Suggs,
You state:
"I'll think that you will find that it was BALPA who insisted that CFE be brought in house."
I do not know how much influence BALPA had in the decision....I thought one of the main union issues was the North Terminal ground staff.
At the time of the decision no-one could have foreseen the state of the industry now, post September 11th. However, EOG were still in a pretty bad state and losing money on much of the short-haul operation.
Does this not demonstrate, therefore, the shortsightedness of many within EOG and BALPA to be pushing for CFE to be integrated into the North Terminal operation (on pretty much EOG terms and conditions) which would increase CFE costs and thus further jeopardise a BA future at LGW.
Surely pilots working for a loss-making operation (EOG) should have been looking longer-term which could have produced a better, more cost-effective, BA presence at LGW, perhaps with compromise T and C's midway between the prevailing CFE and EOG levels.
As stated above, none of us could have foreseen Sept 11th and its effects, but let us not forget what a sorry state BA LGW was already in!
CFE crews were pushing for EOG/BA T & C's, and now everyone wearing a BA uniform at LGW is concerned for the future, whilst the likes of easyJet, with sensible cost-control measures, are waiting in the wings!