BA are clearly winning this battle. Does anyone really think there is any truth in the fact that strikers will be sacked? Of course I know it's illegal to sack employees for going on strike but quite frankly, wouldn't it be cheaper for BA to just pay them the tiny bit of compensation they'd be owed for 'unfair dismissal' cos lets face it, it's capped at £56k and no-ones going to get anywhere near that amount so especially if you're on the old conctact, it's a cheap way of getting rid of staff? Also, everyone's full of the bravado yes vote but when it comes to the crunch, how many will really strike? In 97 only 200 stuck their necks out and paid the price. It'll probably be just enough that BA can sack them and they'll be replaced in a heartbeat which is exactly what they're doing right now by contacting BMI crew plus the previous temps who don't have jobs and will take them up on the crap offer that it is nonetheless. A few zone closures here and there on long and a few cancelled flights of EF won't make a difference to them in the long run. I think they've got it all worked out. I fear we are playing right into their hands and it scares me to say it, but my money is on BA this time. I know it's slightly different but lets not forget in 1989 the Ansett/Aust pilots took on the airline and the majority of them ended up loosing their jobs as the government supported the airline, bought in the army while the airlines quickly recurited new pilots from o/s. Yes it caused massive chaos but eventually they recovered and the big fellas won!! I'm not suggesting for a minute that the same thing will happen here, but my point is, they got rid of the workforce and never looked back. 'Don't fight the battle if you can't win it'
