SR71, how can you claim that RHS occupance is cost neutral?
What I mean is that based on a CBA, some will prostitute themselves to (most of) a life in the RHS because ultimately financially, over the duration of a career, life at BA will
still net them more cash than their existing status quo.
For someone in their late 30's, it is
cost neutral because there is more than one way to arrive at the same financial position - a short time in the RHS, followed by a long time in the LHS if they stay where they are, OR, a long time in the RHS and a short/no time in the LHS at BA.
This is, of course, a choice open to everyone and I have some sympathy for the "If you can get paid in line with your expectations sitting in the RHS, who would want to sit in the LHS?" argument.
But there are others, for whom 20 years in the RHS is too bitter a pill to swallow even if financially they'd be better off by doing so.
You makes your choices and, in this industry more than most (any?) others, you have to live with them.
