British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HiFlyer14,
Sadly the company has played a tight set of cards and put itself in the position where most major investors agree that rationalisation is essential to the long term survivability of the company.
What they may be able to do is to force contractual change by giving crew the option to either sign the new contract or allow their existing contract to 'expire' thus making themselves unemployed by way of resignation.
That has been the entire thrust of the push for achieving the requirements for implementation of SOSR.
Sadly, even with the supposed green shoots of recovery within the financial sector, there appears to be little evidence of it available for the aviation sector for some time to come!
Sadly the company has played a tight set of cards and put itself in the position where most major investors agree that rationalisation is essential to the long term survivability of the company.
What they may be able to do is to force contractual change by giving crew the option to either sign the new contract or allow their existing contract to 'expire' thus making themselves unemployed by way of resignation.
That has been the entire thrust of the push for achieving the requirements for implementation of SOSR.
Sadly, even with the supposed green shoots of recovery within the financial sector, there appears to be little evidence of it available for the aviation sector for some time to come!
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see what you're saying CM, but surely they would not be able to employ new crew on new contracts if they'd just done 2000 compulsory redundancies? Don't they, by virtue of New Fleet, need us to comply??
I dont think BA have any imminent requirement to recruit onto new fleet. Even if they did, they either need to wait only a short time or simply change the job description to avoid claims. I dont think thatll be that tricky given it will be to a new fleet.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like a ballot is on its way...
(My blue)
Gg
Edited to add the blue bit, thanks to a little help....
The following letter will be posted to all crew later this week.
Friday, October 9th, 2009
Dear Colleagues
BRITISH AIRWAYS - IMPOSITION OF CHANGES TO YOUR CONTRACTS
This week British Airways wrote to you to inform you of their intention to impose changes to your employment with the company, without reaching any agreement with your trade union.
Following this unprecedented unilateral decision, we are taking the unusual step of writing to you directly. We fully understand the anxiety and concern that British Airways’ actions will have caused you and your families so we wanted to immediately reassure you by pledging OUR personal and full support and that of your union, Unite in the present difficulties.
Like you, we first learned of these imposed changes via the national media, without the courtesy of any advance notice from what is supposed to be a responsible employer.
The changes, due to be imposed from November 16, constitute a fundamental attack on the jobs, wages and career prospects of all 14,000 cabin crew members of Unite employed at British Airways. They will not only hit the customer service core of the business, but will forever undermine BA’s international reputation as a premier airline with premier crew providing a premier service.
You are now being bullied into the very real possibility of accepting inferior contracts in just a few weeks time.
While we accept these are tough times for aviation generally, we do not accept that this is a company on its knees. This is still a prestigious airline with a high reputation to uphold not only at home, but also around the globe.
How can it ever be a sensible business decision to publicly undermine and belittle you, the people at the very heart of this customer-focused industry?
Your union worked hard in offering proposals on your behalf for a package of savings to help address the company’s objectives. Although this was difficult, we believe our suggestions were fair and reasonable and completely proportionate to those achieved elsewhere within British Airways.
British Airways chose to reject these proposals, even though they included a temporary pay cut. We can only conclude therefore that its unwillingness to work with your union signals a determination to also force through future wider structural changes without consent.
Unite will not accept this. Our union has a proud track record of fighting back for its members and if that is what is required that is what we will do. The alternative would be to accept the erosion of all BA cabin crew have secured in terms of pay and conditions over the years.
This imposition is an attack not only upon you, but also upon your union and on the proper conduct of industrial relations. In negotiations, BA have been merely going through the motions, looking for justification for their determination to impose changes without agreement.
We are urging British Airways to step back from the brink and act in good faith, remove the threat of imposed contractual changes, get back around the table and talk for the first time in a genuine attempt to reach a negotiated settlement. To this end, we have arranged a meeting with Willie Walsh and your negotiating team is scheduled to meet with British Airways at ACAS on Wednesday October 14th.
The door remains open for talks, however the threat of imposed changes to your agreements must also be removed.
