INKY,
The information was received by me via email.
But I'm curious...
At the point at which the company decided they were going to ride rough-shod over the MOA, despite protestations from the CC (BALPA or otherwise), assuming it was the IPA in the room, what would have been different?
And the suggestion the IPA would have won a strike mandate is laughable in the extreme because the disgruntled minority are just that....a minority.
Once again, interests that need protecting wherever you look...
I'd absolutely agree the transfer arrangement and MOA need to be looked at, but I'd be careful before one re-writes it too early...
sjm's proposal sounds initially attractive, but in a climate where bmi have shrunk to the necessary size and are now growing their longhaul network and flying big metal under LH's watchful eye, any right to move sideways into that element of the group might appeal to some of those who already have group service and quite fancy the LHR longhaul experience.
One tends to forget this facilitation because in the present economic situation, it seems more likely that bmi refugees might want to exploit the agreement to their advantage coming the other way...
Still if it is true that bmibaby employees, on transferring to bmi, already lose their seniority, well....
This is a mess created by, IMHO, bmi HR.
BALPA mitigated the fallout to such an extent that compulsory redundancies were avoided.
And contrary to what miles has said, as I understand it, nothing in the MOA has changed (i.e., our T&C's have not been changed) even though aspects of it have obviously been disregarded.
I wholeheartedly agree, though, time to move on.