Equally, what was the union doing allowing flexicrew to take the jobs of existing FOs? And if they didn't allow them to take existing jobs, why did they allow such a contract variation providing no "protection" whilst allegedly retaining benefits for existing FOs?
I seem to recall that was discussed earlier on in this thread. Since the Flexicrew pilots were not employed by easyJet then BALPA apparently had limited leverage in what they could do over the matter.
Whether that is a 'convenient' excuse or a 'genuine' one, remains to be seen.