Both the former sections of what is now Unite - TGWU (BASSA) and Amicus (Cabin Crew 89) - have already declared for industrial action if imposition of changes occurs. If the threat of imposition is not removed now, we will have no alternative but to seek an immediate mandate from you in a joint ballot for industrial action.
While the times ahead will be testing, your union will be with you every step of the way. We have the resources and the commitment to support you effectively and secure decency and dignity for our cabin crew membership at British Airways.
Yours Sincerely
Derek Simpson
Tony Woodley
Joint general secretaries "
Friday, October 9th, 2009
Dear Colleagues
BRITISH AIRWAYS - IMPOSITION OF CHANGES TO YOUR CONTRACTS
This week British Airways wrote to you to inform you of their intention to impose changes to your employment with the company, without reaching any agreement with your trade union.
Following this unprecedented unilateral decision, we are taking the unusual step of writing to you directly. We fully understand the anxiety and concern that British Airways’ actions will have caused you and your families so we wanted to immediately reassure you by pledging OUR personal and full support and that of your union, Unite in the present difficulties.
Like you, we first learned of these imposed changes via the national media, without the courtesy of any advance notice from what is supposed to be a responsible employer.
The changes, due to be imposed from November 16, constitute a fundamental attack on the jobs, wages and career prospects of all 14,000 cabin crew members of Unite employed at British Airways. They will not only hit the customer service core of the business, but will forever undermine BA’s international reputation as a premier airline with premier crew providing a premier service.
You are now being bullied into the very real possibility of accepting inferior contracts in just a few weeks time.
While we accept these are tough times for aviation generally, we do not accept that this is a company on its knees. This is still a prestigious airline with a high reputation to uphold not only at home, but also around the globe.
How can it ever be a sensible business decision to publicly undermine and belittle you, the people at the very heart of this customer-focused industry?
Your union worked hard in offering proposals on your behalf for a package of savings to help address the company’s objectives. Although this was difficult, we believe our suggestions were fair and reasonable and completely proportionate to those achieved elsewhere within British Airways.
British Airways chose to reject these proposals, even though they included a temporary pay cut. We can only conclude therefore that its unwillingness to work with your union signals a determination to also force through future wider structural changes without consent.
Unite will not accept this. Our union has a proud track record of fighting back for its members and if that is what is required that is what we will do. The alternative would be to accept the erosion of all BA cabin crew have secured in terms of pay and conditions over the years.
This imposition is an attack not only upon you, but also upon your union and on the proper conduct of industrial relations. In negotiations, BA have been merely going through the motions, looking for justification for their determination to impose changes without agreement.
We are urging British Airways to step back from the brink and act in good faith, remove the threat of imposed contractual changes, get back around the table and talk for the first time in a genuine attempt to reach a negotiated settlement. To this end, we have arranged a meeting with Willie Walsh and your negotiating team is scheduled to meet with British Airways at ACAS on Wednesday October 14th.
The door remains open for talks, however the threat of imposed changes to your agreements must also be removed.
Both the former sections of what is now Unite - TGWU (BASSA) and Amicus (Cabin Crew 89) - have already declared for industrial action if imposition of changes occurs. If the threat of imposition is not removed now, we will have no alternative but to seek an immediate mandate from you in a joint ballot for industrial action.
While the times ahead will be testing, your union will be with you every step of the way. We have the resources and the commitment to support you effectively and secure decency and dignity for our cabin crew membership at British Airways.
Yours Sincerely
Derek Simpson
Tony Woodley
Joint general secretaries "
Gg
Edited to add the blue bit, thanks to a little help....
Last edited by Glamgirl; 12th Oct 2009 at 22:53.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will cast my NO vote in the ballot as I don't think a strike is the answer, and could jeopardise our jobs even more. I will then leave UNITE that has caused this almighty shambles and cross the picket line if I must.
