AFW,
If you can show me an example of how Option #1 can possibly remain a realistic option for anyone, then I'll concede
your point. But in light of the reality of what it costs to live in these places, Option #1 is, in reality, a non-option. It's clever, yes, but the company, as you have, can conveniently point to option #1 and say: "Look, you still have the option to select the current CBA". Right.
Option #1 is a farce. Option #1 reminds me of DPs that continue to be flown. Well actually, the "enhanced option" reminds me of the DP.
Due to the financial requirements for relief in these areas, nobody could possibly bid these FDAs without the housing allowance. So the company carefully crafts the language of the LOA to leave us a "choice". Then when Section 6 inevitably comes open for negotiation in 2010, the baseline will be the LOA, not the current section 6 language, because "nobody selected it".
The truth is, you can't make the move to either CDG or HKG without the housing allowance and therefore you must
C-O-N-C-E-D-E everything in section 6 in order to be able to have a pot to pi$s in.
As if a blanket GT waiver, STV, mandatory tax equalization, weren't enough of a concession for you, you want to quibble over a ridiculous example of bad semantics.