To strike seems like the obvious thing to opt for but I am not so sure that it should be the first step, as it exposes all of us to risks and the wrath of the public before it might be necessary. Why not first make use of the fact that we are over delivering; that we are doing such a good job in shifting this much traffic through an inadequate system should be heavily in our favour becaue it is more than management have right to expect and can be taken back without penalty.
As has already been mentioned, just let every ATCO do their sector by the book;fully man the sectors and insist on flow measures to protect it. Refuse to permit operations that expose us to acknowledged safety risks, e.g. the current fiasco in Stansted's airspace where traffic is constantly running a gauntlet for rwy05 against LC, GW and WU departures. (This issue is already the subject of a safety report which demanded correction "...on the grounds of passenger safety." It is entirely proper for ATCOs to take action to protect themselves where management have not. It is actually our duty.)
Heathrow - use 60 seconds instead of the current 45 for a one minute split; apply the minimum final spacings. When the multiple CAT Bs are in the way as they nearly always are, slow the rate to protect the system.
Refuse AAVAs.
Currently, we are making all these things work and it makes Management look good - That is fine when they are playing ball on pensions but they cannot have it both ways. Do what you are required to do, nothing more.
As I understand things, such action should lead to a significant increase in delays for the airlines, which will put management directly in confrontation with them and the regulator. That must work in our favour.
Strikes are often devisive and are a frightening prospect for many. Is it necessary, yet?
.4