Actually No, what it serves to illustrate is that comments can be misconstrued, it also shows Bealzebub that you appear not to be concerned about the situation facing the status quo.
Unless you are referring to the band "Status Quo", the term is defined as "the existing state of affairs" not a person or group of people, so I do not understand what you mean by the
situation facing the Status Quo
in either context, much less why I should be concerned about it ?
I joined in this thread to question the assertion that the level of annual allowances averaged only £2000 a year, and that staff travel was "a joke". My reply was based on the factual and documented evidence ( in the case of the former) going back many, many years. This is a public forum and if we are projecting a picture to the wider world, then it should at least be balanced and in my contention, accurate. That reply was challenged as inaccurate and exagerrated. I offered the protaganists details by private message if they wanted ( as I consider them confidential within the wider arena), they didn't reply. I can prove average allowances going back over many years but that is detail none of them want ?
If there is a point to be argued fine, but to then dovetail it into something else because you don't like the answer is disingenous, and as I previously stated naive and probably indicitive of wider issues ?
On to your point. I will attempt to honestly answer your questions :
1. Can you honestly look at the current T & C's and answer that they represent a competitive package in relation to the present market place?
Who's terms & conditions ? Mine, yours, new joiners over the last 2 years who get an entirely different set. I think mine are competitive when I consider what is available to me in other UK companies and in those companies that are recruiting overseas. If I thought I could do a lot better for myself and my family somewhere else, I would have done. Other people have chosen to do just that. Some of those people are pleased with their decision, some are not.
2. What represents a "sensible" settlement in your view?
Here is a loaded question if ever there was one, but go on I will bite. Last year I made a comfortable standard of living. This year if inflation is applied to the same figure, then the same will hold true. Inflation is a very personal thing and varies from one person to the next. However government figures are usually utilized to provide at least the governments picture and thereby one version of a mean ( two definitions) figure. Would I trade present benefits or contractual arrangements for more money ? Maybe. Would I like more renumeration in excess of inflation ? Yes.
3. Are you able to dispel/explain the overwhelming levels of support being offered to the present CC in relation to the current pay claim? and FWIW the anecdotal evidence suggests current balpa membership is close to 90% of the pilot workforce.
I cannot dispel or explain the support being offered to the present CC in relation to the current pay claim. I would suggest that since we have a two tier pay and benefits structure that was introduced a couple of years ago, those that accepted the lesser contracts would by now have become dissatisfied with those agreements. I do not know what the anecdotal evidence suggests with regards to BALPA membership. If it helps at all you can ask them for the actual membership number, then divide 100 by the number of pilots in the company and multiply that figure by the number of members. You will then have an accurate percentage and will no longer have to rely on anecdotes.
4. Finally, how have Prospect house, and previous CC's allowed this to happen? perhaps the close nature of the relationship between the previous CC Chairman and the current Ops director? or perhaps the ineffective or secretive approach to negotiations in private meetings etc that led to allegations of dishonesty, and a total lack of confidence in the process shown by members?
I am sorry, I am not sure if this a question for me or simply rhetoric ? Perhaps you should ask them ? If by "this" you mean the revised terms & conditions for new joiners over the last couple of years, then you might also consider that the company now employs many more "very low experience" pilots than it historically did. It feels it needs to compete with other "low cost" carriers who do the same. Obviously this has a significant advantage for low experienced pilots looking for that first job, but is not such good news for experienced pilots and ex-air force pilots who now have to compete in this brave new world. It now seems that many of these new carriers expect their new First Officers / Second Officers to pay for their own type ratings and in some cases their own line training. Why is this allowed to happen ? Why is there no longer a requirement for more experienced First officers ? Call me cynical but I expect it is because there is a serious shortage of experienced pilots to fill these seats. Shortage of supply in a market raises the price and value of the commodity. In other words up goes wages. How about simply doing without these right seat pilots at all ? Good idea, but the manufacturers and the regulators simply refuse to allow it. Second best idea is to find a cheaper source namely those with levels of experience that would not have been normally employed in previous years. Plenty of supply here. Not only that, but they will self subsidize their own employment. Of course once the novelty wears off and reality sets in and those same pilots do become more "experienced" they begin to resent the contracts they themselves signed. The ex air force pilots and the experienced job changers who also had to accept the new contracts to remain in contention, also (naturally) resent the situation. Maybe that explains the status quo. If that same source of new pilots looking to get a foothold has dried up overnight ( and lets be honest it hasn't) then employers will be forced to pay higher real term wages.
However my own viewpoint is not only is that not the case, but the situation will year by year pervade further up both of the seniority lists until in a a few years time the transformation is complete. Some of us did recognise and point this out at the time but it was a situation that we were individually likely to stay one step ahead of.
So there is more for the masses to howl and protest at, but it is my honest opinion, and that is what you asked for.