Digi
Thanks for the reply, finely worded and rational. I shall attempt to address the points you have raised (from my personal opinion).
Regarding not following the unions recommendation to accept and then a strong recommendation to accept. Indeed from this statement alone looking in I would agree with you. Just looking however at the percentages which rejected these recommendations shows that communication needs to be improved in what the crew want and what the union believes the crew want (I will come back to this)
Arguments based on rumours and not facts. I have colleagues who have left us to work at BA and or other carriers and I have been through the terms with a fine toothcomb (with the thought of leaving). I dont like to wander in the dark and like to have a semi educated knowledge what I am talking about, so when I draw reference to delay payments/cap payments, duty payment, crew down etc etc it is all said comparing our terms with the known terms of other carriers.
Para 3, yes BALPA does appear to be far more organised, no weak links, we either have weak links between the crew not telling the reps what we want, or the reps not telling the next layer of representation, or the next or the next. Chinese whispers springs to mind.
Regarding - It seems there is some unformed impression that 'something will happen' to magically improve the deal - but your Union agreed the deal, so there's nowhere left for them to negotiate!
We will have to agree to disagree on this one, the company would be best served to avoid industrial action , if this means a subsequent offer then so be it, look how close the last vote was, in my eyes all the company has to do is modify the current offer to remove the extra month of standby, I believe that would possibly get the offer through, fixing year 2 increase (not just =RPI) would I believe almost certainly carry it through. Neither of those are an expensive exercise. I have communicated my personal requirements direct to Mr Boyd via email as I believe the channel in place are not sufficient.
Replacing the negotiation team (or the weak links not collecting or feeding back crew wishes) I totally agree. I believe as part of the T&G and Unite merger due to complete in 2008 this will be part of the process. I know I for one will be writing to T&G cc'ing Unite asking that the entire virgin negotiating structure is overhauled such that clear channel of communication can be established direct with the union (not via the company) without this in place things will be in a mess next time round also, however I do believe this will happen as part of the merger.
So with my belief that the union strategy and leadership will be different next time around due to the merger of unions I could also believe this is the last time the current negotiation team will be negotiating for us, i.e. we are moving on to bigger and better and stronger union - what would be achieved by backing down ?
If I thought things would stay like this for good - current union, current negotiating team then I would be inclined to agree with you regarding falling back regrouping and moving forward at a later date.