You appear to imply that BA's inflated cost base is entirely due to their pilots productivity, or salaries. What if someone were to say to you that pilots in BA (by and large) accept that BA's cost base is indeed too high, but don't see pilots T&Cs as being out of step with market rate???
On the contrary, however a union prevents the flexibility required of a business. This was a discussion about scope - something forced on the company by the pilot's union, therefore some justification to direct such blame on BA pilots is therefore in order.
As you are so keen on market economics then perhaps you'd appreciate that scope is an ideal model of market economics. BA need a large body of pilots to fly their fleet. The incumbent body offer to continue flying on their current rates subject to an exclusive contract. Anybody on the market can come along and underbid and BA will have no problem operating their fleet.
Hardly ideal if it is ongoing and has no expiry being renewed each pay deal. Exclusive contracts normally last only a short set period. Scope is enduring with each and every pay deal. Not sure how you can justify it as being ideal liberalised market economics.
We are all well aware of the shortage of longhaul widebody experienced staff globally. I think the focus was somewhat on the scope restricting the franchises, so that is somewhat off point