Nice essay, Sunfish!
There are also cultural differences that play a role. But it is not clear how. For example, the British have never been able to run a railway either (a) on time, or (b) make money on it, while keeping it (c) comfortable for passengers, for some 160 years now. However, the Germans and French and Austrians and Swiss can do at least (a) and (c), and the recent history of the SNCF shows that the French can do (b) as well. (Hartmut Mehldorn is claiming (b) also for German rail, but I think there are a few inventive pieces of bookkeeping which help somewhat.) Exercise 1: explain this phenomenon.
Maybe relevant is the history of one of the most successful British companies running over some century or two previous to rail, the East India Company. As far as I know, it was run as a quasi-military operation with full participation of the British military. I am reading Amartya Sen's book Identity and Violence. Sen comes across as one of the most civilised people, as well as being smart (Nobel prize winner), although I do find his prose somewhat turgid. He writes of James Mill's history of India, published in 1817, which was "standard reading of the imperial cadres about to undertake the voyage to that country" and was praised by Lord Macauley as "on the whole the greatest historical work that has appeared in our language since that of Gibbon". The need to keep some distance was explained by Mill thus: "our ancestors, though rough, were sincere" (speaking of previous British in India), while "under the glosing exterior of the Hindu, lies a general disposition to deceit and perfidy". Sen goes on to point out that this was hardly a helpful characterisation of his countrymen. Who, BTW, constitute about a third of the CEOs of Silicon Valley companies at present. So much for a "general disposition to deceit and perfidy".
Could it be that this kind of business culture, which persisted in Britain for some centuries, helps to account in some part for, say, not being able to run a rail system? One can understand how it could lead to management having a hard time maintaining relations with an exceptionally skilled and intelligent work force, also not disposed to "deceit and perfidy", when there are different views over operations (such as opening a new subsidiary airline).
The Brits can run roads better than anybody else (Swedes don't count - too much space and too few cars). Even on a crowded island. Why is that? I could guess it has to do with a readiness to undergo more surveillance (people generally don't drive hazardously on motorways because, smile, you're on camera! Whereas Germany has a big problem with such behavior, as with the obvious methods of controlling it). But that can't be the whole story.
BTW, Tiny Tim was disparaged for asking how this great to-do in the court was to be paid for. It is an obviously valid question. I have had a number of girlfriends who were penniless, but when, say, the car irreparably broke down, or when the cooker went kaput, somehow another one appeared. Or when the new apartment needed decorating, somehow professional painters were engaged. These relationships all broke down because, well, that is ultimately not a way one can run household finances. Those disparaging Tiny Tim for asking the question might take note.
It is a well-known strategy of those with deep pockets who wish to win a fight to take their opponents to court. It doesn't work so well in Germany, because legal fees are set by law. While deep pockets can still employ expensive lawyers, at least opponents can mount a reasonable defence at foreseeable expense. (It also leads, in my opinion and that of a number of German lawyers and judges, to a lot of relatively trivial court cases that could be better sorted out through other means.) In Britain, a civil law suit is a significant financial threat to anyone. However, the plaintiff still must have some sort of arguable case, otherwise it gets summarily thrown out. So what is BA's real case against BALPA? Nothing I have so far read here sounds like a serious argument.
PBL