Female BA pilot wins legal battle for right to work part-time
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kununurra!
Age: 35
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ooh big man you are. dont go making assumptions like that around here, you dont know me or anyone else.
i wouldnt be surprised if you were the one who knocked her up
i wouldnt be surprised if you were the one who knocked her up
I see assumptions being made here about choices to be with ones family or pursuing a career. The assumption seems to be that, whatever the career, you can automatically have both. It just isn't true!
Some careers just don't give that option. Assuming that employment law will allow this 'balance' in all careers is a fundamental mistake. Therefore you have to find the job/profression that allows you to find your work/family 'balance'. Don't choose a job and then expect the law to sort it out for you. That would be a business on a hiding to nothing!
Two part timers doing the job of one cost more than a single person in the same position - FACT! You can't avoid it - uniforms, administration, recurrent trainig etc etc. They cost more. The whole point of a business is to be competitve and make a profit - if it doesn't do that it doesn't last long. Therefore the business employing the part-timers, if it goes down the part-time employment route, is going to have to save money elsewhere. So something somewhere is lost to EVERYBODY. We ALL lose.
Those that think this case is a plus for workers are almost exclusively those who want part-time work themselves, and they always fail to see that it costs more! Somewhere everyone is losing something, however small. The losses accumulate and eventually people realise that things are not what they used to be ....... but they don't associate it with their desire for part-time work. It gets laid at the door of something else - rising fuel prices, competitors fares yada yada yada.
I am married, I don't have children ...... but I have a FAMILY. Would I like to work less and spend more time at home? Human nature probabaly dictates that it is thus ....... but I don't have kids, but somehow my family is treated as less 'deserving', I don't get the option of part time, assuming I wanted it in the first place. Is that fair?
No, this case is but a small detour in the inexorable decline of benefits for ALL employees as a whole. The folk that get their part-time or whatever think they are doing great. The load has to get 'picked up' elsewhere and eventually things are lost - benefits, salary increases, et-bloody-cetera.
With rights there are always responsibilities. The responsibilities need to be exercised FIRST, not the rights. But the innate selfishness of parts of human nature seem to allow the noisy selfish lobby to get their 'rights' first. It will come home to roost but unfortunately we ALL have to pay. By which time it is too late.
Some careers just don't give that option. Assuming that employment law will allow this 'balance' in all careers is a fundamental mistake. Therefore you have to find the job/profression that allows you to find your work/family 'balance'. Don't choose a job and then expect the law to sort it out for you. That would be a business on a hiding to nothing!
Two part timers doing the job of one cost more than a single person in the same position - FACT! You can't avoid it - uniforms, administration, recurrent trainig etc etc. They cost more. The whole point of a business is to be competitve and make a profit - if it doesn't do that it doesn't last long. Therefore the business employing the part-timers, if it goes down the part-time employment route, is going to have to save money elsewhere. So something somewhere is lost to EVERYBODY. We ALL lose.
Those that think this case is a plus for workers are almost exclusively those who want part-time work themselves, and they always fail to see that it costs more! Somewhere everyone is losing something, however small. The losses accumulate and eventually people realise that things are not what they used to be ....... but they don't associate it with their desire for part-time work. It gets laid at the door of something else - rising fuel prices, competitors fares yada yada yada.
I am married, I don't have children ...... but I have a FAMILY. Would I like to work less and spend more time at home? Human nature probabaly dictates that it is thus ....... but I don't have kids, but somehow my family is treated as less 'deserving', I don't get the option of part time, assuming I wanted it in the first place. Is that fair?
No, this case is but a small detour in the inexorable decline of benefits for ALL employees as a whole. The folk that get their part-time or whatever think they are doing great. The load has to get 'picked up' elsewhere and eventually things are lost - benefits, salary increases, et-bloody-cetera.
