Which came first: BA's imposition or BASSAs refusal to negotiate, confirmed by a show of hands at the union rally?
Did you really think you could refuse to negotiate, stonewall BA for years and avoid change? Or offer 'savings' far smaller than BA sought and think they'd just accept them?
I have never been against negotiations and I think the majority of all striking crew share this opinion.
We don't know what was happening in the room they were talking.
BA could have refused to negotiate as much as BASSA. I don't think WW is easy to negotiate with once he has set his mind to a specific target. His target is to destroy our union representation once and for all and to throw in an additional staff travel ticket to make us accept a deal is nothing but a carrot.