A lot of people, including me, are more than prepared to make changes to our T&Cs and have been stating this all along. The one problem we see now is New Fleet - is it going to erode our jobs, either this year or in ten years' time? Whilst I am happy to change some of my T&Cs, I am worried about not having a job in the future due to New Fleet taking all the work. Is that just a fait accompli now, and we have to just hold on and ride the storm? Or is there any sensible, negotiable, way out of this?
A lot of people, including me, are more than prepared to make changes to our T&Cs and have been stating this all along. The one problem we see now is New Fleet - is it going to erode our jobs, either this year or in ten years' time? Whilst I am happy to change some of my T&Cs, I am worried about not having a job in the future due to New Fleet taking all the work. Is that just a fait accompli now, and we have to just hold on and ride the storm? Or is there any sensible, negotiable, way out of this?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Flyer,
Good to see facts being sought and questions being asked, rather than slogans being thrown around.
The problem with doing nothing is that:
1. Many people won't do nothing, they'll apply anyway (I understand that phone lines and web pages were v busy).
2. IFCE still have to achieve Ł140m savings. If they've imposed the current terms, and they don't achieve the required total, they'll just impose further change (see disruption agreement etc).
I can only see one way through this, and that's to use these next negotiations to wrongfoot BA. They will only expect hard nosed tub thumping, so Bassa should go in and negotiate away the silly 2 nights business etc, in return for some guarantees regarding new fleet.
If they can establish some credibility in negotiation, even at this late stage, they might put BA in a quandry and start to make inch by inch progress. It would be a small start, but if cabin crew Ts and Cs are to survive, it can ONLY be achieved through negotiation.
There will be only one result if Bassa push to strike.
Good to see facts being sought and questions being asked, rather than slogans being thrown around.
The problem with doing nothing is that:
1. Many people won't do nothing, they'll apply anyway (I understand that phone lines and web pages were v busy).
2. IFCE still have to achieve Ł140m savings. If they've imposed the current terms, and they don't achieve the required total, they'll just impose further change (see disruption agreement etc).
I can only see one way through this, and that's to use these next negotiations to wrongfoot BA. They will only expect hard nosed tub thumping, so Bassa should go in and negotiate away the silly 2 nights business etc, in return for some guarantees regarding new fleet.
If they can establish some credibility in negotiation, even at this late stage, they might put BA in a quandry and start to make inch by inch progress. It would be a small start, but if cabin crew Ts and Cs are to survive, it can ONLY be achieved through negotiation.
There will be only one result if Bassa push to strike.
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They have to ballot now or lose all credibility. BA will go to the High Court and have the ballot declared illegal, no loss of face will then occur by the TU reps.
Meanwhile, BA will impose a disruption agreement as well.
BA management have much bigger fish to fry so they will drive his issue to a conclusion.
Meanwhile, BA will impose a disruption agreement as well.
BA management have much bigger fish to fry so they will drive his issue to a conclusion.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a funny feeling that the next meeting between BA and the union(s) is a futile excercise. The management has made it clear that the 14th is a day for negotiating the disruption agreement. I doubt very much that the union reps will enter the room and agree to talk only about this. I do think that they will kick off about imposition, the meeting will then be called off and we're back to square one yet again. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't have high hopes for that meeting, to be honest.
Gg
Gg
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Midman.
I know that I and almost every person I fly with would like to see a NEGOTIATED settlement. The CrewForum and Bassa Forum mob are but a loud mouthed minority, and the vast majority want TALKS!
How on earth do we get that? It is impossible, indeed suicidal, to be a lone voice at a meeting or to write to UNITE - they'll simply rip it up! It feels like we are in one of those disaster movies - heading for catastrophe with no means of stopping it.
From what I can see we would need to somehow oust the reps that have caused this mess and get real, sensible talking people in there. Would that be achievable at this stage, or do we have to just sit back and allow this collision course to continue??
I know that I and almost every person I fly with would like to see a NEGOTIATED settlement. The CrewForum and Bassa Forum mob are but a loud mouthed minority, and the vast majority want TALKS!
