Tandem,
What I meant was solely referring to the pensions provision. I'm disappointed you seem to have decided to disingenuously twist my comment into what I think was a reference to the mainline RJ pilots (be delighted to have you put me right there
), obviously a very large number of pilots on all fleets have had their lives, Ts and Cs, and everything thrown into turmoil ever since our ownership status changed. It is also misleading to include your comment "there are now mainline pilots without an FSS either!" I'm not at all sure what that is meant to mean other than a statement of the obvious - clearly the aim is to prevent that status being extended to ALL of us!!!!!!
HOWEVER, it is a bit rich, and insulting to suggest that BA do not hold the purse strings to EVERYTHING related to BACX, which of course includes the pension scheme which they closed to new members a short time before doing the same thing to mainline. My implied suggestion was that the two Company Councils should get together, realise that total closure of the BACX scheme is the first step to total closure of NAPS (I'll pause now for the usual suspects to accuse me of being completely wrong), and send a message to Willie that neither scheme is negotiable, and insist on a statement confirming the retention of both. It would be sad if mainline BALPA once again played the "Separate Companies" card, presumably feeling invincible. I doubt if that would result in anything other than greater progress with the good old 'divide and conquer' strategy which works so well for them. Let's be honest, if five years ago, mainline BALPA had been told that the pension scheme would close to new members, the messenger would have been laughed out of court.
As to my view of the 'sizeable group of BACX flying staff who already KNOW their T & Cs are likely to face a massive attack in the very near future!' - again, I presume you refer to the mainline contingent. I feel as sympathetic to their plight being buggered about by management and moved bases etc as I do to the pure BACX guys - except that as we both know, for whatever reasons, history, silver spoons, superior ability - you choose - they have a much more secure postion in the long run, and have made a fortune via the deal negotiated for them. Good for them, maybe not quite so good for the BACX guys without the golden ejector seat.
Finally, although I cannot help but point out that your final paragraph about BA and purse strings contradicts your earlier comment, what exactly do you mean by "the days of BA holding the strings of the BACX purse could, in any case, be numbered" - we have lived with rumours, 'announcements' and scuttlebutt for so long we may as well be guided by your own, 'extensive' experience in the matter.
