Litebulbs
I think that you are missing my point - I should explain it a little better.
throughout this dispute, from Day 1, BA has carried a clear and constant message. They believe that structural change is required in order to survive and thrive in the long term. They have, at every turn, acted in accordance with this belief.
The one remaining, largely unreconstructed staff group is the cabin crew. There are some that have accepted new T&Cs - the 1000 or so non-union crews that have taken the new deal. The majority group of cabin crew represented by UNITE have accepted no changes to their T&Cs, they have had some changes imposed upon them and are fighting these changes.
The Q2 results - which are not even a full years results, has in no way affected or changed the core belief that structural change is required in order for BA to survive and subsequently thrive. This is the substantial reason - the Q2 results do not change that.
You can argue as to whether you believe that is a valid reason, but (VERY IMPORTANTLY) the only test in law is whether BA believes it is a substantial reason, not whether they are right in this belief. The very fact that BA are still in dispute with BASSA and UNITE tells you that they do believe it. If they did not, why would they put the company in financial peril by prolonging the dispute when they could cave in and continue operations?
I do not think that BA will use the SOSR dismissal route unless pushed by the union, but I think they have made all the required preparations to use it as a last resort.