Hand, it is difficult to see what other see sometimes.
When BACX people complain about BAR loosing money and being lumped with BACX, it is things like the 767 flying out of MAN which is 'BACX' but cannot be flown by BACX pilots and allegedly looses money. Surely you can understand why people say that sort of thing? IF BAR made money, why did BA keep talking about its loss making regional business (and I don't mean BACX). Why did they impose £79 fares on routes that were full with £300 fares being paid at BACX, which then turned around and made a loss (surprise!)?
But the BACX crews didn't see the closure of the regional bases as taking BA jobs, did they? They were offered jobs on the RJ by their management before any discussion had taken place between BA and BALPA about how or if the aircraft would be transferred and who would crew them. Those offers were no more valid than if BACX had offered them positions on Concorde in case they could get hold of those when BA disposed of the aircraft.
No they didn't, as the way they saw it was that BA transfer the RJ to BACX and the Airbus to mainline, merge BACX with BAR and voila, the jobs are all the same, but on different aircraft at different bases. No one ever said you would fly the same aircraft all your career, but I must admit the base change thing is often very distressing (moving house, partners jobs etc) so the best thing to do would have been to merge the workforces there and then, so no one lost a job or a base. Same number of aeroplanes, same number of routes, same number of pilots with a wider fleet to bid into, everyone's a winner.
The key to your point about SCOPE is that SOME of the BACX guys would get into BA, but what of the others? Do they just sit back and watch while some guys in the airline get better T+C's and others don't? How absurd. Would you accept it if BA said everyone on Ornithopter's fleet gets to bid for Concorde, while everyone on Hand's fleet get to stay where they are for a very long time?
Some of the clauses in the suggested scope deal were plainly stupid. Ever heard of the yanks taking seats out of an aircraft to keep it below a scope limit? Do you think that would never have happened? The BACX workforce were advised by BACXCC (part of BALPA) to refuse what BACC (part of BALPA) had suggested. What a stupid situation. BALPA fighting BALPA. Whether scope was a good or a bad thing, the people who we pay to be in the know (or whos organisation we pay) were saying DON'T DO IT! What would you do in a situation like that with professional advice?
Can't you see that mixing pilots of one airline with another advantages one airline to the cost of another? What have the guys in the smaller airline done to deserve that?
I have made my suggestions, some more enlightened people on this forum seem to see the good side. My entire point is that there is no place for fighting between airlines, BALPA or separate workforces with the same job. Until BALPA realise that forcing one airline onto another is creating, rather than attacking the root of the problem it will never be resolved.
BALPA wants to increase its membership - well represent us all then, rather than representing small bunches of people and then making the bunches fight.
Skim - You can always accomodate secondees as the name suggests, they are seconded not posted. Obviously if there is a pilot on a given wage, you cannot just take it away. Details like that are for the union to negotiate, my suggestions are broad brush, but you get the idea.
Off for tea and biscuits, I'll keep reading, but I get bored repeating myself, so I might keep quiet for a while....