cessnapete/winstonsmith
I wholeheartedly agree with you. What I'm saying is that diverstions don't happen very often (granted they probably happen often enough to cause pain for BA), but as far as crew are concerned, giving this agreement up for a more sensible one
shouldn't be an issue. Afterall, it's not as if it happens on a regular basis. I've never had a diversion payment or 2 unwanted local nights so if this agreement is changed, I wouldn't even miss it!! Therefore, I don't see why it's a problem for crew? As far as I'm concerned, the newly proposed disruption agreement is perfectable acceptable and in line with industry scheme - or perhaps as mentioned above, still overly fair as 15 hours could be reduced to the same as F/D.
The current agreement is outdated, unnecessary, expensive. No wonder its called a 'disruption' agreement because that's exactly what it does. The pax/BA are severely inconveninced while the crew collect 2 local nights and a diversion payment!!
One thing that used to happen frequently before LGW became single fleet, was LHR who were called out to operate a flight from LGW triggering 2 LOCAL NIGHTS at the Arora hotel upon returning to back to LGW from a trip. I could never understand that? Why? It's 45 mins down the road. I know that was nothing to do with the disruption agreement, but yet another example of crew agreements that I felt was a total waste of time and money.