Fume Event #2680
Unlike a lot of BA insiders, I'm happy to take all you say about BA's past indiscretions and errors as being perfectly reasonable points. Unfortunately, that money has gone. It simply isn't there to pay staff salaries etc in future. The sad fact is that City consensus forecasts are that BA will lose £450m at the operating level this year (to 3/2010), and £50m at the operating level next year (3/2011). Last year BA lost £200m at that level. What I mean by "operating level" is the cost of running the airline operation excluding one-off distorting events such as the ones you've highlighted. Keep in mind these forecasts almost certainly include estimates for how much BA will save from making what analysts feel are the realistic changes Walsh can push through. So, in the absence of any T&C changes, the forecasts would be even worse.
It is a pity your Union did not avail of the offer to review BA's detailed financial projections. If they had, the Union would now be in a position to determine wether the City has it broadly right or not. As it is, you are simply not in a position to question City (effectively BA-guided) forecasts of future performance, as you have no idea what assumptions lie behind them. I cannot see why your Union chose not to take access to the financial projections. It just makes no sense. It committed them to nothing, closed off no options. It just means they, and hence you, are in an information vacuum compared to other employee groups and BA itself. I think there is something significant in the fact that all the groups that reviewed the financials appear to have reached settlements with BA, and the ones that did not, have not. No matter how you analyse the overall dispute with BA, not taking access to their detailed financial records was a mistake.
WW and his senior managers believe various changes need to be made to ensure BA survives. Had your Union accessed the financial projections, you would now be better placed to see how BA reached their conclusions, and you could now challenge them informatively. I have as little information as you (other than the City forecasts noted above). However, it is clear that BA's view is that the old high margin business-fare centric model will not work in future. You are entitled to dispute that view. However, as I've said before, you are not going to convince Walsh that only temporary changes are required, and hence if you do not accept WW's view of the world you need to identify potential replacements for WW et al who share your view in order to have any chance of success.
You then need to convince institutional shareholders that you are right, and get WW replaced. Your problem, though, is that I just don't see anyone, in any airline, following plans closer to your view of the world than WW's. Most are taking more draconian action than BA. So I repeat again: where are the potential CEOs to replace WW who will be more attractive to you and your Union? You appear to view your dispute with BA as a choice between "Paradise on Earth" or Walsh, and that removing Walsh somehow solves your dispute. The choice is actually between him or "someone else", with "someone else" almost certain to follow a similar and, quite likely, more painful programs of cuts. Just Google the news about virtually any airline you care to think of and see what comes up. You will find it painful reading. BA's proposed cuts are nothing like the toughest out there.