How on earth do we get that? It is impossible, indeed suicidal, to be a lone voice at a meeting or to write to UNITE - they'll simply rip it up! It feels like we are in one of those disaster movies - heading for catastrophe with no means of stopping it.
From what I can see we would need to somehow oust the reps that have caused this mess and get real, sensible talking people in there. Would that be achievable at this stage, or do we have to just sit back and allow this collision course to continue??
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I can see we would need to somehow oust the reps that have caused this mess and get real,
HiFlyer14,
Who and how many? If you are alluding to the militant BASSA core, I'm not sure there are nearly enough of them. They're noisy, and they like to talk-the-talk, but do they walk-the-walk?
Sadly, for your stance, I think there are many who will be content to take the VR or part-time because they realise the 'game' is up. These very same people are most unlikely to give up their last opportunity of getting something from this encounter, even if only for themseves. They don't wish to be sucked into the vortex of BASSA's self-destruction and many are unlikely to publicly admit their position, for fear of the hissing and spitting that will ensue from the hardliners. It's now a numbers game, being played against a dawning realisation for many that the feet of BASSA are made of clay.
And then a few posts later, HiFlyer14, you seem to quickly have a 'road to Damascus' moment, suddenly realising the peril:
So why didn't you, and those of similar mind, clearly tell the chumps who calls themselves BASSA what you wanted? Why did BASSA not ask you what you wanted?
And then this gem from Tony Woodley:
.
And how can they possibly "reassure" and "support" cabin crew who now realise that their livelihood is now on the line because of juvenile union intransigence? Are they going to pay your mortgages? Pay your electricity and gas bills? So much hot air!
This, from the proponents of some of the most childish and petulant union behaviour seen in recent times! If they had got their heads out of their arses and negotiated from the start (really negotiated, not postured), then you might not be facing some of this.
Er, NO! Hissy-fitted, stomped, and did bugger all to really engage in negotiations, more like. And refused to sit in the same room with Amicus! Infants!
Good grief. Its a miracle they even know how to spell "proper conduct". Could I suggest that the clear-thinking members of BASSA 'attack' their reps for being berks!
I say again - who is going to pay your bills? Unite? BASSA? Tony Woodley? I don't think so ........
I'm willing to bet that it wasn't the union side that arranged anything for this date. They have been 'invited' in by the company to be told what is going to happen, particularly regarding disruption.
For those of you now clearly shouting that you want talk and negotiation - why didn't you loudly and firmly tell the clowns in BASSA that? There were months available to do that! All squandered! I'm afraid the deadlines are long-gone now, and you have been led up the proverbial garden path by a bunch of self-seeking numpties.
People are calling for strike.
WE MUST DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Do not accept a part-time contract. Do not accept a transfer. Do not accept a promotion (WW PSRs). SIT TIGHT.
And then a few posts later, HiFlyer14, you seem to quickly have a 'road to Damascus' moment, suddenly realising the peril:
I will cast my NO vote in the ballot as I don't think a strike is the answer, and could jeopardise our jobs even more. I will then leave UNITE that has caused this almighty shambles and cross the picket line if I must.
Whilst I am happy to change some of my T&Cs, I am worried about not having a job in the future due to New Fleet taking all the work.
And then this gem from Tony Woodley:
.
... we wanted to immediately reassure you by pledging OUR personal and full support and that of your union, Unite in the present difficulties.
Like you, we first learned of these imposed changes via the national media, without the courtesy of any advance notice from what is supposed to be a responsible employer.
Your union worked hard in offering proposals ....
This imposition is an attack not only upon you, but also upon your union and on the proper conduct of industrial relations.
We have the resources and the commitment to support you effectively ....
To this end, we have arranged a meeting with Willie Walsh and your negotiating team is scheduled to meet with British Airways at ACAS on Wednesday October 14th.
For those of you now clearly shouting that you want talk and negotiation - why didn't you loudly and firmly tell the clowns in BASSA that? There were months available to do that! All squandered! I'm afraid the deadlines are long-gone now, and you have been led up the proverbial garden path by a bunch of self-seeking numpties.
