Fair enough, if it's a question of keeping you in jobs then there's no question whatsoever.
My point, which could probably have been made in far fewer words than I actually used, was that the (incorrect) figure of 2.6% didn't seem at all drastic enough for an apparently floundering company. If the curtain was about to come down, it seemed neither here nor there.
It struck me more as a nice, opportunistic, permanent cut, taken when circumstances presented themselves, with an eye to the future.
Again, if your job is on the line and that's what it takes, then it is a small price.
One final thing I'd say - this is after all not my fight, so I will leave it to those in the know and to those it affects - you mention it can be renegotiated back. That's true.
But BA is in trouble now, I'm not convinced it will necessarily be so in the future. Maybe it will, maybe it won't and I wouldn't like to make a call on this one after glancing at the report. Your cuts are in response to the effects of the last couple of years, an extraordinary time. Balpa came and looked, said yes the cuts are valid and needed - but why make them permanent? Why not agree that you take these cuts right now, and continue taking them for as long as Balpa considers them legitimate? When, fingers crossed, BA is back to full health - Balpa will go back, say the medicine has worked, there's no more need for it, and you automatically revert back to what you had?
I'd even venture that you may well have been happy to take a bigger cut if you had this safeguard of Balpa having the right to monitor and make the call?