Wirbelstrum
I have said it a few times on the other thread, but I would like to say it again here. BA were in a fight for survival. BA brought about the staffing level changes it desired and many have mused that those changes were all that were needed to deliver the savings required.
Unite (or branches of) did not believe that there was this epic battle to remain in business and took action against the changes that were unilaterally introduced. That action came at a cost of hundreds of thousands of passengers unable to fly through the disruption and the contingency costs around flying a mostly unaffected operation. That would have come at a significant cost.
Now what has been greater so far, the cost of the action, or the saving from the headcount reduction? New crew are being recruited, but there has been no further reduction in headcount, so has the actual cost of the cabin crew department gone up in real terms?
BA/IAG now appear to be into profit again, albeit not big profits. Bassa offered a temporary fix to what it believed to be a temporary problem, but I accept the discrepancy in figures in the suggested savings. Bassa did not have an obligation to make the savings from its own area; just make bigger ones from all other areas.
It is all pointless speculation on my behalf anyway, because the new contract is in place for both existing staff and new recruits and going on strike again is most definitely not going to change that.