With rights there are always responsibilities. The responsibilities need to be exercised FIRST, not the rights. But the innate selfishness of parts of human nature seem to allow the noisy selfish lobby to get their 'rights' first. It will come home to roost but unfortunately we ALL have to pay. By which time it is too late.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,804
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it a fact that part timers cost more than full timers? Mrs W was on a 50% roster for BA Connect (with less than 1500 hours total). BACon policy was no standbys for part timers so they were rostered first, often on touring rosters, and ended up flying 75% to 80% of the hours of a full time pilot with 50% of the pay. Not complaining, you understand, just making two observations:
1. It isn't always as simple as it looks
2. BA, who were very quick to say BACon was part of BA when it suited them, don't seem to have applied the 1500 hour policy universally.
1. It isn't always as simple as it looks
2. BA, who were very quick to say BACon was part of BA when it suited them, don't seem to have applied the 1500 hour policy universally.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MrB, you are banging on about responsibilities and rights, This woman has got a responsibilty to her child that far out weighs the responsibilty to her employer. When her kids are old enough she should theoretically be able to return to work full time.
If you cant get part time at your employer, come and work for mine....you dont need to have kids to qualify for it there.
If you cant get part time at your employer, come and work for mine....you dont need to have kids to qualify for it there.
Alex, I didn't mean that part-timers cost more, I meant that 2 people covering the job that could be done by one person, is more expensive. Can't be anything else.
jetjockey737, "banging on"? OK. Well if the "responsibilty to her child ... far out weighs the responsibilty to her employer" then she can administer that responsibility herself. Why should the employer or other people in the company have to carry the can for that? She made a choice to have children, she may even have a 'right' to have children, but not at everyone elses's expense.
I didn't say I wanted part-time .... read it again carefully.
jetjockey737, "banging on"? OK. Well if the "responsibilty to her child ... far out weighs the responsibilty to her employer" then she can administer that responsibility herself. Why should the employer or other people in the company have to carry the can for that? She made a choice to have children, she may even have a 'right' to have children, but not at everyone elses's expense.
I didn't say I wanted part-time .... read it again carefully.
Dear Mr Angry, or Carnage.. Whatever your name is...
You appear to be extremely wound up about this.
Are you a BA manager taking the P?, a journalist?, or even,... the husband?
My original remark, some while ago, when this issue first occured was only that it did a huge dis-service to the many other females pilots [I've flown with loads] who wanted a career in aviation, and, whether you agree or not, were prepared to sacrifice something for it like most of us do.
I truely sincerely wish the lady and her children health and happiness. That is from the heart. But we all have to make life choices regarding careers, you cannot have it all your own way, a decent career, salary, etc. comes at a price. If you sign on the dotted line that says you have to do X Y Z, then you cannot change the rules after you signed up for the job.
You appear to be extremely wound up about this.
Are you a BA manager taking the P?, a journalist?, or even,... the husband?
My original remark, some while ago, when this issue first occured was only that it did a huge dis-service to the many other females pilots [I've flown with loads] who wanted a career in aviation, and, whether you agree or not, were prepared to sacrifice something for it like most of us do.
I truely sincerely wish the lady and her children health and happiness. That is from the heart. But we all have to make life choices regarding careers, you cannot have it all your own way, a decent career, salary, etc. comes at a price. If you sign on the dotted line that says you have to do X Y Z, then you cannot change the rules after you signed up for the job.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 60
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am interested to hear what our military colleagues have to say ?
Would female C130 pilot be allowed to elect part time in Iraq or Afghanistan because she wants to stay at home with the kids a bit more
Would female C130 pilot be allowed to elect part time in Iraq or Afghanistan because she wants to stay at home with the kids a bit more
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Overseas
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I despair every time I hear people bleating on about doing this job for the love of it. It is NOT the same as serving your country in the forces. It is NOT the same as helping street kids in Africa - it is paid employment for profit making (ish) organisations.
