Cyril,
Thanks for quoting me out of context in your last post. Had you added the rest of it you may have noticed that it was tongue in cheek.
The case for the company putting a new contract in the mailbox is a lousy one. Think about this logically - at a time when we are over crewed why would they want RA65? Perhaps a few years down the line when the "financial tsunamis" have passed and the A Scale is a thing of the past they will consider it. (Note: I am not pulling for the A scale to disappear)
You might counter that they will have no choice IF Charlie wins in court. True, but judging from round 1 in the courts a win for Charlie seems unlikely. Even if he did succeed how long will the legal wrangling go on for before we actually see RA65 in our contract?
This whole saga is not about RA65 it is about the rights and wrongs of the AOA paying for Charlies case.
Last year the membership voted on whether Capt XXX should receive some financial support from the membership after Topcover refused his LOL claim. Why then should the membership not vote on whether we should be paying for Charlies case? We are a democracy are we not?
By calling people who are working within the rules of the organisation but who happen to disagree with your point of view "
the list of shame backers" it is you Sir who looks foolish.