Count N,
Hollow rhetoric again. You can make your grandiloquent statements about motivation all you like. It doesn't make it true. You purport, time and time again, to speak for the motivation of great swathes of people and to have an insight into their inner psychology, their jealousies and their desires. Not backed up by one simple fact.
So driven are you to lay the blame for the VCC programme at the feet of the pilots that you come out with such hogwash as us acting as vanguards and marshallers of the programme. I defy you to provide one single scrap of proof of this happening. To save you the bother, proof counts as some documentary evidence and not an e-mail from Admin.
Any chance you have of making a cogent, salient point appears to disappear under the weight of your badly disguised discontent with the flight crew community and it serves your argument poorly especially when laced with the narcissism quite often evident in BASSA statements.
BTW, apropos of one part of your statement. We are on a hiding to nothing if we consider industrial action. It's why we're not considering it. It's not an option in this case. As I've mentioned elsewhere to Studli, there isn't a nuclear button on this one - it's the choice of the least worst outcome. Difference is, as much as you'd like to allude to this being some form of divine retribution, one of the outcomes still has us all as the one and only pilot body in the BA OpCo. Not something that can be said of crew due to their union's insistence on going nuclear. Deny it all you will, and allude all you will to this situation being analogous to yours, but the fundamental difference is that right now "legacy" (dreadful word) cabin crew have no prospect of any numbers really swelling their ranks ever again. We're agitating hard to ensure that doesn't happen with us. BA/IAG recognise this is important to us and, unsurprisingly, they attach an opportunity cost to this important element.
That's what we're picking over, not whether or not "our time has come". Our time (and yours and everyone else's) will always have come in this industry. The wise individual and the wise collective recognise this and try to mitigate the effects for their own continued survival. I'd argue that whilst BASSA et al might have fought with a blaze of passion, they did not, ultimately, win for the long run. The retention of what you have got is all well and good but main crew will, to all intents and purposes always be main crew, pursers always pursers and the seniority will not move much around the numbers that are currently there. I know that's already gypping some individuals.
Bear in mind, BASSA by their actions and their words created a lot of VCCs. Piss enough people off and they'll bite you back and whilst the words of DH and his ilk might play well in the cabin crew community, a lot of people considered his demented rhetoric so insulting that they felt no discomfort when presented with the choice of believing the company in the "fight for survival" or BASSA and their continual lambasting and denigration of anyone they decided to turn their laptop against.
As for your insinuation that the judge ruled outside their competency. feel free to run that one past any appeals court you like. Think you'll win? By win, I mean on a solid legal point. Not, we didn't like the result so they must be in BA's back pocket which, let's be honest, is about all that BASSA et al have ever really been able to muster as an argument. Unfortunately for you the law doesn't revolve around your sense of righteous indignation. You failed on a point of law. It would behove you greatly to act in an adult fashion and work out a more watertight attempt next time rather than trying to make playground insinuations.
I've said this to you before and I rather think this time I'll stick to it but we're going round in circles here. You prefer the grandiose statements of "fact" backed up with ephemeral and cryptic references to the motivations of individuals and groups. I prefer dealing with the here and now and what I consider to be the pragmatic whys and wherefores. You will, naturally, disagree, and point to Wikipedia definitions of solidarity and unionism that do not play in the current legislative theatre.
And on that note, I'll leave it because this is so far off topic as to be virtually irrelevant.