It is nothing short of an insult to those of us who have self funded our own training and our looking for our first position. The BA cadet scheme she attended now no longer exists so she is very lucky to have had her training funded.

My fiance' would love to have children but the financial position I am in due to having completed both an aero degree and a frozen ATPL means this is something we have had to put on hold for a few years. In other words to obtain a pilots qualification takes many sacrifices, as a BA Cadet she would have had a fairly easy route into the airlines compared to most self funded pilots. I am not complaining because no one forced me to train as a pilot, it was my choice.

I have nothing against female pilots, I know some very good female aviators but if she wanted a career as a pilot she should know it is was not your normal 9 to 5 office based lifestyle. However with sponsorship schemes now non-existent, any new female pilot coming into the industry will have had to invest anything from 40 - 70 thounsand in their own flight training, I suspect if she had to make a similar investment in her own training then holding her career up with pregnancy is something she would have thought twice about.

The Law is again an Ass.
 

I wonder how Mrs. Starmer's LPC/OPC's will go, with the low amount of 319/320 handling time she will now achieve every 6 months. (85hrs PF/6 months, maybe...340 TT/year?) Being a minority group member, she will doubtless be given more than an average number of opportunities to redeem herself. Questionable decision. Safety consequences.

Um!,
Wasn't it the fact that she was entitled to the time off/ part time in her contract. But BA were trying to change it retrospectivly that this is all about.
?:ok:

Roy hudd,

More bollocks. She will have 10 times the number of approaches that a 747 driver has in a year. If she was fine before she will be fine now.

Cheers
WIno

RoyHudd. I did 300 - 350 hours a year for the first four years of my career. Strangely, my lpc/opc's went fine

I work 2 to 3 days a week as a male GP. If I screw up, people die. There's a lot of hands-on currency involved and a mountain of knowledge to keep up to date with. Similar to your job, in fact. As a PPL, I also have some perspective -- admittedly not an airline pilot's -- on flight currency and the hours requirements for that. I fly my Super Cub just under 100 hours a year and I fly it not that far from the limits of what it can do. I don't feel rusty every time I fly.

Putting the two perspectives together, it is abundantly clear to me that the objections to this pilot's part-time working are based on bigotry and sour grapes, nothing more.

QDM

Roy Hudd:

Let me say that I do not sympathise at all with this young lady but you are talking a load of boll*cks by suggesting that a pilot will have problems doing an LPC/OPC when only flying 350 hours a year.

I managed it quite happily for the last 19 years and indeed examined many, many other pilots in exactly the same position and didn't find your perceived "lack of hours" a problem.

It really is a spurious argument in any case. You guys who regularly turn in 900 hours a year are constantly complaining about how knackered it makes you and how you are working too hard for your own good.

Now you want to criticise those of us who have been clever enough to find a good job that only entails flying 350 - 400 hours a year! You are on the wrong tack old mate!

My only problem is I can't pay the bills on 400 hours per year. To be fair, my own fault.

Good luck to her.

I hate to admit it but QDM's arguement wins my day.

I really hate to admit it.

I would have thought that promotion would be based on suitability for the position rather than time in company ie you could be a ****e pilot with 20 years on the line or an ace pilot with 10 years on the line, which one would be most suitable for promotion? All this seniority stuff is a load of kak, doesn't happen in any other industry (well maybe a few), suitability, eagerness, productivity, attitude etc are far more important.

I think if a female pilot chooses a career in aviation, she should consider her options for bearing children very carefully. Gain some core experience, take a career break then return full time, don't try and juggle the two and remain in a twilight world of minimal experience and currency.

I do not want to think that my wife and son may be flying behind someone who has just returned from a part time break with low experience and currency and then have the Skipper keel over and leave the shop to her.

This is not a move forward, there are still areas that require careful thought wrt rights etc. We are now talking a potential flight safety hazard :suspect:

The thread title is misleading:

• BA offered to allow Starmer to change to a 75% contract. The dispute was between the 75% they offered and the 50% she wanted.
• There has been no recent court 'victory'. BA lodged an application for leave to appeal against Mrs Starmer's win at the Employment Appeals Tribunal last year, and has now decided to abandon an appeal.

I’m not entirely surprised. BA handled her application in what many would regard as a practical ‘common sense’ way, but common sense and the provisions of employment law often don’t coincide. BA made procedural errors at a very early stage which created legal difficulties for them in due course - regardless of whether there was a shred of merit in a non-legal sense in Starmer’s claim. (Interestingly, the overwhelming majority of posters on the two very long threads last year ranged from being unsympathetic to highly critical of her claim.)
An appeal is not a fresh hearing of the claim; no evidence is heard. It's a 'review' of the previous decision.
So, unless BA could show that the Tribunal made a mistake of law and/or made a finding of fact which was ‘perverse’ on the evidence (an extremely high test), the previous decision would stand.
It's much more difficult to get a decision overturned on appeal than it is to win at the first hearing.

