Reargunner, with all due respect, you are mixing offers.
Please discard all previous offers, print this offer, read it, digest it.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO mention of the redeployment agreement. To requote BF's statement in Oct about redeployment is false. Until we know what EXACTLY is in the redeployment agreement, then we cannot comment.
BF also said in October that we would get a bonus, sharesave scheme and an extra Free Ticket. I don't see you quoting that anywhere because that has long gone now.
BASSA, you, and everyone else, really need to move on with this. You are cherry picking reasons to reject it, that aren't even on the offer. And you are being led up the garden path.
If and when a redeployment agreement is on the table, and if and when we don't agree with it, should we not discuss that THEN and NOT NOW?
You also state:
184 crew back on the aircraft is NOT impacting how fast New Fleet grows as far as I can see.
Perhaps BASSA are deceiving you by not highlighting this very clearly stated fact in Final Version, Page 3?
Understandably any new recruitment to facilitate complement changes will be into the New Fleet.
To put 184 crew back on OUR planes, BA will recruit 184 into New Fleet. Say for example 184 crew equates to 5 routes - JFK, BRU, GVA, MIA, BOM.
BA will transfer 184 people onto OUR planes and those 5 routes (that have lost 184 crew) will then be operated by NEW FLEET.
What purpose does having 184 crew back on our planes serve?
- It is costing us because we have to give up more variable pay.
- We have to FREEZE meal allowances
- We have to FREEZE other variable pay
- It starts New Fleet IMMEDIATELY
Have you asked BASSA what is the purpose of putting 184 crew back on planes when we are operating quite well without them? We are paying a very HIGH COST for it, and, as you have demonstrated, nobody has noticed.
This is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.