listen to yourself bleat on! Do you have even the vaguest idea what BA's Flight Ops budget is? Do you know what proportion of BAs turnover it is? Do you know what it would cost BA to grant 50% part-time to all those who had caring commitments? Do you know how many people have applied for such? Of course you don't. You don't have a clue, so don't lecture me about economics. This whole case about resources, and BA Flight Ops managements unwillingness to release the purse strings. The cost to BA is tiny but individuals in the management structure refuse on principle to spend money in order to save. It's a familiar story to every BA pilot who watches vast sums of money poured down the drain in an inefficient operation because nobody wants the cost of a solution on their budget. If the corporate responsibility of BA is to all employees (nice bit of management speak there) then I damn well want a share for the pilots because from where I sit the part-time contracts and below benchmark work levels are lavished on the other departments. I want to see more hours flown from the cabin crew (>40% of them are on part time). I want tug driver who do more than a handful of pushbacks per day. I want loaders who don't knock off early or lose my bags. I want bus drivers who will turn up on time to take me away from the aircraft when I have finished work and am no longer being paid. When thats all fixed then we'll start talking about corporate responsibilities.

millerscourt - not even close. I just know what a tiny, efficient and cost effective cog we are in the lumbering BA machine and I (and most of my colleagues) don't see why we should keep oiling that machine with our hard graft when nobody else gives a stuff.

It's interesting that most BA pilots have stopped posting on this thread. I suspect they are all fed up with the usual raft of comments from outsiders who like to spout on like they know something about the way BA. Sorry, but you know nothing.

[152wiseguy]

It seems there are quite a few on this thread that seem to view Ms. Starmer having a child (and therefore going part time) as an entirely selfish act and of no benefit to anyone except the Starmer family.

Given the rapidly declining birth rates across europe I think women should be given just this kind of support to encourage them a bit. After 30 years or so there is not going to be much of a work force left to look after all the mean spirited, sexist whingers on this thread as they sit dribbling their food in their retirement homes.

[interpreter]

Carnage Matey

Yes indeed I do know those figures. BUT we are not discussing detail we are discussing principle. However much you wish to rant about the inadequacies of some of BAs areas of operation - and let's face it no business is perfect and BA would admit that they are very far from perfect - the simple fact is that to create a class of employee who may share all the benefits offered to others with a lesser input than those others is to create a precedent that leads only to Carey Street. How? In due course the company would have to either raise prices to cover it's costs or reduce staffing or payroll. Which would you prefer? The former will lead to uncompetitiveness and failure throwing all on the rubbish heap and the latter would see a flow of skilled staff away to the competition. Simplistic ? Yes but absolutely pragmatic and true to life. BALPA you have been warned and don't forget your members are relying on a pension fund with a gigantic hole in it.

[millerscourt]

Wiseguy Rapidly declining birth rates across Europe????!!! Not in the UK, they are forecast to increase from 60 Million to 69 Million by 2050 according to the United Nations. So plenty of people to spoonfeed me and you if necessary and I doubt whether any of the Starmer offspring would be volunteering for that duty even for you.

[lexxity]

If the birthrate is climbing why are so many schools being closed or merged and the same for maternity units?

[Carnage Matey!]

I'm most impressed that you know BAs Flight Ops budget Interpreter, especially as that sort of figure isn't public knowledge. Do you know many BA managers, or did you actually mean to say that you don't know what BAs Flight Ops budget is, and hence don't really know what sort of costs are involved in this sort of operation.

the simple fact is that to create a class of employee who may share all the benefits offered to others with a lesser input than those others is to create a precedent that leads only to Carey Street.

That class already exists. Cabin crew. MT drivers. Pushback operators. Loaders. A large swathe of middle management. Thats over a third of BA employees performing way below par whilst enjoying all the benefits that the efficent employees don't enjoy. Yet you complain when one of the few efficient employee groups scores a victory that will benefit a fraction of that very small group and forecast ruin for BA!

BALPA you have been warned and don't forget your members are relying on a pension fund with a gigantic hole in it.

Very simplistic. I don't think BALPA will be paynig much heed to your expert analysis.

[chipmunkj]

What all of you are failing to see is that Jessica's victory will benefit all of us, regardless of gender.

As of next month, when the Works and Family act comes in,any one who has care resposibilities can apply for "Right to Request part time working".

So you chaps, if your wife/father/mother (or child) has to be cared for, you can apply for right to request.

It is no longer just a "child" or a gender issue!!!

[Harry Wragg]

March 2007, Thoughts of PD

BA's employee costs are nearly the highest in the industry and have risen steeply in recent years when many of our competitors have seen theirs reduce. Since the major pay restructuring for our pilots in 2003, our wage bill has continued to go up markedly more than inflation; in contrast our competitors have actually reduced their unit costs. Is there a solution to this by taking a completely fresh look at what are loosely termed 'lifestyle' options?

I acknowledge that, up to now, the majority of part-time has only been available to individuals who meet the 'right to request' criteria. The current agreement adds additional cost and complexity which, at a time when money and management resource have been in short supply, has made it difficult to justify part-time other than for individuals who have a compelling need for flexible working.

However, if we can agree a package of changes that improve the part-time agreement and resolve work coverage, we may be able to offer a wider range of flexible working, including opportunities for short sabbaticals or unpaid leave.

So, in a nutshell, in order to make part-time working available as per the recent part-time working case, we will have to rob Peter to pay Paul. It is a zero sum game, any benefits gained have to be paid for by someone...who?

