BASSA's muddled thinking strikes again.
They take BA to court over agreements that they believe are contractual.
They then refuse to implement the Disruption Agreement.
So are agreements (A) a legally binding contract (in which case they win the court case but get sued for breaking a legally binding DA contract) or (B) just agreements in which case they can get away with not agreeing to the DA but lose the court case?
Or are some agreements just agreements (ie the nice ones to have) and others (ie the not so nice ones) not? Lunacy.