Are we being a little short-sighted? Most of BA's customers are not aware of or don't care about the claims and counterclaims. They just know, 'Oh, it's another BA strike', 'I won't be able to fly BA for my holiday', etc etc. This on top of all the bad press (justified or not) about paying for seat reservations, extra baggage charges and the withdrawal of s/h catering.
Anybody with half a brain would think twice about making new BA bookings from January onwards until this dispute is over. Imagine the impact on jobs and job prospects if that idea becomes widespread.
I like to think that I am reasonableness embodied, but am wondering if there is just a hint of the reactionary creeping in. I remember publicly-owned utilities and nationalised industries, including the mines, the old BA and British Leyland. We (they) sold off the family silver and our utilities are largely owned by foreign corporations or foreign nationalised industries. The mines are no more. Red Robbo did for British Leyland, and only massive foreign investment rescued the British motor industry.
To the outsider, attitudes within BA appear locked into outdated public sector attitudes without taking into account that the company is now a PLC. No longer feather-bedded, the company has to pay its way or fail in its current status. The world has changed. Passengers don't owe BA staff a living and can easily choose alternatives. EZ and FR been able to thrive and will doubtless continue to do so.
In my case, I won't fly AF or KL because of previous unsatisfactory experiences. I will only fly FR for discretionary trips costing £5 or less all in (and of course don't expect BA to try to compete) and would only fly UA if there were no alternative. (In the distant past, my list included MA and OK, but they have improved.) I really don't want to add BA to that list but if the unresolved dispute/s force me, I know that loyalty only flows one way.