There seems to be some confusion here as to the reason for Walsh wanting to cut costs. I do not believe that it was just about a temporary financial crisis, that was BASSA's elementary mistake.
In order to compete in the future in ANY market, whether it be in the cheap seats or the front cabins, BA have to cut costs to match their rivals. To make further cost savings, they have to look at replacing the flying dinosaurs they have now with modern airframes such as the Dreamliner and new airbuses. They also have to fund a massive pension deficit which is as much a function of changing demographics as anything else.
They have to slash costs now before they can consider doing any of those things. Of course, if they succeed, then things will eventually be rosy again (notwithstanding that oil price which will escalate again, and how predictably we don't know).
BASSA are making it hard on themselves and their members, when they could have played ball and asked for their share of the proceeds when things recover - but by stamping their feet and having childish tantrums they have cocked up very badly indeed. Which is where the finger pointing and the blame games come in.
In the absence of any verifiable information on the court case, I can only quote Mr. Walsh from the FT:
In a sign of the tensions over the latest ballot, which closes on February 22, Mr Walsh said he did not believe the cabin crew's Unite union could come up with "credible savings" to replace those BA had generated, and insisted he would not replace the crew taken off aircraft. "We're very comfortable with the decision we've taken to reduce crew. There's no question it's the right thing to do."
A brave thing to say before the decision is announced, no? What does he have up his sleeve? Or does he just have a good idea what the judgement will be, win or lose?