i haven't missed the point at all.
BACCs origonal discussions with IAG / BA were based around an assumption of BA getting 100% of the slots, we are now only getting 75%. Assuming getting 100% of the slots made the deal viable, and getting 0% of the slots (but 100% of the liabilities) is not viable, there is a point somewhere in between that the deal falls apart. I was merely asking where that was.
Something is going to have to be revisited now we are only being allowed to take on 75% of the slots. I don't know what that is - but all the good calculations that went into our orignonal vote and £10m savings were based on an set of conditions which is now incorrect. I've got no idea wether giving up those slots makes a huge difference or next to nothing.
All those good things you mentioned are medium / long term gains (where are the long haul aircraft coming from? who's going to train the new pilots - cranebank is maxxed for the next year with the BMI courses etc etc). Short term we need to survive, in order to get to the medium / long term benefit.
Of course all this could be moot, as branson is talking about apealing the decision, and I've got a feeling that if that happens IAG and Lufty will just walk away from the deal, nobody wants to sit around throwing a million a day on the fire whilst branson struts around the EU courts. In reality I suspect branson is having a bit of shakedown, as he knows what the implications of an appeal are and I reckon he's behind the scenes trying to extract some more out of IAG and Lufty.