Spanner - you do have some valid points, however, "disingenuous" is probably a poor choice of word in the context you used it.
CCs can do little to prevent redundancies brought about by market forces or mismanagement: what they can do, in the easy and bmi cases, is to enforce the extant agreements: what you have to ask yourself, as a union member in those companies, is why they didn't.
Your union strength is founded on 2 pillars: unity being one, in so much as the group acts with one voice, and equivalency, in so much that the same agreements, terms and conditions are applied, and upheld, without favour across the spectrum of the workforce.
Modern day cross border organisations tend to make the application of the latter difficult as local agreements,market forces and political and social requirements may encourage variations. The cost of living in Spain or Poland may have an effect on the salary structure as the cost of corporate social taxation, as in France, may be the catalyst to minimise staff wage costs.
Additionally, employers are now looking, across the board, to utilise more agency and contract staff to provide them with more flexibility: as those numbers have risen so union membership has reduced. Interestingly, the decline in union membership has been minimal in the public sector whereas the reductions in the private sector have been quite substantial. From 1995, membership has reduced by around 0.7% per year across the board with the private sector membership reducing by around 1.2% per annum.
So with those few points in mind how does the efficacy of BALPA, with its CC system stack up: the figures you quote, at Thomson, of 200 compulsory redundancies reduced to 160 redundancies, career breaks etc - 200 less the 40 you say were kept in work - doesn't say a lot for your strong union. Perhaps they worked on the basis, amongst others, of seniority - LIFO: essentially the CC, comprising no doubt a cross section of the most senior pilots, would hardly vote themselves out of a job.
Nevertheless, because it was union driven, and the union and CC are a valid cross section of the entire workforce, it must be the optimum solution.
Equally, was the introduction of Regional crews at LHR by bmi, in breach of the scope agreement, the optimum solution for a strong union? Or did they take their eye off the ball again?
On the contrary, in your hypothetical situation that Ryanair are scaling back ( 55 deliveries next year, 400+ new FOs, 400+ commands DEC and internal promotion, 3500+ cabin crew with the attendant jobs created on the ground ) you assert that we are all given compulsory time off with the contractors getting no pay.
You are quite correct that the contractors don't get paid when they are off, even on days off: they are paid by the block hour. That is the contract they signed up to: whether you would sign up to that would be your choice, and you can have your opinion on the rights or wrongs of that contract, but no one forced anyone to sign on the dotted line.
Where you are wrong though is that the time off is compulsory: I concede that one interpretation could hold it in that light, however, we tend to call time off annual leave and the management were clear to explain that the optimum solution, to avoid any redundancies or compulsory unpaid leave, was to share the winter service reductions around the pilot force by asking, not telling, us to each take a calendar month off, preferably over the winter.
By agreeing to this the pilot force avoided cutbacks, redundancies, career breaks: what we didn't need was a union acting as a go between. The pilots at STN, last year did the same thing when service reductions were needed over the winter: they all agreed that the pain should be shared, not foisted on the contractors or, in the seniority list comparison, on the most junior pilots.
So no union, no voice hasn't materialised: rather the pilots take a balanced view and negotiate directly with the company.
As a result of that we have managed to avoid redundancies over the winter: at the EWC meeting in Dublin the statement from the Head of HR was " Our primary aim is avoid making anyone redundant". At that meeting the pilots, and cabin crew, were actively involved in exploring ways we could cut costs without cutting service and discussing ways of increasing our ancillary revenue. I don't recall anyone being cowed: quite the reverse, people empowered to take a very active part in the running of the company.
Additionally, the pilots at FR are free to join, or be members of, any union they wish: the majority choose not to join or to be represented.
So on the one hand, you have the union represented companies cutting back, pilots taking redundancy, compulsory and voluntarily, career breaks and early retirement: you have pilots in one unionised company happily working outside their scope agreement in another unionised company where massive redundancies are now on the cards. Card carrying member against card carrying member, CC against CC, all underwritten by the union, who took their collective eye off the ball.
On the other hand, you have 2000+ pilots working for FR, the vast majority quite happy, getting on with job, getting home at night - bear in mind the "floaters" choose that contract - and getting paid every month with no threat of redundancy or cutbacks. Pilots who do negotiate, just not through a third party, but who take an active part in ensuring that the company makes money. No infighting, no flexi cadets, no selling line training hours to fill seats and no regional pilots taking the jobs of mainline pilots.
Horses for courses.