tomkins,
Ironically yes. Bear with me please Moderators! For a very similar reason but the main difference was that instead of 9 months of negotiations there were none, instead of not moving our T's & C's since the 80's we had rationlised every time the company required, we were and are cheaper than 'industry standard' rate for LH and we were protected by a scope clause the we believed protected our T's & C's within Europe.
None of that worked, IA was called for and BALPA lost huge sums of money in court when they were legally 'broadsided'. Personally I didn't support IA in that case.
So, is there a comparison to the current CC dispute? Nope. Why not? Because the company HAS tried to engage, the company has offered to withdraw New Fleet if the cost savings were achieved elsewhere. The CC have, on the back of BASSA's one success, managed to hold on to T's & C's well above the industry standard. The CC don't have a SCOPE clause, pity really because BASSA could have negotiated one 20 odd years ago.
Cost savings MUST be achieved. Now is the time for BASSA to pay the piper and the company WILL have contingency plans in the wings.
Play hard ball and you must be prepared for the consequences.