I managed to not listen to the various interviews/etc. but would offer the following commentary on the process...

• Normally a company in this situation would have an army of lawyers, communications specialists and crisis management people advising the company's spokespeople (i.e. senior management) what they can and can't say. The lawyers in particular often are pretty adamant about what is communicated and that can result in "wooden" responses - even when well coached and rehearsed. I would be shocked if AC did not follow this example. In contrast, the union can be much freer in what it says, so their members and leaders will always appear more human.
• AC senior management are arguably better at running their business than they are at communicating with their stakeholders at the best of times and this was far from the best of times
• I think AC and their communications consultants underestimated the resonance that "unpaid work" would have with the public (and politicians).
• I think AC and their negotiation team underestimated the resonance around starvation wages - they kept pointing to the high end without acknowledging that there was an issue at the low end. I'm glad this was somewhat addressed in the tentative agreement with larger increases for those at the low end.

Separately, I'm wondering with AC now beginning to pay for more "on the ground" time, will this shift the balance of what FA's consider to be attractive schedules - i.e. will long-tenured FA's now be bidding for more short haul work?