This thread was being used as a vehicle to discuss (and criticise) BALPA's ethics and usefullness for pilots. It's inevitable with a discussion like this, Dan Air is raised (not by me!) and it is of no surprise that it always happens. IF BALPA is being questioned, whilst I sympathise that some people may have occasionally felt they were short changed by BALPA, that is no reason to make unsubstantiated and false accusations against that organisation. Exactly those accusations are made against US ALPA as well. There are always going to be perceived 'winners' and 'losers' out of any industrial disagreements. In the case of accusations and slurs against the organisation, there are going to be robust defences.
I find it difficult to see how we can stand on our seniority system for redundancies at bases when the law has changed to counter it. ANY other business closing a base or centre makes redundancies at that base. The law has said the job goes at that base. Age discrimination also applies. What we once thought was right is being undermined by the law. It does us no credit to try and force a company to make expensive base changes first. It saves nobody's job and just raises expenses for a company trying to save money.
There was always the suspicion that BALPA was a BA pilots union. With less than a third of the membership (I think, judging by numbers), this accusation needs some justification! BA pilots were always highly unionised, and this makes membership far more effective. Those from airlines where membership is low and in a minority inevitably lose effectiveness. I am now in an independent and feel my membership is still totally worthwhile, and I have found the Association useful for help and advice, even unasked for. I don't see it as a 'BA Association' at all. I think over the BCAL and Dan Air affairs, it trod an incredibly fair and equitable path considering the circumstances. There are always perceived winners and losers, and the losers feel aggrieved. They need to put themselves in the other 'side's' shoes and try and see how it appears from there. A merger is different to a takeover is different to a rescue of a failed company. It's sad to carry resentments for 15 or 20 years, but it is no justification to make unfounded accusations or critical comments, when very often, one has accepted 'compensation' (for what?).