Let's agree a few basic points. Let's use some common sense.
1. Not all BA pilots are selfish tossers. Some, but not many.
2. Not all BACE pilots are selfish tossers. As above.
3. Change is inevitable.
4. BA management really is pants.
5. The most important pilot group to protect is US, the current BA Group pilot workforce, whether it be BA or BACE.
6. If we are divided, we are that much easier to shaft.
In conclusion, considering item 3) CHANGE, perhaps we should pay attention to item 5) OUR PRESENT & FUTURE.
In an ideal world, we should be able to guarantee our current jobs and pay structure for future generations. This world is far from ideal, so, let's ALL be a bit selfish/realistic. FSS has shafted a number of BA Regional guys, but also a number of BACE guys. I know the relocation package even offered by BACE is far better than the previous BRAL model, and I would guess that the mainline one is even better still, by several orders of magnitude.
My main point is that though NONE of these guys wanted to move, they still have a job. I would suggest that the gradual usage of BACE and smaller aeroplanes on supposedly marginal routes may cause a bit more dislocation, but not much because there isn't actually much left. Taken further then, assume BACE do achieve the RJ, and for exercise, more medium types, 737, Bus etc.
Being realistic
as long as no existing pilot's Ts and Cs were diluted because of it, where is the problem really? As long as no-one loses either their jobs or their current contract, the only loser is any future joiner. If that group thinks the Company is poorly remunerated, then they won't join, so conditions etc will need to improve. We all know that eventually the lower paid group will negotiate their way up to the higher paid group - ok who could object to that (except the management), seniority is a problem, but numbers have to rule there (I had to swalow hard for that, but it is really an industry norm).
Difficult though I accept it is to believe, not all by far BACE even want to join mainline, and given age groups and demography, would prefer to stay on their weenyjets and out in the regions than move to a RHS on a widebodything again and start again. BA have acknowledged this with the type freeze conditions given to ecx CFE. Equally, our younger BACE people will quite rightly probably jump at the chance to go and fly a scroggs wonderjet.
Pensions - well, we all signed up to what we currently have. I suggest we should stick together protecting THAT at all costs, rather than argue over the rights of future employees.
I know, I know. People will say if you accept a cut for ANYONE, then another and another will follow until you are stuffed. But if you look at Cathay, they seem to be still attracting people with B scales, C scales and yet each existing scale (and more importantly, the people on it) has not been affected by the introduction of a lower one.
I can see this is a selfish view. I suggest it is not as selfish as some, because it actually disadvantages no-one except the potential new joins; and if that package goes down too far, recruitment will just cease. I would just like to hear any reasoned argument as to why it is better to deliberately try and adversely and hurtfully affect current members of the BA group to the benefit of people who have not yet even filled in an application form. I know the instant reply is that if we give the Company an inch, they will stuff it in a foot or so - but how much better and deeper would we be able to draw a line in the sand reference CURRENT and FUTURE Ts and Cs for EXISTING workforce if we are all acting together? One thing is for sure, as long as BA and BACE, and probably GB all think the other is out to get them, the management will always win. It would be folly for BACC to assume they can maintain the attitude displayed by some on here, and win just because they are the biggest component. That has not actually proved to have done you much good over the last ten years or so, now has it?
Similarly, while it is probably true to say that management is in fear of industrial action:
1. Who among us could really afford a strike, knowing in these times the Company could well go under, to the sound of Irish and Orange cheers.
2. If it REALLY came down to it, apart from number of pp24 long haul guys with their investment portfolios and crystallised pensions, who would actually do it anyway. We ain't turkeys, and Christmas is looming!
Meaning to have just turned this scope debate into a slightly more logical and inclusive, UNIFIED direction........
