Harry, with the greatest of respect you are wrong in some ( not all!) of your BALPA criticism. I could cite you many examples where the union was pro-active and successful in bringing about change for the good. The Dan - Air situation is oft - quoted but does not reflect reality. BALPA was told to 'back off' so BA could cherry pick the 737 operation and Gatwick crews. Otherwise, no deal. BALPA did not bankrupt Dan - Air; unfortunately, they managed to do that all on its own. The BA 'take over' is a glimpse of the future where 'fairness' takes a back seat.
However, I do agree with you about the appalling pillage of the BM pension scheme and the greed of the main protagonist who was amazingly knighted by the UK establishment. Plus... in recent years after being a long time BALPA member I too have tired of the endless rearguard battles, generally lost with ruthless and immoral 'management'. I was until fairly recently in a well known airline, very unionised ( no prizes) that merged with a rival with, shall we say, a more 'modern' approach to managing people. The plc had been used to dealing in a gentlemanly fashion with managers and that was no longer the case. So in summary, the union is really only as good as those elected. I know a lot of individuals who invested a lot of their time for the greater good but unfortunately as in your example some that were only investing in their career advancement through this well travelled route into management. The major issue is the greed and immorality of modern managers, presumably prevalent in other industries but particularly ours and the inability of unions to cope with them.