As I understand it the argument is that BA can afford BALPAs proposal (which would mean poorer benefits than those available to current retirees). Is it beyond the realm of possibility that BALPA realised that your company could not afford to meet its' commitment to your pension fund and there was no room for manouvre?
If that were the case, then I could reason with the argument. However the case is good profits made, more than sufficient to clear pension debt in one year (but in doing so not make city targets). Board members take huge bonus', and the scale of debt is NOTHING like BA's (proportionate on debt/company profit) I would say. No, it's more matter of case that BALPA have told most pilots in this country to accept the changes, but suddenly, oh, BA pilots, a different case......
Are BA pilots really surprised this doesn't wash with the rest of industry who have NOT received the support from BALPA that you now ask for?