Originally Posted by
normanton
True. But a scope clause will never be approved. We all know that. Is it worth the risk of missing out on the 350 flying? Is it worth the risk in giving them a valid reason to start a new entity. Is it worth the risk of giving them a viable direction to further erode the LH conditions? It's the one question NO ONE has answered. What happens to the future LH EBA negotiations with a viable and successful entity undercutting us at every chance?
I’m really glad you made this point because for me it is precisely why I think the NO vote (if warranted) is worth the risk. As long as we don’t have a job security clause that is iron clad, there is nothing to prevent the company going down that road if it wants too. Personally I think the damage to the brand that this would cause, both internally and externally would be significant and I think they know that.
I would bet you every brick in London that at some stage over the next 3 years, especially given current uncertainty with regards to global travel, if we vote yes now another concession will be required to kick this thing off, be it under threat of .....’well we can only commit to 5 x 350’s now.... all of a sudden the rigid business case miraculously becomes quite flexible.
I just can’t see a YES vote precluding any form of current or future management continuing to threaten us with external entities for the sake of meeting a business case. In fact I believe a YES vote will all but guarantee it.
My opinion only.... of which there are many!