Bash,
Agreed, it is getting a bit like Groundhog Day, but some questions remain unanswered. You say:
‘The only advantage that these people got by working for bmir before joining bmi was their date of joining. Fact. Now please, someone, put these guys out of their agony or this will go on for ever.’
Quite. The crux of the matter is whether that was fair, and who agreed it. BALPA is its members, and I for one was not consulted. It seems that the two companies are being viewed as separate entities when it suits some folk, and as one big company to suit others. Their ‘agony’ is shared by 109 others, remember.
EICAS sees that and is aware that the whole affair is a ‘muddle’. (BTW, EICAS, the Navy is not a job for life. You join on a fixed term contract, and at its end you are out. Personally I was out in to the last recession and to the dole queue. With that in mind perhaps you’ll understand that I know how these guys feel, facing the prospect of unemployment).
Stag point,
I understand you ‘seeing red’ and perhaps the word ‘cuckoo’ was rather ill advised. I apologise for it’s use, but you must see that 7 of ‘my best mates’ are being disadvantaged to the benefit of 7 of yours. By the way, I am fighting for their rights, and my posts here are a part of that. I do wonder sometimes if it is worth it, as I have worked with some of those directly affected, and find their supine apathy hard to take.
Two logical arguments:
1 If bmi/bmir is one big company, and those who ‘transferred’ have their employment protected by ‘Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE)’, then it must follow that those pilots facing redundancy with bmi who are senior by group joining date to pilots in bmir should also be protected.
2 If bmi and bmir are two separate companies, then the redundancies should be handled separately (as is happening). In this case the 7 should assume their position on the seniority list i.a.w. their date of joining bmi and go.
The present 'mix and match' of the two is simply unfair.