The scope deal is not intended to force GB to be absorbed into BA, and this debate is not about who's the better pilots or whose Dad is bigger. The deal is to set up access to GB work for BA pilots and vice versa. NSF is correct that GB represent a commercial advantage for BA, the problem is that BA management are using them to create a threat to BA pilots. GB makes money because it is a lean operation, BA lose money because they have too many hangers-on. Neither companys fortune is determined to any significant extent by flight crew pay rates. The problem is that BA wish to palm off marginal routes (which are marginal through no fault of the flight crew) to GB in order to create revenue. A sensible idea from a managers point of view, but effectively outsourcing BA pilots work. GB may wish to grow to 19 Airbusses, but how many of those routes will come from BA, and how many BA flight crew jobs does that represent?
The ideal solution would be to gradually eliminate most of Waterside and replace it with GBs structure, but the managers will never buy that. So, the scope deal aims to ensure that if we need to use the lower overheads of a franchise operation to make a route profitable then it can be done without the loss of BA pilot jobs, perhaps through some sort of combined workforce. What I think is certain is that GB crews would retain the ability to stay on their aircraft, fly their routes, possibly benefit from a pay rise (if mainline rates are higher) and have access (if they wanted it) to opportunities on other BA fleets. BA pilots get the opportunity to continue to fly routes that were viable before the Waterworld wasters ruined them.
BTW Miss Inform your last but one post made my point exactly. GB are not operating by the 'rules' of franchising, which is precisely why the scope issue has risen to the fore.