A British Airways member of staff Photo: PA  The question now is, what should British Airways and the unions do to pull themselves out of this ridiculous mess? The incendiary language from Unite shows they are in no mood to compromise.  I've written regularly about British Airways over the past few weeks and particularly the major problem Willie Walsh has trying to run a company that is losing hundreds of millions of pounds with a staffing structure built up piecemeal, and expensively, over decades. The passion of the responses shows how important this is for our readers.  As I said then, this is one of the most significant industrial stories of the year. Mr Walsh has to show investors the route back to growth and, although this is a very nasty dispute, he knows the present staffing arrangements are unsustainable. The contrast with the rest of the aviation sector, over pay for example, is stark.  Is the union's response proportionate? Whatever the staffing issues (and they are not about safety) is it right that the cost should be born by the travelling public - even if the strikes are delayed until the New Year.  The cheering staff at the Sandown meeting when the strike ballot was announced will stay long in the memory. It will need to get a good deal worse before Lord Mandelson becomes involved, but involved he will have to be if a strike eventually goes ahead and, worse, is extended.  Do you agree that a strike remains the only way for the staff to be heard by management? And what does this dispute say about BA and its future?
The courts have just announced that the 12 days of strikes at British Airways    cannot go ahead, with Unite immediately saying it is a "disgraceful day    for democracy". They will ballot for fresh action.