It is well known, by many of you, that I have been very unhappy about how the union has handled this dispute and that I felt I had to resign because I felt the race to strike was a mistake.
However, having said all that, I have to say that Amicus years ago took BA to court about the then SUPPORT contract. This contract, was at that time, the only way to be part time. You had to make yourself available to work for at least 10 days a month but BA would only give you work if they needed you. You only got paid if you worked and got no pension or holiday entitlement. So when BA was over crewed you would earn nothing but you still had to be available on the days you had registered your willingness to work, which was a least 10 days a month.
Amicus took BA to court, to say this effectively discriminated against women and won their case. This led to BA offering proper part time jobs with the same benefits as full time crew.
This has, actually, been good for BA too because in times of being over crewed BA are able to offer people to move to part time and thus adjust their crewing levels easily, instead of having to pay full time crew to sit a home, which used to happen in the past.
The point I am trying to make is that, big companies always try to work to the lowest denominator unless they are forced to change. Sometimes the activities of unions are good for employees and mankind as a whole. In the case of the HK crew, I believe this will be the case.