I can't, for the life of me, understand the twisted logic applied to various arguments dealt with in this thread by certain individuals.
My only assumption is that the human nature ensures that self- preservation overides everything else and that to various individuals, the fate of others need only be addressed once 'I'm allright Jack'.
Take 'Big Airline'. They decide that they cannot continue to operate a route profitably because their overhead structure is too great. They have one of two options, give it up and let the free market sort it out or as BA have done, ask their subsiduary/franchisee company to take on the route. This ensures that they continue to maintain visible market presence and in the end profits are kept in house.
Now, of course there are employees within the subsiduary/franchisee who are looking to move on to bigger and better things. But there are many, for whom the company they work for, is their long term career, they are happy with their lot. They prefer to work for less money than company BA if it means that they get to live in the regions, enjoy their lifestyle and have a modicum of job security. An absurd concept I realise!
Of course the problem comes when employees of company BA see their jobs or lifestyle about to change because of the state of their company. They either wish to; a) prevent the subsiduary/franchisee from operating that type of aircraft or b) insist that they be sub-contracted to work for the subsiduary/ franchisee maintaining their current conditions of service. That's my route and aircraft they cry! That's my job they shout! all true, it was!! but company BA is in trouble and has to off-load these loss making routes. No doubt, if the subsiduary/franchisee found the routes loss making then they too would off-load them, with all the ensueing employee turmoil that would then create.
In a), BA could do this, but I do not see it preventing the route loss. It would only ensure that the route was lost to a company outside the group. In b) we now have subsiduary/franchisee employees working alongside ex-BA employees, on substantially better terms and conditions. This ;- a) Create's all the obvious dis-content one would expect. b) ensures that the sub./fran. has to contend with higher overheads.
Who says that only flight crew/cabin crew should be given the opportunity to jump on the leaner sub./fran. bandwagon, why not managers/staff from waterside, wheren't those their routes and aircraft as well.
Oh hell! Now the sub./fran.bandwagon is getting too cost base heavy and is loosing money. Oh well! no loss ( except for the original employees ), we are really BA, with that higher BA seniority and therefore go back to BA.
'Im alright Jack!'
or mabey my route will be given to someone else who will be forced to employ me. It is after all, my route?
Don't mis-read this post as anti-BA, it is far from it, my livelyhood depends on their continuing to succeed. Even so I'd better get to the fox-hole, I sense incoming!!