Every time we go on about doing it for the love of it, our bosses smile into another glass of champagne. They love the fact that we are committed, cos that means we will do it for less. It means they can screw around with our home lives just that little bit more and squeeze a little extra work out of us to help their bonuses.
My family comes first, middle and last. My company comes just where it should - exactly where my contract of employment puts it. No more, no less. I give my career 100% of the attention it needs and deserves and expect the same back from my company. If I am entitled to part time by law (as every other employee of every other company is) I will take it if I want to.
Next person to talk about 'dedication', 'commitment' or the 'sacrifices' we all should make - please remember that's taking money out of my pocket and putting it into my boss'. Do you really think that your company will thank you for your single minded 'my-job-is-so-important-blah-blah' dedication when they lose money and sack you? For gods sake IT'S ONLY A JOB and she is only an employee with a right to have time off to bring up her child if she wants it
Every time we go on about doing it for the love of it, our bosses smile into another glass of champagne. They love the fact that we are committed, cos that means we will do it for less. It means they can screw around with our home lives just that little bit more and squeeze a little extra work out of us to help their bonuses.
My family comes first, middle and last. My company comes just where it should - exactly where my contract of employment puts it. No more, no less. I give my career 100% of the attention it needs and deserves and expect the same back from my company. If I am entitled to part time by law (as every other employee of every other company is) I will take it if I want to.
Next person to talk about 'dedication', 'commitment' or the 'sacrifices' we all should make - please remember that's taking money out of my pocket and putting it into my boss'. Do you really think that your company will thank you for your single minded 'my-job-is-so-important-blah-blah' dedication when they lose money and sack you? For gods sake IT'S ONLY A JOB and she is only an employee with a right to have time off to bring up her child if she wants it
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 60
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
52049, that lovely phrase "entitled by law", the meeting of politics and business. It would seem that the only part of the equation not "entitled" to anything are companies and their shareholders.
Companies and shareholders are not generally big fat cigar smoking types these days. They are more likely to be your pension fund managers for example, or your insurance company, or an investor trying to generate yield for his/her cash beyond what can be achieved just sticking it in a bank. Without those private interests, there would be a lot less benefit for the general public. Can you imagine a world where only government owned flag carrying airlines existed ?
What makes anyone think that they are "entitled" to be provided for by those investors in anything else but a mutually beneficial relationship. As in any free market should the mutual benefit cease , then so must the relationship.
I run a number of businesses across Europe where staff fully (ab)use their "entitlement by law", to sick leave and overtime, where even stealing from the company is not considered by courts as dissmissable in an industry where trust is everything. Over at Airbus, a perfectly good series of aircraft is in danger of extinction because of political interference and employee intransigence, and will they all be happy when Boeing have 90% of the world market and they are all sitting at home jobless on state benefits.
What happened to the need to earn something rather than expect instant entitlement without any contribution. I can assure you that management candidates up for interview with me assure themselves of instant disqualification if they even breathe the word entitlement before they have had a chance to contribute anything.
As for your comment about "just a job", I would have to say that on balance the evidence suggests that it is not just a job for many of your colleagues. Having had a look around the net, I have struggled to find a Professional Accountants Rumour Network for example.
Take a poll among well paid managers in mundane jobs, ask how many would take a pay cut in exchange for a front seat in a 777, you would be surprised at the positive response you would get
Companies and shareholders are not generally big fat cigar smoking types these days. They are more likely to be your pension fund managers for example, or your insurance company, or an investor trying to generate yield for his/her cash beyond what can be achieved just sticking it in a bank. Without those private interests, there would be a lot less benefit for the general public. Can you imagine a world where only government owned flag carrying airlines existed ?
What makes anyone think that they are "entitled" to be provided for by those investors in anything else but a mutually beneficial relationship. As in any free market should the mutual benefit cease , then so must the relationship.
