It amuses me how Nigels talk about scope like it's some kind of national law - it's not, it's an internal agreement.
I doubt any Nigels think it's a national law, they're well aware it's an internal agreement with BA. That doesn't make it less valid an agreement in the intra-BA world of negotiation.
I don't think anything about secondments had been written into the first ACMI contract, so GSS had BA and BACC in a weak position..
I refer to my earlier comment about GSS being akin to a tax loophole. If BA and the BACC had been in a weak position there'd have been no secondees. The reality was that with a single customer GSS was in no position to haggle.
"Scope - yeah, so what? We have a contract with BA. Go on strike, see if we care .. But you won't cos you've got bigger fish to fry" (I forget which BALPA bust up it was, but it was much bigger than freight acmi. Even if it had been written in, it would have been perfectly within the clause to say - "Sure - we have two commands reserved for you, you are welcome to bid aspirationally for them" You reckon BA would say, OK we'll find another 744 operator who will accept secondees - Cargolux, Atlas, Martinair? ... Ha, ha , good luck with that one! Or in house at mainline - Yeah right).
You're right, the bust up was much bigger than freight ACMI, but freight ACMI was within the scope of the deal. I doubt Cargolux, Atlas or Martinair would have accepted secondees, but then they were well established freight haulers with their own client base and could continue operations without BA contracts. They weren't an independent company set up to exclusively fly BA freight.
That's what they should have said, and indeed, what DHL said
Nobody ever suggested to DHL they should have BA secondees. DHL are a successful freight forwarder with multiple customers shipping freight on DHL flights. Compare with GSS with a single customer.
and it was particularly iniquitous to apply it after the start of GSS, because it only impacted on FOs who had joined in good faith, most of whom were forced to leave, out of principal if nothing else, and just as much for financial reasons (as I think I was on £27k at the time, which was not sustainable with a tripling of the time to command through no fault of our own.)
Again, I refer to my tax loophole statement. Caveat Emptor. If you join a scope-busting airline in the full knowledge it exists to scope bust then don't be surprised if the circumstances change. And if you fly B744F for £27K then it's worth asking what the catch is.
It could have been implimented more fairly, but the way it was done was immoral in the extreme. And possibly illegal. It should have been the cue to GSS to search out more normal ACMI contracts, but management attempts to stem the exodus with tales impending new customers were pretty unconvincing, particularly after 12 years of Nada.
There was nothing illegal about it. The morality of undermining another airlines scope clause is another matter. If GSS had been serious about operating other ACMI contracts they've had around 7 years to get their act together.