I know for a fact that the proposer of the motion is not in receipt of BPP so hopefully we can put that malicious rumour to bed here and now.
With the likelihood that the company will soon stop offering extensions, it is ironic that the best way of him achieving BPP is for the appeal to succeed and for us to win the follow-on case to retain BPP for captains working beyond 55 despite their new found right to work to 65.
I still say that the question of who receives BPP is a red herring. We can deal with that question separately and it has no bearing on the title of this thread. The fact is that this case will be heard whether the AOA pays for it or not - the figures being bandied about on this thread are vastly inflated and Charlie could probably afford to pay for it himself but in reality wouldn't have to even if the AOA won't pay as there are enough rich donors to the cause!
The only thing to come out of this motion is the pitching of one pilot group against another so I would urge the proposer to withdraw the motion on the following grounds:
1. The cost is not significant - The AOA can afford it.
2. The appeal will be heard anyway whether we pay for it or not.
3. The proposal will drive a wedge between many members of the union.