As for Walsh, he could be steering this company to calmer more profitable waters if he had the skils to engage rather than isolate his staff. For what it is worth I believe he is the right man in the wrong job. His public exclamation that BA were on the brink off going under, in a fight for our survival, most likely did as much damage for our reputation and therefore future financial success as Bassa's call for industrial action.
Oh, you mean like JAL who have gone cap in hand to the Japanese Government for a $1.1 Billion bail out because they attempted to flounder on in the 'if we keep our eyes shut nothing will come along to frighten us' manner without recognising the need to rationalise and change.
A bailout we would never ever get!
Also negotiation was tried for 9 months, dialogue was tried but BASSA weren't interested. So where would those calmer waters be?
BA were ahead of the pack giving forecast profit warnings, ensuring the shareholders knew, to the letter, the state of the company thus preventing a fire-sale of stock when the bad quarters bit and preventing the company from, potentially, going under or being the victim of a hostile take over. Ironically I think the stance that Walsh has taken has been exactly the right one in the face of the immense recession riding on the back of astronomical fuel costs.
Now, how do you even begin to justify the costs of IA of the one and only department that refuses to accept the current/past situation and still wants its cake and eat it and calls a strike even when there is no changes to T's & C's except having to work a teensy/tiny bit harder?