I think you are all blowing this HK crew thing out of all proportion.
These crew are members of Unite (like a lot of other crew) and that is the reason why unite have been representing them. I believe this issue has been around for a long time and started before the IA.
The reason it is being looked at by a UK court is because the HK crew WORK on a UK registered aircraft. I doubt any verdict will affect people that work on the ground overseas as they work in another country.
Some of our overseas crew earn more than UK based crew because of the cost of living in their country and local competition but this action is not about their pay it is about their forced retirement at 45.
I am amazed that any of you think a practice of making HK crew retire at 45 could be a good thing or that you feel that HK based crew don't deserve to have union recognition.
I am unhappy with a lot of what Bassa and Amicus have been doing but in this case I think they are actually representing their members as they should be.