CCCP,
BA's financial position in 2009 and its future prospects were exagerrated and talked down respectively, in order for Walsh to push his agenda of pay cuts, using the downturn as an excuse. BASSA's position was that the recession was temporary, as it has proved to be.
Ah, once again, 20/20 hindsight, what a wonderful thing. So, in the fevered imagination of BASSA, without looking at the financial data from the company nor accepting the independant findings of PwC, the companies position was exaggerated and talked down. My, perhaps BASSA should also have been running the economy with such erudite foresite. All recessions are temporary CCCP, the question is for how long. Have you, perhaps, considered what position the company might have been in if they didn't impose change? Let me help you. The dispute has cost BA money. That's a given. They have, however, implemented changes that make the business a far more attractive long term investment vehicle saving millions a year far into the future. The emergency business plan that was presented to the city at the start of the recession hinged upon stabilising forward costs in order to be able to plan against volatile fuel prices. The major consideration in that business plan was stable, long term employee costs. Not savings that had to be given back in two years as the BASSA plan called for (with interest). If that stability had not been achieved then the long term investment in the company could well have dried up and we would be sitting here saying 'bugger, now we all need new jobs' or be at the mercy of an asset stripping company.
Temporary only to BASSA who's influence within the company now seems to be temporary as well.
As to cars, it seems to be you who has the fixation and the vivid imagination, I merely used the reference as a means to describe that most of us can afford £150 if we wish. How much is an Iphone 4 these days? (no I don't have one)
