I wonder which of those points are the ones BA really want to achieve, and how many of those would actually be amenable to the majority of crew? That is where any middle ground could have been found, except of course it wouldn't necessarily suit the BASSA leadership!
1) BA wouldn't say no to smashing cabin crew agreements I'm sure, but nor would they say no to adjusting them to realities of modern business. The disruption agreement is one such agreement that needed modernisation. Likewise the Eurofleet crewing matrix is a throwback to the times when we provided a full meal service on board. Neither are particularly defensible inthe current economic climate.
2) BA have offered income guarantees, which with a bit of sensible negotiation and analysis could be made watertight for many years to come. Instead of seizing the opportunity to even out income for crew and lock in earnings at last years level, crew are now faced with a BASSA proposed pay cut (for no better reason than it apes the pilots' deal) and a loss of earnings as flying volume decreases.
3) Long haul cabin crew work pretty much to scheme anyway if they are full time, so a strike is hardly likely to benefit them in that respect. Eurofleet may be in for a rude awakening, but can you defend them only flying 450 hours per year, versus 850 for the pilots and 900 for other airlines' crew? The BASSA literature was full of scare stories about how they'd have to work 14 hour days each day and do an extra TIP trip each month, yet even a rudimentary analysis would show why neither of those would be possible. In short, the options weren't even analysed, they were rejected out of hand.
Given the above situation, it's pretty transparent that BAs initial goals weren't actually as offensive as BASSA made them out to be. Of course if you are a senior Eurofleet CSD and union rep, or have mates in scheduling who can ensure you get more than your fair share of the lucrative long range trips, I can see why you'd be mortified at the proposals.