BA AGM
20% of BA's shares are owned by just four shareholders. Iberia is one (9%), and the other three are financial institutions (roughly 7% each) who hold the shares as nominees for their clients (pensions, mutual funds etc). There's no evidence that the big corporate governance advisors are advising any kind of anti-WW stance at the AGM. It's more likely that WW is under pressure from large shareholders to find efficiency gains at BA in return for additional investment to allow him to refresh/grow the fleet ready for the upturn. My money is still on WW wanting to launch a Rights issue, and being under pressure to improve BA's operational gearing (ie efficiency) as a condition of getting the level of uptake required.
What may make the AGM "interesting", and it's a tactic being used increasingly, is for a single issue pressure group to buy a small number of shares, attend the AGM, and get media air time for their issue by asking questions, briefing the media on their position etc. It's great "gesture" politics, but has little short-term impact. I'm not decrying it. I've advised using it myself with certain companies. It does start a debate and can lead to long-term change. Its value, though, is in generating a debate to initiate change from the status quo. It has little value in stopping a company doing what it wants to do short term. If employee reps use this tactic at BA, I don't see it stopping WW forcing through change. Sure, it will get short term media coverage, but it won't hold up any changes BA want to make.