I'd be interested to hear Mildly Militant's take on Duncan's latest missive, as, although I disagree with his take on the dispute in general, he does speak eloquently in his support for the union position.
My take on BASSA and this dispute is this.
BASSA have failed, because they have been lead but someone who has no interest in economics, or business, just in living the Walter Mitty - like dream inside his head of revolution, resulting in some sort of Socialist utopia where the workers rule the world and there are no fat cat bosses. That he can only do it in a small way at BA, rather than in the country at large, must be a very great dissapointment to him.
This has meant that BASSA have acted totally unprofessionally and illogically, relying on pure emotion to rally the troops, as evidenced by this latest outpouring of his.
Witness BASSA's reponse to the offer by BA at the beginning of the recession, to look at the Company accounts. They declined, stating "we're not accountants".
Unbelievable! How on earth do you expect to be taken seriously, or more importantly have your counter proposals taken seriously, when you have no accountancy skills. (Or you are unwilling to employ an accountant).
That might explain why BASSA's £172m of savings plan was actually only worth £54m, of course. (Or was that just a cunning plan to appear to be reasonable, while allowing you to yell, "See, they're only interested in union busting!" when it's rejected.
BASSA can't, or won't see that BA needed/needs to significantly cut costs to survive. Claiming that this years tiny profit after 2 years of losses is proof that there was never any "Fight for Survival", or that there was never any need for IFCE to significantly cut costs, is laughable and shows a complete lack of understanding of the Company's financial commitments over the next few years.
I am sure that BA saw some time ago (probably during the 2007 dispute) that BASSA couldn't or wouldn't grasp the financial realities of BA in the 21 century and started planning to neuter them.
I am convinced that Operation Columbus was hatched the day after the 2007 dispute was "settled" and BA walked away with very little.
I have no doubt, that BA Board has played hardball during this dispute, (removal of staff travel, using VCCs, sticking to it's guns over the final offer), because they knew that this was a fight that HAD to be won, if the airline were to survive more than another 5-10 years. Having about one third of your total workforce on terms and conditions that are vastly out of step with most of the industry would have eventually made it very difficult for BA to compete. Now, with Mixed fleet, that cost will gradually, but significantly reduce year on year.
I used to be a member of cc89 because they were lead by clever, balanced people, who were much more business focussed. They understood the needs of the Company and were able to negociate deals that benefitted BOTH parties. Unfortunately in it's current Amicus guise and leadership, it is trying to out BASSA BASSA, so I had to leave.
I long for a time when there is a new cc89 (cc11?) to join.