Alternatively we could have taken a harder line. We could have strangled GSS at birth but what purpose would that have served? Lost money for BA Cargo and no jobs at all for the current GSS pilots. Of course will you ever hear the BACC praised by GSS pilots for the pragmatism which means that they have jobs? Of course not, they'll just whinge about secondees taking their commands.
What about the BACX RJ issue? Had BALPA been minded they could have refused point blank to allow the transfer of 160 jobs out of mainline, but a strike in the difficult economic climate after 9/11 could have sent BA under so a compromise was reached and BACX got another 130 jobs. Did you ever hear a good word said about that? Of course not, you just got a load of whinging from BACX pilots claiming secondees had stolen 'their' commands. They never seemed to mention the 130 guys at the bottom of their seniority list who were only in continued employment because of the RJ lifeline.
You want us to bring other pilots into the fold, like Cityflyer Do you accept that there has to be a line drawn somewhere with regard to aircraft size and scope? For whatever reasons that line was drawn at 100 seats. Anything above that is BA mainline work and if BA want to set up a parallel operation then they have to bring that into the fold too. Anything below 100 seats and BA can do with it as they will. That is where the line was drawn, or do you think we should go back to BA and say sorry we want everything down to 50 seats now? If you were a CC member then you will know that you can't simply go around levelling demands at the management and hoping they give in. Even if they were minded to change the agreement, which BA most certainly are not, they'd want a big give from us. Do we demand BA move now, with sacrifices from us, or do we wait two years until BA are compelled to move? If you were a union rep what would you do?