Condescension - don't you just admire that in a post eh, Mr Solo?
If BALPA is purely for airline pilots, why allow non-airline pilots membership? And if you are going to allow non-airline pilots membership (admittedly at a reduced associate rate) surely the parent organisation has a moral if not legal obligation to look out for their interests too?! Or are you suggesting a sliding scale of benefits based on annual subscriptions? I.E - the more you pay the more you get? I'm sorry HS, but your trite comment about BALPA being only for airline pilots is complete tosh. I'd be very interested to note how many of the UK's airline pilots started out as instructors - I think that many of those who did, might have opinions at variance with yours and have a bit more empathy for those at the bottom of the ladder!!! But then empathy is a concept with which I doubt you can relate, judging by the content and tone of some of your posts.....................
As far as
JS is concerned - you are quite correct in suggesting that I don't know every last detail of the case. Does that disqualify me and others from expressing an opinion? I'm certainly not alone in my opinion as many of my flightdeck colleagues expressed similar views at the time of the case.
As far as SSTRs go, there are few people who support the idea. I realise that market forces and the desperation of wannabees means that they will continue for the forseeable future. But that does not mean that BALPA should sit idly by - surely it can at least publically condemn the practice of employers passing training costs on to the employee? It could show some leadership, take the moral high ground and do some serious lobbying. The point I am attempting to make is that BALPA can and should be doing more on this issue - head office employs some clever/media savvy people and I'm sure that can come up with something useful.