Carnage Matey,
My apologies for the long over due reply.
Now addressing your post:
My understanding is that Rob Hall (then BACC, now BA management) was quick to conclude that BACX pilots wanted no part of the scope deal on offer. The problem for our reps revolved around the terms on offer. Principally:
- Turbo prop pilots were to be excluded from any form of access to B.A.;
(Personally, that one reason is enough to reject the deal: a union cannot possibly act in its members' best interest if it accepts an offer that disenfranchises a significant percentage of its members. What in Heaven's name is the rational for excluding turbo prop pilots from mainline? It is little more than a professional insult to those pilots.)
- No access to any fleet based out of London Gatwick.
- No access by BACX pilots to any aircraft over 100 seats. Furthermore, aircraft below 50 seats to be the exclusive remit of BACX pilots, but aircraft 70 to 100 seats to be shared with BA pilots.
(On closer analysis -bearing in mind that BA stop recruiting at age 49- older CX pilots would be blocked from flying anything bigger than a ERJ 145 by younger B.A pilots using the regional arm as a route to early command before diving back into BA.)
Those are some of the issues I have discovered. In summary Rob Hall was keen to BACX what we could or could not do whilst guaranteeing that BA pilots flying for CX would retain all preferential terms and bidding rights.
Why was BACC so keen to attach unralistic conditions to any deal? Was this to sweeten the C.X community for the arrival of B.A pilots on the 146/RJ on the CX AOC, and no more ?
If BACX CC had accepted this deal, I would have felt betrayed as one of its members.
So yes, you are right, BACX on the face of it, did reject the opportunity to join B.A mainline, but in some quarters this opportunity is viewed merely as an illusion of access to B.A
Safe flying.