I am worried about the implications of imposition
The point is: it didn't have to be this way. If we had agreed the deal that was on the table last year, we would now be sitting fairly comfortably in the following position:
a. Imposition would not have occurred.
b. A fair and reasonable Monthly Travel Payment would be in place which would have stemmed the loss of allowances for those sat at home during Ash Week.
c. No strike would have taken place, therefore no loss of staff travel and the additional bitter dispute it brings with it.
d. Ditto with the suspensions.
e. We would have been sitting on a firm and fair 3 year pay deal - instead Ash Week may well reduce any pay deal even further.
f. Part-time lists would be being actioned.
g. Transfer lists would be being actioned.
h. Disruption payments would still be the same.
i. It is likely, that because of Ash Week, New Fleet would have been delayed or numbers reduced even further.
j. We would have been working to exactly the same crew complements that we are now working to anyway.
k. The possibility of an extra staff ticket, subject to company performance.
l. The possiblity of a bonus in 3 years time.
m. The possiblity of a share scheme.
But by far the most important thing is that there would be no volunteers in place and probably no temps employed to be able to put us in the sorry position that we now find ourselves in. It may well be inflammatory to use volunteer crew in place of regular crew, but sadly we only have ourselves to blame.
All of the above was rejected by Unite on our behalf on a show of hands in a very intimidatory fashion at a Race Course.
So, the 6 million dollar question for the 6 millionth time: Do the BASSA loyalty still think that was the right course of action? If so, how?
I am BA cabin crew and this is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.