I am right in thinking from the original post that the poster was made redundant because LIFO was not used. It is my understanding that LIFO is open to legal challenge, specific contract wording aside. If that is the case the poster wished BALPA to take action, presumably legal, to enable him to retain his job with the LIFO criteria meaning BALPA member colleagues at other bases lost theirs.
Redundancy is a ghastly thing for all but I fail to see BALPA being remiss in not legally challenging a questionable principle, possibly establishing unfavourable case law and at the same time alienating other more junior BALPA members who then 'give themselves a 1% pay rise' (what a tired old cliché used by the shortsighted and selfish that is).
BALPA may be far from perfect but, certainly in my company, the reps. in general are very hard working colleagues who spend much time (and at personal financial cost) looking after the majority interest.
I have neither the time, inclination or ability to do so and despite disagreeing with, and sometimes voting against, proposals I think they do a good but thankless job overall.