Vs_lhr after all this time I thought you were cabin crew, now you have said you are office/ground based the pieces line up better.
As mentioned in the previous thread, someone I know within Virgin was turfed out for posting information about the company on Internet forums. The 'confidentiality clause'. I find better not to be too specific about where I am; advice which a few posters on cc.com could use (using a handle which is similar to your real name and posting flights you're scheduled to operate but won't be turning up for leaves a few too many clues for the company - and don't doubt for a second they are reading every word posted here, there and the other place).
Personally minimum for me is inflation and increase in trip pay without standby
And herein lies the problem. The key phrase in there is 'for me' - what the union have failed to do is identify what the majority of crew want. You may have communicated your wish list to them, but if they read it, they didn't take an awful lot of notice in the negotiation room.
You cannot deny that the strike support is fragmented. Just over 30% of the workforce is not enough to bring the company to its knees, as they will have calculated how to operate flights with minimum crew and using as many qualified covers as possible. Even if every one of the 1500 who voted yes to strike, and the 1000 who sat on the fence take action on the 9/10th, that still leaves a pool of about 2000 crew for the company to draw upon. Without checking the exact schedules for the days concerned, I'd say there were about 30 flights to get out with the ones we already know are cancelled. Lets say they can get by with 15 crew on each; that's 450 for each day, plus assume the same again are downroute. That's 1800 people needed, and they've had time to juggle rotas and holidays to make that work. With the addition of an unknown quantity of qualified ground-based staff, I'd say the company's planned schedule is actually conservative.