Spot on, Glamgirl.
I have always been based at LHR but I'm actually furious with the differences and how crew regard each other.
It certainly does and it would probably also be beneficial for some crew to accept VR if offered. I also think that some crew will also accept it, especially those who might be close to retirement, instead of going on for another few years and only retire on pension. This is a good opportunity.
Destination Payment is for long duty trips that actually don't quality for Premium Payment. Think about when DFW came over to LHR. At LGW it had only given 2 MBT and no Destination Payment. The second it came to LHR it qualified for 3 MBT as well the payment. This is a typical example of how things, within the same company, are looked at. The time off also goes for both ATL and IAH.
The crew at LHR has NEVER cared about LGW. As previously pointed out when SF was introduced, the crew at LHR, and the union (BASSA) for that matter, couldn't care less about what was happening at LGW. When LHR is now, when it suits them, is asking for support from LGW, is pure hypocrisy. It really disgusts me, which is very harshly put but actually that's how I feel.
It's really sad how some of the crew at LHR feel. Saying that they won't be able to provide the present service, which HAS to change if they touch the number of crew, as well how much it will affect crew rest. On a serious note: do we really need crew rest on JFK or TLV? As much as I like it but sometimes crew are really pushy to finish the service as quickly as possible to get as much rest as possible. Many airlines all over the world, where crew actually do longer duties, don't allow crew rest and you see the crew sitting on canisters in the galleys. This is actually something that has to change.
I don't like the idea of having to change my T&C's but when you think about the situation and that the company, after all, has to save and make money. I still believe a strike will hit us really hard and we won't get any sympathy whatsoever.