Hi raven, continuing on with the pizza analogy, we have already had 6 pieces - that can't be taken away. Now we are asking to work longer for 2 more pieces to make up for the 8 pieces we expected, but didn't get thanks to ASL/paycuts etc. But getting those two pieces will cost half/quarter of a slice for our juniors, until they are 55. Yes they can stay longer and get more pizza too, but what if their plan was to leave at 55 - now they HAVE to stay longer to make up the half/quarter piece they lost! Them staying on longer will cause the following generation of CX pilots to earn less in a given time than their predeccesors - so the cycle will continue! So I don't like trying to argue the principle of RA65 from an 'earnings shortfall' point of view!
We already have de facto RA65 - we have extendees entrapped in C+Ting whether they want to be or not, others on the freighter and now a whole new group of CNs with less than 13months seniority who have RA65 enshrined in their contracts. Its ironic that we will have ex BA DECs working here long after those of us on RA55 are forced to leave, or suffer the indignity of annual company renewable contracts! Concurrently we have many people receiving BPP that many feel are undeserving of it, but which is not really relevant to the issue. If we had RA65 and full BPP there could be 100s of FOs on BPP in a few years so the few considered 'undeserving' of BPP will be in a minority.
I suspect the appeal will go ahead, AOA funded or not, so the issue is really should the AOA be funding it. If we read too much into the issue and make it an 'us or them' issue then yes it will be divisive...but only because we choose it to be divisive. I have spoken to people for and against the funding - they all have good grounds and arguments for their views, and none of them are acting in a purely selfish manner. I just hope that if it comes to a general vote that regardless of the outcome, we realise we are all on the same team, even if we don't always want to eat the same pizza;-)