If BA would have any intention of actually going ahead with it surely they would have issued them earlier when they had the chance? Why have they gone to court on several occassions for an injuction when they instead could have allowed us to go on strike and issue our P45?
I think, perhaps, it is more pertinent that UNITE have up until now managed to run protected strikes. The issues being used as a reason for further IA are not separate from the last action, this means that there is a real possibility that the strikers may be sacked without it automatically being deemed unfair dismissal. Similarly the costs incurred by BA (including losses incurred as a result of the IA) can be reclaimed form the union. The situation is different from previous strikes.
I do not think that BA will resort to sacking but I think they will go after UNITE for costs. There is no particular benefit to BA to sack strikers, there is a large financial reason to go after the union. Indeed it could be argued that the Board would be acting irresponsibly if it were not to go after the union for costs.
Just because they haven't done it so far doesn't mean they won't this time. The situation and the legalities are different this time. Gambling your job on the weak premise that they won't sack because they haven't done so far would be stupid, just plain stupid.