BA are returning to profitability and loads are growing again. BASSA offered a temporary solution, which was not accepted. In 2 years, if BA are making £800m of which £150m is out of the pocket of its employees, then would that be fair?
As I have mentioned before, BA's share price has declined from 578p to 210p over the last three years. The losses of 2008-9 and 2009-10 will have depleted shareholders' funds by roughly half. Set in that context, the modest reductions in staff earnings across BA appear very fair to me. If a "temporary solution" were to be agreed, then at the very least it would have to last until BA's shareholders have recouped their 50% loss of value, ie until the company doubles in size. That will be rather more than 2 years. Rather than arguing over how long is "temporary", Unite would be better advised to include a long term incentive plan as part of any settlement with BA, so that staff share in the upside equitably with the providers of capital.
I think you fall into the trap of viewing industrial relations as a zero sum game: "if BA wins I must have lost". It isn't. It is possible to craft agreements whereby all stakeholders win. However, to do that you need to understand the motivation and requirements of other stakeholders. BASSA/Unite appears unable to widen its horizons sufficiently to achieve this. BA as an organisation cannot afford to be so myopic and, if one participant to the game cannot accept the ground rules, then it must simply be removed in order to protect the interests of all others. The fact that even other employee groups clearly have no sympathy for the BASS/Unite position ought to have had alarm bells clanging much sooner than now. To continue the sporting analogy, BASSA/Unite are only now moving towards playing to everyone else's rules having already been expelled from the league by unanimous agreement of all other teams.