"As for BA's 'protected position' at LHR, what tosh! It is no more protected at LHR than LH is at FRA, IB is at MAD or AF is at CDG. In fact BA has less percentage of slots at LHR than LH, AF or IB do at their repective hubs."
You are wrong there. BA is heavily protected as a result of Bermuda II , the treaty which limits the number of carriers that can fly from LHR to the US. At LHR, only UA, AA, VS and BA fly to the US, and BA hands down has the most flights and more destinations, in part due to the heavy slot restrictions. At FRA and CDG, AF, LH, DL, AA, CO, US, UA and NW all fly to the US and are allowed to operate to any destinations, eg Cincinatti, that cannot be operated from LHR. Because LHR is so heavily restricted (slot wise), VS cannot compete that effectively with BA - I mean BA operates about 7 flights to JFK daily, VS, only has 2/3!
Also, remember that when the US-EU sign an 'Open Skies' agreement (which I know seems ages away, BUT will happen), BA will have to be in even more of a robust position than it currently is, because it will be almost inevitable that LHR will have the following operators to the US: BA, VS, BD, CO, UA, AA, NW, US and even possible some European carriers like LH and AF!
So, BA should not be complacent...the next few years will see the Airline industry change rapidy, and BA must get its house in order even further if it wants a long term future. Of course BA has done brilliantly recently, but it needs to think long-term, and I think WW and BA management know this.