It seems that Bassa have one aim in this conflict, and it has very little to do with the terms and conditions of its members. It's all about power.
Under previous leadership teams, Bassa has wielded the power, aided by senior IFS management who wanted their department to grow to have a disproportionate influence within the company. The union called the shots, because it suited all parties. Our two previous CEOs didn't have the nerve, in their respective financial crises, to take on a union that had become virtually unmanageable and so acceded to their demands and intransigence. Not only did BA management not achieve any significant changes to IFS' cost base but the status of CSDs and their influence on board was actually enhanced, increasing costs yet further.
WW was recruited to take BA into T5 and to make BA competitive. He recognised where the vast bulk of inefficiencies lay and recruited a team to achieve those cuts. His new IFCE management has changed the balance of power in the IFCE/Bassa relationship, and Bassa don't like it, because they've never experienced it before.
WW has the nerve to take this through because he can see the rewards for BA at the end of the process. Bassa are scared witless because they see that they won't be the ones deciding whether flights can depart one down, whether a crew can continue to destination after disruption, and management won't be kowtowing to their every demand.
This is all about power and influence, and Bassa's wounded pride and status should not be a reason for the negotiations to fail. They should be bringing realistic 21st century agreements into this modern 21st century company.
Once they accept that their position within the company is not going to be what it was, then maybe the reps will start doing what their members are wanting them to do - striking a deal, not dealing with strikes.