• 2000: Recruited and trained (ab initio) by BA. Full time contract.
  
• May 2001: F/O on the Airbus fleet (short haul).
• Became involved with Captain Starmer - divorce - became Mrs Starmer #2.
• Feb 2003 onwards: Pregnant - unable to fly - ground duties
• Oct 2003: Maternity leave - baby born.
• March 2004: Application for a 50% contract. BA refused but offered her a 75% contract as a compromise. She declined the offer. (BA prepared to offer husband 50% contract. Offer declined.)
• Note: Five pilots on the LHR Airbus fleet applied to work part-time in Feb/March 2004. Man applied for 75%: Refused. Four women applied for 50%: One granted 50%; other three (incl Starmer) offered 75%. Starmer declined the offer and claimed she was the victim of sex discrimination.
• Sept 2004: Returned to work - not having flown for 19 months - and used leave “and other means” (quote from the EAT judgment) to take time off pending the outcome of her claim against BA.
• 2005: Employment Tribunal
• 2006: Employment Appeals Tribunal, and second child born.

The Law:
If a “provision, criterion or practice” which applies to both men and women operates to the detriment of a considerably larger proportion of women than men, then that is unlawful sex discrimination - even if men are subject to precisely the same provision, criterion or practice.

Legal Issues at the Tribunal
Key issues:
(1) Did BA apply a “provision, criterion or practice” (PCP) to Mrs Starmer which it applied (or would have applied) equally to a man?
Held: Yes.
(2) Was that ‘PCP’ to the detriment of a considerably larger proportion of women than men?
Held: Yes.
Of the relatively small number of BA pilots who'd applied to work part-time, there were more applications by women than men.
So, although there was evidence that BA was in fact more likely to grant an application by a woman, it could still be proved by statistics that the proportion of women refused part-time contracts under BA's criterion was larger than the proportion of men - because more women applied.
(3) Could BA show the ‘PCP’ to be justifiable irrespective of the Claimant’s sex?
Held: No.

Note: The Tribunal didn't consider the fact that Mrs Starmer chose to live 107 miles/2 hrs drive each way from LHR to be relevant to her child care difficulties. (No comment.)


NB: I've given a very brief summary of the law. It is not an attempt to justify either the law (I'm not a politician) or the Tribunal decisions.


Some might think there's an irony about the way she's played the system:
BA introduced a scheme in 2000 to accommodate child care needs subject to recency considerations.
There was clear and undisputed evidence that BA had a policy of actively recruiting women pilots.

___________

IcePack
No.
Your understanding is completely wrong.

___________

QDM

Quote:

---

it is abundantly clear to me that the objections to this pilot's part-time working are based on bigotry and sour grapes, nothing more.

---

Really?
Strong words indeed.
And rather a dramatic change from the opinion you expressed in the previous thread:

Quote:

---

”There is something about doing it a lot in a short time, which is important in the learning curve. You learn more full time in five years than you do half time in ten years and I think the quality of that experience is different.

---

What a load of tosh. If someone passes an LPC and a line check, they can cope with the situation you describe. What you have posted is nonsense, better not let your wife & son fly as you never know who's on the other side of that door. :suspect:

BusyB: What you allude to is in fact illegal in the UK - a part time worker cannot be disadvantaged for promotion compared to a full time one.

Once again the mention of this case exposes the petty jealousies and prejudices of some. Reading some of this stuff, you'd think this was a Victorian mill owners forum :cool:

Just like Wimbledon.
They play 3 sets, we play 5.
JO

Flying Lawyer

Good post matey....next time i'm up sh*t creek with the CAA can i get you to bail me out of it!!:)

its about time BA started playing by the rules

Yeah but they get paid the same now!:=

All you sympathisers with this coniving lady can cheer away if you wish but the fact is that the publicity attached to this case is going to harm the employment opportunities for many ladies and not only those within the aviation community..
irespective of the courts, most of us have a pretty fundamental appreciation of what amounts to fair play and this lady is the wrong side of the line.

( As for tennis players I've never understood the argument that ladies should earn the same figure as the men... simply put... the best lady player is only equivelent to the mens approx number 33... if you're the best in the world you get the best money... if you're the best lady player or the best under 21 or whatever you're simply NOT the best and get paid accordingly ). But this is not the subject of the thread and I apologise to the moderators for the divergence..

Why would BA hire female pilots in the future if their productivity is half of a male? Would the law require it? Why? This job requires a lot of dedication, if you are not dedicated to this profession work somewhere else.

To change the tack slightly,

GREAT news for any BA opposition!:eek:

Higher costs, less profit etc etc.:O

Another case of EU/UK shooting itself in both feet again. :(