CaptainProp - you say you are 'knackered'. Are you more knackered now than under the 6/3 pattern, or, as in my case, is it too early to judge?
It's very difficult to criticize those who are working hard - and let's at least agree on that - to improve our terms and conditions, those who are doing a job many, including I, wouldn't be prepared to undertake. But it shouldn't exonerate them, in terms of their performance, from critical analysis; afterall, they have agreed to take on this responsibility, asked members to vote for them, and vowed to seek results.
There is little point arguing whether 5/2,5/4 is the way forward. The CC insisted it was the best they could negotiate. Well, perhaps. There is no evidence or reason to support an argument for or against this claim. But it is what we have. So, would 90% BALPA membership have ensured a better result?
Shamefully I'm working from memory; the exact figures not being to hand, but in fact not necessary to make the point. Let's assume a BALPA membership of, what? 66%. Two thirds. Reasonable? Maybe substantially less. However, let's go with that figure. That's around 800 pilots in a workforce of some 1200. The number of members that actually voted was around 75%. 600 pilots. The number voting yes was something like 65%. That's 390 pilots out of 1200 which approved the offer presented by the company. Precision isn't necessary to make the point that the 'yes' vote was a minority one in terms of total pilot numbers.
The first question is why so many members abstained? The second is why were we asked to vote on an entire package which included the reduced holiday entitlement, the confusing days off request system, and the expectation to work into a day off without compensation? The vote should have been to decide the new roster pattern and nothing more. Perhaps this explains the abstinence.
Again there is no evidence or reasoning to support an argument that higher BALPA membership would have rejected the proposal. We simply do not know how the currently disenfranchised would have voted. Members were presented with a proposal on which we were asked to vote. It is the proposal which offers itself for criticism, a final proposal that could not have been influenced by BALPA membership.
The CC stated, or at least individuals stated, that it was the best they could achieve. It was, no doubt, the result of supreme effort on the part of many who gave their time - and health - for our good. But it is on the result of these efforts that we are asked to vote. The quality of these results shapes our opinion of the union, and it is these opinions which determine membership choices.
The CC comprises pilots, not industrial relations experts. It is the union's responsibility to provide the skills, experience, and support to bolster the efforts of our representatives. Perhaps this is the the area to scrutinize if we are to swell the membership ranks.
FQ