There is zero chance of this happening. Here are some quotes from the judgement against Unite.
Several authorities are cited, principally Sharp v. Harrison (1922) 1 Ch 502. Here the disparity in terms of convenience is quite overwhelming. The effectively unchallenged evidence of Ms Mussenden and Ms Karen Slinger (the person in charge of cabin crew resource planning) identified a quite exceptional burden faced by BA in terms of cost, planning and reorganisation in the event of a permanent injunction, sufficient indeed to jeopardise prospects of financial recovery. I turn to this Claimant. I give weight to all that she opined in her statement of the 2nd November 2007. Without belittling any of it (albeit noting that this was before the actual change) it does not begin to offer anything significantly impacting on the balance of convenience.
Again, the post 16 November changes have been operative now for nearly three months. Granted that it is conceded that this state of affairs does not give rise to any contractual point to be taken by BA, it does mitigate strongly against present use of the Court's discretionary powers to restore the status anté quo.
And:
I turn to the second limb: the changes themselves. I have already accepted evidence that they can on occasion make it difficult to deliver the "product" thereby inducing stress and strain; similarly I accept that in the event of an untoward event in the course of a flight the cabin crew can become significantly shorthanded. All that said, I cannot regard the 6th October changes as drastic or extreme and outwith the parameters of "reasonable". The crew complements remain significantly above the FAA minimum, the flights demonstrably can continue and to the extent that there is an aligning of LGW and LHR levels it is difficult to raise substantial objections. But, more importantly all such has to be judged not in a vacuum but in the light of the financial situation: if the new complements materially and fairly contribute to the preservation of BA and more importantly for present purposes job security and pay, how can I condemn the less than extreme changes as unreasonable?