Litebulb:
Regardings your comment:
But I also blame BA for fanning the situation by trying to get a whole raft of changes through on the back of what should have been a simple redundancy process.
It is my opinion that a new contract or new fleet is the end game and I am sure that most crew agree, the 2 issues could have been discussed separately.
Settlement negotiations are an arena I'm relatively comfortable with and I believe you may have made some assumptions based upon offers and not what occurred across the table.
Its important to remember that in response to BA's move to cut costs by a voluntary reduction in work force BASSA/Unite, in their counter-proposal brought up the change in TC's in other arenas, including the New Fleet issue, to the table.
BA has responded to BASSA's introduction of these issues.
When at the table either side can bring up ancillary issues outside of the originating reason for their being there in the first place. BASSA could have asked for a better quality of butter to be served in first, or that Mr. Walsh grow a mustache. Nothing is off limits as to what you can throw out...the other party can dismiss or address each issue.
BA responded to issues that BASSA had put on the table as BASSA had expanded the discussion past just the reduction in cabin crew numbers.
Unite/BASSA may not care for BA's response, but BA can hardly be criticized for addressing issues that Unite/BASSA wished to be addressed.
Understand, that barring an agreement, the strike reverts back to being solely about the imposition regarding staffing levels.
(add: Yes, I did get your funny, and it made me smile)