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst deeceethree is obviously emotional about this, I have to say I agree with him.
To answer Gg's question further up about the crew who had received a text they didn't understand, further discussion with them showed that they were only aware of the narrow BASSA viewpoint. I'm still hearing that the price-fixing fines and fuel hedging are the reasons for our financial difficulties.....and as for that man Walsh....
To answer Gg's question further up about the crew who had received a text they didn't understand, further discussion with them showed that they were only aware of the narrow BASSA viewpoint. I'm still hearing that the price-fixing fines and fuel hedging are the reasons for our financial difficulties.....and as for that man Walsh....
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: sussex
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'reputation as a premier airline with premier crew providing a premier service'
If only the same could be said of Unite and BASSA. Not the sharpest tools in the box by a long way.
If only the same could be said of Unite and BASSA. Not the sharpest tools in the box by a long way.
CFC,
We're all still waiting for you to offer an ounce of common sense on this forum. You still haven't given any substantiated replies to the questions asked of you here.
Overstress,
Emotional? Nah, but I could probably admit to being irritated by the back-pedalling, time-wasting simpletons that claim to represent cabin crew.
We're all still waiting for you to offer an ounce of common sense on this forum. You still haven't given any substantiated replies to the questions asked of you here.
Overstress,
Emotional? Nah, but I could probably admit to being irritated by the back-pedalling, time-wasting simpletons that claim to represent cabin crew.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HF14
I believe perhaps the best path to securing your (prosperous) future alongside the New Fleet would have been to accept the fixed monthly payment in place of variables (subsitence allowances remaining as is or moving to an hourly rate - whichever was the most beneficial).
Negotiate a sensible ammount, one that truly reflects the current "pot" of cash allocated to each CC member, then starvation of work need not be a worry as a company is unlikely to want to pay you for doing nothing.
Unfortunately this was a non compulsory point on the original BA proposal and is was dissmissed out of hand by BASSA - I bet BA rubbed their hands in glee, as truly, if well implemented it could have alleviated a lot of the worries that new fleet has brought you.
Sorry to give you another thing to hold BASSA responsible for, you have my greatest sympathy - working harder, I am glad to hear, is not a problem for most, but New Fleet was always going to be a worry, and now, you, the membership, are left to pick up the pieces as the reps were completely unable to come to negotiated secure future for you.
I believe perhaps the best path to securing your (prosperous) future alongside the New Fleet would have been to accept the fixed monthly payment in place of variables (subsitence allowances remaining as is or moving to an hourly rate - whichever was the most beneficial).
Negotiate a sensible ammount, one that truly reflects the current "pot" of cash allocated to each CC member, then starvation of work need not be a worry as a company is unlikely to want to pay you for doing nothing.
Unfortunately this was a non compulsory point on the original BA proposal and is was dissmissed out of hand by BASSA - I bet BA rubbed their hands in glee, as truly, if well implemented it could have alleviated a lot of the worries that new fleet has brought you.
Sorry to give you another thing to hold BASSA responsible for, you have my greatest sympathy - working harder, I am glad to hear, is not a problem for most, but New Fleet was always going to be a worry, and now, you, the membership, are left to pick up the pieces as the reps were completely unable to come to negotiated secure future for you.
The "new fleet trick" and how to avoid it.
In the past, as a Director with a (large) employer outside Aviation, I've used the "new fleet" trick myself. (It's as old as the 1970s).
No employer takes this route because it wants to. Their motivation only comes from the other side's position.
From the TU position - Be clear at the beginning. Do you as a TU really think the employer can do it? Can they really carry it off, or is it a bluff? You need to map out the logistical issues - availability of new staff, speed to train, impact on Operations - scheduling of people/planes - impact on customer service and so on.
It is really important to think carefully about whether or not they can do it.
If they can't do it - (be realistic) - then it's a bluff. Carry on to negotiate a solution.
If they can do it, then the only way to "beat" the employer is not very nice at all. I'm afraid that you'd have to revert to some very nasty tactics - focussed on the individuals who join the New Fleet.
