CFC and those who execrate this forum here and elsewhere, might I suggest that the argument that extends beyond this one here about the current situation is not as simple as saying "if you're not with us, you're against us". I don't wish to endeavour to speak for Nutjob, Gg, Nuigini and those who feel the way they do as I don't doubt their ample capability to do so for themselves.
However, the stifling of debate by those who are sympathetic to BASSA leaves many (my wife included, who I do have permission to speak on behalf of here) with a feeling of discomfort that their views are not solicited, that a set of proposals are presented "on their behalf" without consultation or poll, and that to profess any kind of view which purports to have considered both sides of the argument and has decided that BA might just have a point too are met with threats (some of physical violence) delivered under the veil of anonymity, cries for those who do not "stand united" to leave the forum as, it would appear that the forums in question are not for thoughtful debate but merely to raise numbers of those engaged in the same thought processes.
It's not for me to state definitively if the time has long since passed for representation and emotional engenderment of such a kind as I've only known the military (where, most will know, there is no union representation) and BALPA, whom I consider thoughtful in the main even when I may not agree with the majority view, however, it does strike me that there is a significant number which grows that finds being asked to constantly rally behind a banner of belligerence increasingly not to their individual tastes. I write this not as a supporter of BA's management practices at times (indeed as a Mod wrote many pages ago, it's highly arguable that the two parties created and deserve one another wholeheartedly) but as someone who is unsure of the tenability of continued relations in such a manner.
Union power has diminished considerably since the 1970s and the way forward now seems destined to be by partnership and negotiation if the wish is truly to achieve something. Negotiation on both sides, granted, and not the semi-silence of BA over the past few months, nor the rabble-rousing letters calling for the board to sack WW, calling him and KW libellous names under the (legally doubtful) umbrella of anonymous fora.
I don't suppose this will make a jot of difference but I'd ask you to take one point and consider it thoughtfully. Look at the playground names that some of your colleagues use when referring to senior BA management, some flight crew and those of their colleagues who don't see the world their way. It's not really reciprocated in anything like the same amount by the people that are being libelled in such a manner.
It's been pointed out on here by me and others that freedom of speech does not include the right to defame or malign an individual or group under the auspices of a made-up user name. To think that, if this goes to the wire, all avenues won't be pursued in the need for 2000 head-count reduction, up to and including sequestration of all e-comms, related fora and, thus, the real names behind the users is, potentially naive and leaving one open to a very real and punishing broadside.
I've asked for it before and here I go again, but let's all elevate this debate beyond the playground, furnish it with facts and reasoned argument and then, if after all that is done, we can't agree, then we should at least be able to agree to disagree like mature, thinking adults. Reading something that doesn't fit your view of the world on Pprune doesn't give you the right to go and excoriate this website elsewhere simply because it doesn't go along with your thinking.
I hold no malice to any individual or group by saying this, just that we need to drag this from the gutter, whence it heads rapidly.
Last edited by MrBunker; 2nd Aug 2009 at 12:43.