What about a good fight with a fall back position of, for example,
LAME's On Demand = 1. Total Wage.
2. 6 Weeks Annual Leave.
3. Increased redundancy package for those expressing interest.
4. Only LAME's wanting to go, can go.
5. Anyone wanting to go, CAN go, not the old we will decide if you can go or not.
Hey mate. I understand your suggestion and know that we have all sorts of members with different views and needs. I can't say what has been discussed before FWA other than some general comments and agree that compromise means movement on both sides. It will come out eventually and I think you will be absolutely shocked at the lengths we have gone to in order to resolve this dispute with an outcome somewhat like you have posted above.
Let me try and explain it in a way that doesn't express anything that has been said. Say for instance the exact compromise you have posted was put to the airline tomorrow. I would expect the answers to be -
LAME's On Demand
(ok we will accept that but we also want you to give up all aircraft arrivals, pushouts, grd power connections and marshalling. The baggage handlers will call you out if there was an airworthiness defect only)
=
1. Total Wage.
(No)
2. 6 Weeks Annual Leave.
(No)
3. Increased redundancy package for those expressing interest.
(No)
4. Only LAME's
wanting to go, can go.
(No)
5. Anyone wanting to go,
CAN go, not the old we will decide if you can go or not.
(No)
But we will give you 3% per annum.
These b@stards want a war mate however much you and I don't like it. They want it to further damage the International brand so they can justify other changes. They want you and I to pay for the 2008 dispute and they will go to any length to ensure that happens. They do not want you to have a job anymore. Please don't despair. They don't hold all the cards and their management team are leaking their plans like a sieve. They can't run an airline properly, don't expect them to be able to outsmart 1600 LAMEs and the same amount of Tech Crew in an Industrial dispute.