Glamgirl have PM'd you - understand your post and I most certainly do not have the opinion you are on slave labour conditions. Have spoken to some LGW crew who say it still is a good job and better than other airlines (in some ways!!)
MissM yes I hear what you are saying loud and very clear with regards to moving work over etc... However they said (I know it is hard to trust management sometimes etc but let go of all those feelings first) they would only transfer work based on when crew on EF and WW leave/retire etc and all new routes, new aircraft will go on the New Fleet. So say they launch an extra JFK for example - that may be crewed by New Fleet, along with GVA, CDG, HKG, BOS, BCN, TXL for example (I just used the first routes that popped into my head!!! lol) only when there is a gap in manpower on current fleets for the amount of routes, that gap in manpower would be replaced by New Fleet crew and the required amount of routes to cover those routes would move over. Bill said the work would follow the movement/gap of people not routes going over BEFORE people leave which would be a concern I agree. OK, that 52 week clause IS a concern I would agree, but all we need is a new MOA that would state that it wouldn't come to that, and that is referring to something else.
Oh and I understand your last point, it would probably more more for you on Old Contract, and I think it would be unreasonable to expect anyone to be forced over there (UNLESS it was either that or company going bust) but I was just making the point that we would not have slave labour conditions on New Fleet like some people claim. It would be for new crew and all crew who want promotion. None of us know what they are basing market rate on?
New Fleet is not set in stone anyway and Willie did write to unite, but unite went ahead with balloting against imposition. It was not if BA imposed like that - they did talk for 9 months, they could have done many things many companies have done this year pay cuts etc etc.
Maybe I have swallowed the pill! lol.