To be fair to the cabin crew community, they did not reduce the headcount in their department by 1000, BA did. That is a 1000 (well whatever the real figure is, if you take into account part time etc,) people that for no fault of their own, no longer work for BA. It was by imposition, which may or may not turn out to be legal, but a 1000 equivalent jobs have been lost. Is that not an emotive issue? Because of that, the remaining employees are having to work harder (no doubt people will ask harder relative to what?) and their is a spectre of a two tier work force at LHR.
Their is no doubt a huge potential saving to be made within IFCE, just because a percentage of that group are very well paid and BA would rather have that money in its own pot, than the employees and I am sure their are some senior management jobs resting on that redistribution of wealth.
In my opinion though, if that is worth anything, an awful lot rests on the court verdict and whether the various campaigns from staff and management, have managed to convince 50% +1 of the BASSA membership, that the reps were wrong.
I still can't see why BA did not reduce the service on board and then reduce headcount. That would have been a simple redundancy situation, less work, less people. That is what makes me think it was all or nothing and it is as big a gamble for certain figureheads, as Unite's all out opposition.