I'm not happy with the clause that will remove the top up payment in the event of any future strike. The next one may well be fully justified after all.
The principle of such a penalty just doesnt sit well with me, it wont always be the current management team in place after all.
I appreciate your point, but would ask whether it's worth rejecting the offer over one point of (theoretical) principle. If you have no immediate intention of going on strike, then the point at issue is pretty much irrelevant at the moment. If you scroll back a bit you'll find a link to a Bloomberg article I posted which basically says BA staff have a roughly 0% chance of winning anything by indulging in further industrial action.
My view on this is that the logical, rather than emotional, response to adopt is:
1. Accept the agreement, warts and all.
2. Find some representatives who are, well, more representative of staff to replace the ones you currently have. The main problem right now is that it's obvious how little (ie zero) respect current representatives command with BA's management.
3. Determine with those new reps what you would most like to change in the agreement.
4. Wait till BA's financial circumstances improve, which they will sometime! At that point BA will be more revenue-focussed and not so cost-focussed as now. There will come a time when they want staff to agree to something, at which point you can say "we'll agree to X but we want Y". Assuming you have colleagues who share your view on the linking of strike action and removal of top up payments, that can be the "Y" you ask for.
From the outside looking in, the best (least bad?) course of action right now is undoubtedly to accept the deal on offer and not try to negotiate it any further.