At this point Unite realised that BA were going to be able to run a viable operation and that there was a real risk that the rank and file would feel that a walk out was not worth the loss of pay and privileges. After all, £30 a day strike pay is less than half what they would normally earn. So the union leadership set about trying to discredit the BA plans by scaremongering tactics, suggesting that the volunteer army would not have the experience to handle any emergencies that might arise. They questioned whether these volunteers had been through all the requisite security checks. All the while the number of cabin crew who have stated that they are prepared to work normally has steadily grown. By Wednesday BA were able to announce that they intended to run a 65% operation. Bit of a slap in the face for Unite that. You call a strike. You get two thirds of members supportingit, yet the company is able to run a two thirds operation. So Unite insist that BA retables the offer that was rejected the previous week. Not only that, it wants BA to drop proceedings against 38 cabin crew, a number of whom are TU reps, for bullying and harassment – disclipinary proceedings that can result in summary dismissal.

Wrong move. BA has now incurred additional cost as it has brought in additional aircraft. The savings needed have just been increased by at least 30%, so instead of having to find £60m, Unite need to come up with a plan to pare some £80-90m off crew costs or accept whatever BA puts forward.

Ah so maybe getting in a bit of extra muscle from overseas will help. But it’s a risky business. Secondary picketing is outlawed in the US. The Teamsters may offer support, but if they boycott BA flights they commit a criminal offence under the Taft Hartley Act. They also leave themselves open to being sued for damages. So the support may be in word only with maybe a bit of cash attached.

The bottom line remains the same. Regardless of how many staff now report for work, Unite are saddled with needing to come up with additional savings or accepting the BA management proposals. There’s a further twist. There are around 15,000 Unite members in BA who are not cabin crew. If the savings don’t come from crew, they will have to come from the rest of the staff. So Unite are in effect supporting one set of members in order to shaft another lot. Orwell was spot on about some being more equal than others.

The worst case scenario is that Unite’s actions cause BA to meltdown, throwing 40,000 people out of work and jeapordising the pensions of over 100,000. In the wider scheme of things I wonder if they believe the principle is worth it ?

If people are willing to fly BA at a given price then the debate is the share of the cost going to various staff intrests Pilots, Cabin crew, Ground Crew etc v how much to shareholder dividends.

If people are not willing to fly at a premium price and they all want to go Easy Jet or Ryan Air then then there is no need for a premium airline, and either they adapt or they die and everyone loses their job but the difference here is the Cabin Crew claim is they are willing to discuss a fair share of scrafice but not make it all.

I do think the left need to be able to respond to objections like this (http://timworstall.com/2010/03/16/seumas-seumas/): “[...] the purpose of all production is consumption, not the well being of the producer. If the consumer ain’t willing to pay for a certain pattern of production then there is no justification at all for insisting that that pattern remain.”