It does seem to be true that for most crew, the crewing levels, the original strike reason, have been accepted.
As mariner9 said, what they would want is
A rise in basic pay
A promise that route transfers to cheaper fleets will be done fairly.
As a further safeguard to the route transfer, a system that guarantees allowances at current levels if change of routes means allowance earning is reduced from current levels
All this was offered 8 or 9 days before the original strike, and was obviously acceptable to Tony Woodley and Derek Simpson. They asked BA for more time before the 7 day 'strike dates' deadline to ballot members on it and BA agreed provided no dates were announced, as that would cost BA cancellations etc. So what happened? BASSA and mouthpiece Len McLuskey go ahead and announce strike dates! Thus scuppering the deal and costing their members pay and staff travel etc.
To me that is a huge act of betrayal by a union of its members. If CC had rejected it, so be it, but they should have had the chance to vote, with a
fair appraisal of what it offered, not the rhetoric/maybe this and maybe that scaremongering that BASSA subsequently justified themselves with.
Following on from that, I can't believe the strike, for BASSA leadership, is anything other than a power play within BA for control of IFCE and BA have to win or they may as well forget any bank backing for new aircraft etc.
Edit to add, I agree with BG above, this is also a likely reason
the sackings and suspensions and BA's requirement that the arrangements between the union and BA are modernised, that drives the reps on.
However I do believe BA should have offered back staff travel with seniority immediately on coming to an agreement, or perhaps in April 2011. It would have been a goodwill gesture that cost nothing. Perhaps that is one thing the new CEO could do without losing face, as it was Mr Walsh that was so specific about it.