................... If no existing crew are to be worse off, then BA must hold some responsibility for the cost of the IA. Or do you see the IA asa necessary part of the process, to reduce the strength of BASSA?
It appears that BA as a company have been able to agree re-organisation/re-structure and associated cost savings with various other workforce groups (a few of whom could have caused much greater disruption etc than CC).
In my airline days (some time ago now!!) I went through at least two painful restructures ... all achieved without strikes etc.
In my more recent aviation life I have been through further restructures (on both sides of the fence) .. again painful and again without industrial action even being considered.
From the posts I've read on both threads the big differences seem to me to be that in all the cases I've experienced the staff involved recognised the validity of the business needs ... (I'm not syaing they like the idea)
This meant that while they wanted to avoid as much pain as possible they accepted that some was inevitable and had a will to ensure any pain was fairly distributed and really required.
Refusing to meet, examine and discuss business cases/accounts as reported here suggests no willingness to negotiate but rather tactics to simply draw out the process without agreement in the hope/belief that it will eventually go away.
I cannot see how an agreement can ever be reached with that approach....
A company has all sorts of obligations to it's owners etc that mean it simply cannot sit back and say "oh well, we've given it a try" .. they must find a solution or eventually shut down (either quickly or via a long lingering route) ..
A useful negotator has the ability to be able to get across to those they represent what the real risks/benefits are and when it's time to call it a day.
In this dispute we now have a lot of staff who now have a significant degredation to their benefit package in comparison to what they would have had if the first tabled offer had been accepted.
In addition it's also cost them money to get to that point (or has it??)
Every union shop steward or full time union official I've known would always at every point when industrial action was suggested make sure that they spelt out the risks and dangers in great detail .. and that it should only be the last ditch option as once it's used you can never wind the clock back and if it doesn't work you've nothing left to use.
Whatever your viewpoint on the right or wrong .. in this case it really looks poorly handled and advised from the start