I don't understand the logic behind striking when your company could potentially hit the wall. British Airways used to be a good airline - to be honest it still is. You know what you get when you fly BA; good pilots, decent enough service and it's never been horrendously expensive. Maybe their business model isn't fitting anymore but I don't want to get into that.

If you strike for more money, and the company can't make any as a result, I'm not sure how you're achieving your aim. The executive board will not cave because they cannot cave. Unfortunately, the fate of the company is not in the hands of the board, nor is it in the hands of the shareholders, but in the hands of the baggage handlers, cabin crew and customer service staff. If this work was carried out by a CEO and people lost their life savings in the company, that CEO would be arrested for malpractice, or at the least voted out and lose his job. That cannot happen in this scenario as a striking workforce is legal under EU law and the majority of the Western world. That's fine when the shoe is on the other foot, when the profits are soaring and people need action against exploitation. When we're in a recession, when profits are falling and companies are scratching around for survival, the actions of your workforce are essential. They are, in effect, you're only flexible constant whose output can increase with little adjustment other than desire and damned stubborn effort. It's what separates the winners from the losers. Unfortunately, stupid people tend to be losers.