Litebulbs
The reason that the pay and conditions for crew like me of 30 years seniority are what they are, is that in the era they were negociated, they were MARKET RATE. There were no low cost operators to speak of, just traditional, national carriers, many government owned. BASSA at the time weren't asking for the world, so they negociating these deals were relatively easy.
The first major change to pay for new crew back in 1997, was due to this starting to change, with players like Virgin lowering the "market rate" for UK crew. (BASSA opposed these changes, CC89 negociated a deal that was accepted by their membership and the wolves were kept from the door for a few years)
Now, with shorthaul low cost operators, pushing fares in Europe down to levels of 10 years ago and carriers like Emirates, Singapore, Etiad etc doing the same to longhaul, the "market rate" makes the deal for even for post 1997 crews look too generous to continue.
The choice legacy airlines like BA face now is (as in 1997, but with a need to be more radical), do we reduce the pay and contitions to existing crew to nearer market rate, or do we employ all new crew at substancially closer to market rates. BA (as has, I believe Qantas ) chosen the latter, maybe because they thought it fairer, but also probably more likely, easier, both legally and industrially (!!!)
That BASSA has spun this whole thing out of all proportion, is not so much down to percieving a threat to is members, but a threat to it's future membership levels and income.
I note from BASSA's misive above that they are still spinning the old "you'll be sat at home with no work because all the work will be transfered to MF" mantra. When will people see that that is absurd from a financial perspective for the company. Maybe that's the intelligence BASSA/Amicus/Unite credits it's members and maybe why I left.