HW

[serena]

A female American pilot

I fly for United Airlines. My husband is English. He is a stay-at-home dad for our 3 year old. I work more than full time since the Sept 11th attacks, and in fact have very little time with my family. I am away from home nearly 400 hours/month. My little girl loves her dad, but now she misses me - a lot. I am not there for her at all. If I was her father I would not be there for her either - the same. Male or female, if we don't protect our rights we take away from our children. This forum sounds very petty, condescending, and bitter. All that matter is our children. As pilots, male or female, we have a responsiblitity to be home for our families. If this kind woman opened a door for all of you to be home for your children, what are you complaining about? I would give a lot to work less and spend more time with both my husband and daughter. Now just imagine my proud English husband doesn't like to even live in America, but is living there to take good care of our sweet daughter. Do you expect every woman pilot to get so lucky?

By the way, I just came off furlough last year and I was flying in Australia - whoever suggested that - ha, ha!! I was fired for having a child!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes, AND MY HUSBAND IS A STAY-AT-HOME DAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I never had ANY problems with my child and work - my husband took care of EVERYTHING. It actually was a pay issue, he found a pilot to work for half of my wages. But do remember that in Oz they can fire you for ANYTHING. I think that was a lame excuse but some of you apparently think that's appropriate. Think again. I have an excellent reputation all over America and now Oz. I work hard and I love flying and people love flying with me - I make it fun. I've been flying for over 17 years now. Why are some of you being so condescending and petty?

[Bronx]

chipmunkj

"What all of you are failing to see"



The Starmer case was a 'gender issue', not a "child" issue.
Try reading the posts explaining the case and the decision.

[chipmunkj]

I am talking UK law--can't help it if some other countries are living in the dark ages!

[interpreter]

Carnage Matey

"That class already exists. Cabin crew. MT drivers. Pushback operators. Loaders. A large swathe of middle management. Thats over a third of BA employees performing way below par whilst enjoying all the benefits that the efficent employees don't enjoy. Yet you complain when one of the few efficient employee groups scores a victory that will benefit a fraction of that very small group and forecast ruin for BA!"
This demostrates clearly that you either do not read the replies or you are simply hell-bent on putting forward an argument that cannot be substantiated. The above I suggest is your opinion on the performance of certain employees. The correction of those shortcomings, if they exist. is a management responsibility. The creation of a class of employee who by contract does not need to do "a similar level of work" to that of another is a completely different matter. That is structurally bad for morale and financially inexcusable.

[Airbrake]

Serena, nobody on this issue is contesting the need for part time working as a parent or carer, that is a perfectly acceptable and reasonable request.
One of the issues surrounding this case which has aggrovated the issue is the speed at which a junior pilot achieved their demands before it was their "time". If they had waited another couple of years it would have been a non event and we wouldn't be disecting the issue today.
I see from your post that you have been flying 17 years, Starmer had been flying about 21 months before all this kicked off.

[Harry Wragg]

So it is merely the outpourings of people who realise: (1) the world does not revolve around them, (2) that life is unfair.

It must be particularly galling for Brits who love to queue [and the seniority system is just a big Q] to see someone who has just turned up get the lifestyle that most people aspire to but have, and will be denied.

It is also annoying for those self sponsored types who see someone get free training, and an automatic job flying aircraft many will take years to get anywhere near. Having got that access the person then sees fit to chose something else to do with their life, namely parenthood, and so it appears that they care nothing for either their career or the company.

Just so people understand, BA cadets are seldom interested in flying as a career, they have merely maximised their opportunities for remuneration and lifestyle.

Life is unfair, and it's about to get worse in the wonderful world of BA, a company a bit like the Soviet Union, where everyone is equal, but some more than others...

HW

[serena]

Fair Enough

I do understand that it was out-of-seniority and that is unfair to all of us (even over here.) But some of these comments are a bit unfair.

"BA and other airlines MUST view female applicants as a potential financial burden beyond that of male crew. The sex discrimination acts are all very well but in the long run they will make it less and less attractive to hire females. In my view this employee has done a disservice to every other BA employee."

We had the same problem at United about 15 years ago when they had to fill quotas and they hired female pilots with 200 hours (or so.) When I got hired I had 4000 hours and had been a captain for a regional airline. I was treated as a 200 hour pilot and still am treated that way. That is life. But it doesn't take away from the fact that I love to fly airplanes. I choose to put my career ahead of my family. Maybe not all women will choose that, but I think the majority still will choose their career. So I do not believe it's a gender issue, I believe it's an individual issue.

[Mixed Up]

serena:

So I do not believe it's a gender issue, I believe it's an individual issue.

The employment tribunal clearly thinks it's a gender issue.

[flyer1-11]

As a BA Captain on the B757 in 1999, I was one of the first to do part time and I worked 75%. I had 25 years flying experience.
On return to the B747-400 I reverted back to 'full time' working as I had experience as a co-pilot of very little handling practice and recency problems.
I think that working 50% on longhaul with less experience is not an ideal situation and does compromise safety to some extent. It also means that a part timer will always be struggling for recency on Longhaul and doing a higher proportion of handling sectors than a full time pilot.
Is the tribunal qualified to make a decision on flight safety and if there is an incident who is responsible.
BA were always helpful and accommodating.

[serena]

Oh well, I've got to go to work for the week. Have fun fighting it out!