Todays
Guardian has yet more on BALPA refusal to accept random testing.
British Airways has been trying to introduce random tests since a television documentary exposed lurid tales of drinking on overnight stop-overs three years ago.
Balpa has fought the proposals, insisting it favours a regime of "peer intervention", whereby colleagues who suspect that a pilot has a drink problem intervene to help.
Jim McAuslan, Balpa's general secretary, pointed out that random testing in the US had produced just 38 positive results out of 38,000 tests.
However, the aviation industry is out of line with other transport. Many rail operators, including Midland Mainline and freight firm EWS, impose random tests on train drivers with union cooperation.
Mick Blackburn, assistant general secretary of the rail union Aslef, said most drivers were supportive of the practice. "We recognise that the public need to trust that the driver of a train hasn't been drinking before coming on duty," he said.
The TGWU said it had no problem with random tests imposed by haulage companies on drivers. A spokes-woman said the union was "fully supportive" in making sure drivers "are capable of driving safely".
Can anyone in the hierarchy at BALPA give any idea as to why they are so adamantly against random testing? - as Random testing is used in the US is BALPA not out of step with the industry standard?
Also its very bad publicity when Train drivers accept the need for random testing and flight crew don't - perhaps BALPA needs someone with a bit more nous for publicity, Max Clifford anyone?