Cyril
"Still yet to see any logical posts giving sound reasons for not agreeing to fund the appeal"
So being of questionable value and not in line with AOA policy are not sound reasons?
You have said previously.. "I am saying that there has to be some compensation for BPP" and now you say.. "or BPP retention collecting Capts wages for FO duties". Your thinking seems to be confused; on one hand you recognize FO's and SO's have their careers and earnings degraded by an increase in retirement age and should be compensated. On the other hand however, you are critical of them for taking, or wanting, the compensation.
AOA policy is not to sacrifice BPP for retirement age 65. No one is hiding the fact; that is because the Junior Crews are protecting their wallets. Are they wrong for doing so? You say they are endorsing the company's discriminatory policies... got a Court Order to back up that statement... problem is, Charlies currently got a Court Order that says it not discriminatory.
I know you don't see the need to answer questions; however;
1. The wording of the relevant Act seems pretty clear; it doesn't apply to those who fly foreign registered aircraft. I assume Charlie was aware of this first time round; what new evidence or argument is going to be introduced in the Appeal?
2. Assuming you get around that one; how do you negate the Defence of "legimate business practice"?
3. You say a cost of GBP15,000. Am I correct in assuming if the Appeal is unsuccessful the company's costs will need to be met; so we need to budget GBP30,000?... hardly office furniture...
4. Success will result in either no RA or RA65 and you are honest enough to admit that the BPP provision in our Contracts will become impotent;
(i) Is this in line with current AOA policy on RA?
(ii) If it is not; why should the membership fund it?