For the main part the BA proposals have seemed fair and acceptable as a solution for a number of cabin crew, it is when the small detail is examined that cabin crew became opposed.
For instance, the MTP. On balance it seemed fair and indeed perhaps a more balanced system of payment than current. However, at the end of the proposal it was written that the payment would be permanently withdrawn at the will of Mr Walsh (or the incumbrent CEO). BA considered this payment more of a perk, like the staff travel issue, which could be dangled like a carrot and used as a punishment. There was no suggestion of a framework of what might be deemed necessary to remove the MTP. Just the will of the CEO. Cabin crew wanted to see the payment as contractual to over come such issues. Mr Francis, when questioned, stated the payment was contractual, even though the final paragraph of the proposal stated that the proposed changes would not alter our current contracts. Should a removal of MTP take place it looked likely that a Judge would have to consider whether or not the proposal could be considered as incorporated into cabin crew contracts. On the current odds, I'd say the Judge wouldn't. When cabin crew talk of guarantees this is what the refer to. A guarantee that at a whim a large part of our earnings could not be stopped.
This was before consideration of how long the payment would be made, and how much it would be worth in future years, and what the framework for such reviews would be. As it stood - none.