As the wheel goes round and round, and all the niceties of; individual contracts; T&C; allowances "safety and service for customers" [who are they?]; and all the minutiae of the operation are discussed - the fact remains that to survive BA has to achieve some substantial savings in its operating costs.
NOT from reducing pay and/or benefits for those who already work for the company.
NOT from reducing staffing levels across the board, and imposing redundancy.
YES is simply asking LHR crews to do what their colleagues at LGW do; work with one fewer CC, and have the CSD contribute to the workload. This is legal, according to the CAA who determine these matters, otherwise LGW wouldn't be allowed to operate as they do.
SO - the argument is simple.
1. BA imposes the necessary changes, or the company goes bust.
2. BASSA insist the changes are 'imposition', and either strikes or wins its case, so money continues to leach out of the door, and the company goes bust.
I'm sorry, but I just cannot understand the mindset of those CC who are apparently completely committed to causing the collapse of their employer.
For BASSA it is a complete lose-lose scenario, whichever way it works out.
[I am not a rocket-scientist, but I do understand money in/money out]