Regarding the combined C/W cabin:
This fare/cabin structure has the advantage of providing the business traveller who can no longer travel in the business cabin, but can still decide upon a fully flexible fare, with a good travel experience within the scope of corporate travel policies.
But it also has some weaknesses:
In my personal case, I find this fare/cabin structure relatively well suited to my needs, level of risk aversion and travel policies. Depending on the route, it can also be well adapted to the competition: for my latest experience, round-trip to ATH was around 950€ in W with AF (close to 2.000€ in C) and 980€ in C with A3. Also, in my experience, I enjoy the long medium-haul flights in W at least as much as the same-length flight in C with A3. So, had it not been for the strike, I would have gone with AF.
This fare/cabin structure can be adapted to address the weaknesses I mentioned and others I may have overlooked. But what is important is that both the cabin and the fares be adapted at the same time, so that the value proposition makes sense for the different target audiences. Going after the few remaining full-fare C passengers on purely European routes or the connecting Z fare business cabin passenger, while reducing the level of service for the W/S/A passenger, and thus chasing him away, could be costly.