Sorry if my first post was not clear, I am 100% behind our mainline colleagues and their dispute with our parent company.
I was part of BRAL before the "merger" of BRAL/Brymon/BAR and remember all the infighting over who would fly the RJ, and was very surprised to see the RJ flown by BACX pilots ( and a few secondees )after the dust had settled.But as you pointed out , this was a management decision to outsource work and as such , has possibly already set the precident.
Also, on reading Schedule K section 2.9 it does specifically mention BACX (citiexpress) not Cityflyer as well as BA itself.(and as i am not a lawyer, i dont know if that would have any bearing on the scope clause itself).
On the subject of a place on the seniority list, i have to admit that i would like to see BACF replace the rj100's with 85's and remain outside of mainline, as i feel that the LCY operation is a very specialist operation and is suited to a smaller operational base.
At the end of the day , as hand solo put it, the cityflyer issue is done and dusted. I was simply trying to put across the idea that a precident may already be set.
