Blackball
It's certainly possible that a seperate company with a seperate union may have produced better Ts & Cs. I too can see that the umbrella union covering so many sometimes contradictory aspirational groups may not always be the best solution.
That said I'd rather have them than not have them these days. I'm sure that any weakness would have been seen as an opportunity by my employer...
So back to the thread - is scope a B scale. I'd still have to argue No. I suppose it depends on your position (as always!). The end game appears to be a desire to force work in to the mainline camp, perhaps even forcing management to address those cost problems. So if like me you are part of BA lhr then such aims are welcome. I guess if you are outside in the regions etc you may argue you would be better off without such a strategy. I'm not convinced such an argument would be correct - as I have suggested Ts & Cs appear better to me in these areas than they would otherwise be - but I can see the argument that perhaps, and it's a big perhaps, a seperate union would have focused more on the bases concerns and got a better result.
However this wouldn't mean it's a B scale would it? I cannot believe that an operation set up outside BA, with no BALPA presence would produce better employment conditions than one with BALPA on board. I accept that BALPA is guarding fortress lhr and to an extent seems prepared to fight less at say lgw with this in mind.
Can it really be unreasonable that employees of a company wish work done in that company's name to be done by themselves and not an outside organisation. Especially if the use of such franchises removes/threatens their own livelihood?