GR.
You read part of my meaning correctly. I think that if pilots, individually, and collectively took a bit more responsibility for themselves via BALPA then it could be a more effective organistation. I think that companies find BALPA too difficult to accommodate, and that is why they ignore their negotiations, so in that respect I do blame BALPA. There is a gap between the union's expectations, and those of the companies, and the companies who have the final say will always win that tussle. I know of one of the BALPA advisors who was a complete militant 'up the workers: brothers unite' type, and unfortunately it was she who was attached to the 2 companies that I worked for. I think that her confrontational attitude lost credibility for BALPA with the airline managers, so on that particular issue I blame BALPA. I also blame BALPA for not having strategy for the pilot work force as a whole, such as opposing pilots paying for type ratings, and paying for line training. BALPA's business seems to be conducted on a company by company basis which has a definite place, but there never seemed to be an industry strategy. When I asked questions about such matters I was fobbed off completely with an attitude that suggested to me that they couldn't be bothered with those issues.
On the matter of pilots not taking responsibility for their own destiny I blame pilots, individually, and collectively. The pilots have to make their feelings known to the CC, and to BALPA as to what they think is important to them so that the order of work can be prioritised. If they don't the CC will do what it thinks is best, and no one can whinge thereafter which too often seemed to be the case.
In the case of one of the companies that I joined it had been set up pretty hastily as a sub company. Essentially all the pilots at one base were told to either rebase; accept a new contract (from full service scheduled airline to low cost) or lose their jobs. The new contract was particularly sketchy, and should never have been accepted by BALPA: it remains sketchy, and really fails to protect the pilots from very much at all whilst leaving the company as much flexibility as it wants in almost all areas. I am surprised that BALPA accepted it.
I know that BALPA did alot of work over Sub Part Q, and on European FTLs in order to preserve our more restrictive English limits in the face of much opposition by the low cost outfits, and I think that the low cost companies may now be thankful that the work was done: I believe it contributes very significantly to safety (that's a whole different thread), and I'm sure that BALPA does alot of other representative work.
I took the decision not to support BALPA because I felt that they were not prepared to represent points that I felt very strongly about, and I know from past discussions here, and elsewhere that other people did too. I made my feelings known when I was a member, and made my feelings very clear when I resigned my membership. The only reply was an extraordinarily arrogant letter signed by the Chairman telling me that his was the best organisation of it's kind, and what a grave error I was making by leaving: he had clearly not read my letters to him or his staff.