I think much of the current losses are the amortization and write down of assets in a clever way to exaggerate losses. I think they're generally in profit.
I have to say that this is fanciful at best and an attempt to mislead those without financial knowledge at worst. Depreciation and amortisation represent real costs incurred, and have not changed markedly this year in any real way.
Revenues are markedly down, cashflow is down and costs have yet to be cut to meet that limited revenue. Simple.
Speaking as an outsider, I just want to say- don't cave, WW is playing a game of bluff. If BA go down it will not be because of this dispute. If this action was really going to bring BA down- WW would cave before the strike
So...what you are saying is that if the action was to cause bankruptcy, the company would cave in. That directly equates to the fact that the action will not cause bankruptcy, and therefore why would the company cave in...think about it.
Of course crew costs in isolation won't make the company bankrupt, but the company earns nothing for its shareholders in dividends, and every other employee has taken cost reduction to match costs to reduced revenues.
It is a case or fairness and preparation of the cost base for the future. The real point is a question of why the reps are so prepared to offer pay cuts simply to preserve the CSDs' present position (remember - those excess staff have already happily applied for redundancy and left the company).
Think of it what you will - the real struggle is and has always been about who actually manages the company, and not at all about crew pay or customer safety.