malcolmf,
I think it is strange that the knock on costs of diversions in passenger accommodation etc. aren't counted to cost savings.
Such things are, of course,
all cost savings! However, BASSA was using
all the money saved from any diversion as a a saving from the cabin crew budget - wrong!
For example, if an aircraft diverts then the landing fees, parking charges, extra fuel are all costs incurred, but they are borne by other budgets,
not that of the cabin crew. But BASSA thought it was a good wheeze to claim
all savings (by re-rigging their disruption agreement) made by
not diverting as their own - clearly that is nonsense! However, it is indicative of BASSA's muddled thinking.
HiFlyer14,
Why not wait until February and then, if and when the courts decide if it is contractual or not, negotiations could begin. But BASSA chose not to wait. Why not?
That was probably a rhetorical question, but for the benefit of others who may not know - BASSA forced it's own hand by calling for a strike ballot. It declared earlier (threatened,in other words) that it would immediately ballot for strike if anything was imposed. BA called it's bluff, imposition occurred (because BASSA wouldn't negotiate) so in a self-defeating attempt to save face it has balloted.
Does BASSA know what happens during and after said ballot/strike? Like heck it does!