I run a number of businesses across Europe where staff fully (ab)use their "entitlement by law", to sick leave and overtime, where even stealing from the company is not considered by courts as dissmissable in an industry where trust is everything. Over at Airbus, a perfectly good series of aircraft is in danger of extinction because of political interference and employee intransigence, and will they all be happy when Boeing have 90% of the world market and they are all sitting at home jobless on state benefits.
What happened to the need to earn something rather than expect instant entitlement without any contribution. I can assure you that management candidates up for interview with me assure themselves of instant disqualification if they even breathe the word entitlement before they have had a chance to contribute anything.
As for your comment about "just a job", I would have to say that on balance the evidence suggests that it is not just a job for many of your colleagues. Having had a look around the net, I have struggled to find a Professional Accountants Rumour Network for example.
Take a poll among well paid managers in mundane jobs, ask how many would take a pay cut in exchange for a front seat in a 777, you would be surprised at the positive response you would get
Well put rmac. Professional flying does require a vocational commitment. I worked for an airline run by a fellow countryman of yours, renowned for his prowess in a racing car. If all I was interested in were my entitlements I would have packed my bags in disgust and returned to UK pdq.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: On the Camel's back
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rmac, read 52049's post again. In a nutshell, this is what he's saying (eloquently in my view)
On giving said 100%, where is exactly with your problem with the so-called "entitlements"?
Which is exactly what 52049 advocates. He gives 100%, this benefits the company, so he is fully entitled to benefit also. After, he is doing a job, not as you claim, some sort of "vocation."
Perhaps you'd only be happy when the employee gives 100% and the company gives nothing.
And watch as soon after they realise it isn't all it cracked up to be.
This is a job like anything else. The employee is expected to do as required in his/her contract. The company is expected to honour the contract. You will see the employees give 200% when companies start doing the latter. Airlines, as I'm sure you are aware, are rather prone to one-way loyalty.
I give my career 100% of the attention it needs and deserves and expect the same back from my company.
What makes anyone think that they are "entitled" to be provided for by those investors in anything else but a mutually beneficial relationship.
Perhaps you'd only be happy when the employee gives 100% and the company gives nothing.
Take a poll among well paid managers in mundane jobs, ask how many would take a pay cut in exchange for a front seat in a 777, you would be surprised at the positive response you would get
This is a job like anything else. The employee is expected to do as required in his/her contract. The company is expected to honour the contract. You will see the employees give 200% when companies start doing the latter. Airlines, as I'm sure you are aware, are rather prone to one-way loyalty.
simply that many do this job for the passion and love of the industry
Ms. Starnes approached the matter rationally and used the flawed law to her own advantage. What's shocking about that? Are the loopholes only to be used by MGT? Are the ones who fly-to-live worse pilots than those who live-to-fly? Do you at all know what's the real cost of pilot's wages and trainning compared to companies' overall expenses?
Last edited by Clandestino; 24th Mar 2007 at 20:57.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Annapolis, Maryland
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said by 52049er!!!
You touched on every point that matters and on what is it REALLY like out there. I wonder if these bloggers have any clue what it is like to fly for an airline. Your points are accurate and most airline pilots would agree with them. Those that don't, surely aren't actually airline pilots. 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just seen Jessica spouting forth from the wilds of Dorset on BBC1 on the subject of mothers wanting flexible working.
You would think she would keep her head down for a bit but No she is clearly loving the attention she has got over the BA cave in.
You would think she would keep her head down for a bit but No she is clearly loving the attention she has got over the BA cave in.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Midlands
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rmac
[Take a poll among well paid managers in mundane jobs, ask how many would take a pay cut in exchange for a front seat in a 777, you would be surprised at the positive response you would get]
I've taken that poll from friends who aren't in aviation and they would get out of bed for what I earn
. Let alone a pay cut for that front seat (maybe 1A with a rather large G&T 
)
I've taken that poll from friends who aren't in aviation and they would get out of bed for what I earn
. Let alone a pay cut for that front seat (maybe 1A with a rather large G&T )