Some of you will remember the very nasty tactics used during the GG dispute. That's the only way around "New Fleet". Individuals become the "targets" of your union's action. It all becomes very unpleasant.
Funnily enough, outside Aviation, it is a tactic that Amicus have used, but the T & G part of Unite generally doesn't like it. (Although historically, T & G drivers have done it when faced with "new fleet" threats)
I hope no-one decides to go down this track. It will set back BA's Employee relations for many years.
No employer takes this route because it wants to. Their motivation only comes from the other side's position.
From the TU position - Be clear at the beginning. Do you as a TU really think the employer can do it? Can they really carry it off, or is it a bluff? You need to map out the logistical issues - availability of new staff, speed to train, impact on Operations - scheduling of people/planes - impact on customer service and so on.
It is really important to think carefully about whether or not they can do it.
If they can't do it - (be realistic) - then it's a bluff. Carry on to negotiate a solution.
If they can do it, then the only way to "beat" the employer is not very nice at all. I'm afraid that you'd have to revert to some very nasty tactics - focussed on the individuals who join the New Fleet.
Some of you will remember the very nasty tactics used during the GG dispute. That's the only way around "New Fleet". Individuals become the "targets" of your union's action. It all becomes very unpleasant.
Funnily enough, outside Aviation, it is a tactic that Amicus have used, but the T & G part of Unite generally doesn't like it. (Although historically, T & G drivers have done it when faced with "new fleet" threats)
I hope no-one decides to go down this track. It will set back BA's Employee relations for many years.
After the GG dispute the yellow card was shown to many re bullying and harrassment. If there is a hint of that with any "new fleet" just watch the management pounce. Any attempts to "make things difficult" will be difficult because the unions have brilliantly forced the concession that new fleet will all fly together and there will be no fleet mixing. Genius! Any attempts to victimise new fleet crew will be stamped on and the perpetrators disciplined.
Flap - that's easier said than done. If you map where new fleet staff will be coming from - and these are relatively low paid CC, not pilots/aged CSDs, they will be drawn from the localities around lhr.
They won't be commuting in from California/South of France/the Cotswolds.
They can be accessed.
That's why, for instance, Murdoch agreed with the EETPU to bus in the strike breakers when he moved to Wapping, so the London branch of the NGA could not intimidate them.
I do hope that it doesn't go that way.
They won't be commuting in from California/South of France/the Cotswolds.
They can be accessed.
That's why, for instance, Murdoch agreed with the EETPU to bus in the strike breakers when he moved to Wapping, so the London branch of the NGA could not intimidate them.
I do hope that it doesn't go that way.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe thats BA's decision to impose the changes on cabin crew,with the obvious erosion of earning potential ,that the proposed new fleet would cause has galvanised opinion that strike action is the only answer to the management's tactics.
If thursdays scheduled meeting does not allow positive negotiations,then i am sure that industrial action in inevitable.
The current impass is disastrous for BA,both employees and shareholders and not least,the passengers who put their faith in BA to provide a guaranteed,high class product.
The management team had better realise that the cabin crew will not be bullied into accepting the imposition of major changes to their future career prospects and earning potential.A strike now would be unthinkable,i hope that common sense prevails.
If thursdays scheduled meeting does not allow positive negotiations,then i am sure that industrial action in inevitable.
The current impass is disastrous for BA,both employees and shareholders and not least,the passengers who put their faith in BA to provide a guaranteed,high class product.
The management team had better realise that the cabin crew will not be bullied into accepting the imposition of major changes to their future career prospects and earning potential.A strike now would be unthinkable,i hope that common sense prevails.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But Bermuda, where we may not agree is that the above is the only way forward, it need not be.
I am no worshiper at the altar so far as the LT are concerned but I think their mandate and their resolve are both quite clear. BASSA are going to have to be the ones to pull anything out of the hat to make this whole mess into something positive. I think they can do it, but I doubt their willingness to do so, and that is why "disastrous" outcomes look more and more inevitable... all very sad
