Litebulbs:
With all due respect, and please understand that I have truly enjoyed reading your posts here, this is not a disagree for the sake of disagreement approach....but
BA has identified a source for savings in operational costs. A reasonable source. Even if one wishes to dismiss the Court's opinion the fact is that this change has been in operation at other sites and has been workable and successful. Meets all regulatory guidelines and provides a significant savings to the airline. There is no question regarding these representations.
BA implemented this change through a VOLUNTARY reduction in force...with no changes in wages, etc., to remaining staff.
Why would they agree to making these savings temporary, or agree to repay these savings at some point in the future? They are, at the end of the day, a business, looking for reasonable savings while still providing generous compensation to their Cabin Crew.
Given present day operating perimeters they provide a financial savings and are workable. Even if the business climate was what it was years ago this move would still be a logical decision.
I envision no reasonable scenario, considering today's marketplace, where the imposition will be reversed. It simply is what it is.
BASSA is pitching an incredible snitfit over something that they agree some of their members must operate under.
There is simply no logic to their stance, which is why the public and other unions are saying "No.".
Last edited by Diplome; 22nd Feb 2010 at 21:17.
Reason: spelling..alas