PJ
The A fund is not 'self funded', it's funded by the Company. That's the point I'm trying to make here and is perhaps being missed. I'm not questioning the possible unethical process that may or may not be used, just whether a person has the right to a pot of money that the Company has provided. Whether we like to accept it or not, there are unfortunately a very small minority of our colleagues who do stupid things at times, not always unintentionally.
Hypothetical scenario; Two pilots join on the same date and each do 10 years service, one unblemished, the other of sailing close to the wind with many warnings under his belt. Both now leave exact same day but under different circumstances with bad boy 'resigning' (getting fired) and golden balls having a joint retirement party on the third floor with TCAS. Following your logic, and apologies if I misunderstand you here, it's acceptable that both leave with the same Company contributions? I know I'll be shouted down for this, but I think the Company would have every right to keep its own contributions if a person was genuinely found guilty of gross misconduct. To not accept that principle would surely go against the true meaning of a 'just' culture, something that most of us support and demand in our challenging environment. The fact that the Company has always offered a more satisfactory option to resign must surely be a good think for those involved, no?
How the Company gets to that stage, however, is a different story altogether and not one that could always be defended.