This dispute seems to be about a difference of opinion between the management who have a duty to the shareholders to run the company profitably and the unions whose responibility is the welfare of their members.
It would seem that, from a huge majority in favour of (the threat) of strike action, it is a small minority that are willing to make the sacrifice to support the strike. Ww must threfore conclude that the majority of the cc are actually willing to work on his terms- albeit reluctantly. The union have used their sanction with little success as it would seem the prospect of escalating action would only serve to alienate support from customers and result in more staff losing valuable travel perks.
As regards face saving, BA could agree to restore travel perks for strikers if the union were to reach an agreement. However, I can't see what Unite have to offer? BA have made it clear further strike action is undesirable but the econo
impact does not seem to be significant for a company that has sustained massive losses before and who were beginning to return to profitability.
One question - why are all the labour party supporting unions now embarking on strike action in the last few weeks of a labour govt. Is this a cynical attempt to show that we need more of the gloomy G - I hope not.
Unfair , I know, but I suspect that BA would be better sacking the strikers and negotiating a compromise deal with those that want to carry on. As I said this would be unfair but otherwise I think the company will be left with a legacy of strikers and non strikers.