British Airways cabin crew won the argument but lost the battle on Thursday as they sought to prevent the airline imposing changes to working practices.

Unite, the union that represents 14,000 BA crew, was seeking an injunction to stop the airline reducing staff numbers on long-haul flights but, after a day of legal thrust and parry in the High Court, the application was denied. However, BA’s crew won the broader argument about whether BA may have breached crew contracts and the airline will now face trial in the High Court on February 1.

The legal manoeuvrings are the latest stage in a nine-month wrangle between BA and its crew. BA wants to save £140 million a year from its cabin crew budget as the loss-making airline seeks to streamline its operations.

BA announced last month that it would impose working practice changes from November 16 that included removing at least one cabin crew member from long-haul flights. On a typical 747 flight to the United States, that would cut the crew numbers from 15 to 14.

BA said it would also remove an additional purser, a senior member of the cabin crew, from 777 aircraft.

John Hendy, QC, representing Unite, said in court: “The central issue is whether if BA imposes its new schedule on November 16, it will be breaching its contracts of employment with its cabin crew.”

Mr Hendy, a leading labour lawyer, pressed Mr Justice Butterfield to rule on whether BA was in breach of contract but the judge indicated it was a matter for trial.

As a trial would be several months away, Mr Hendy then sought an injunction to prevent BA introducing the changes before then.

Tim Brennan, QC, representing BA along with ten other lawyers, insisted that the airline would lose substantial sums of money if the injunction was granted but Unite’s case was subsequently rejected at trial.

BA asked the union to agree to pay damages of between £67 million and £100 million if the trial eventually ruled in the airline’s favour.

Mr Hendy appealed to the judge, saying that this figure was unacceptable but Mr Justice Butterfield later indicated that he had not been convinced of the argument in favour of granting an injunction. As a result, the QCs agreed to negotiate a temporary settlement, under which BA’s cabin crew will work according to the new terms imposed by the airline from November 16.

The case has been scheduled to return to the High Court at the earliest possible date.

While BA may have won this round of its fight with Unite, it risks antagonising staff by introducing the new working practices just as the union begins a ballot on industrial action.Unite has announced it will ballot members on possible strike action over a range of issues that are separate to yesterday’s hearing. These include a proposed two-year pay freeze and a reduction in flying allowances.

A BA spokesman said: “We will go ahead with these changes on November 16. We urge Unite to withdraw its plans for an industrial action ballot and resume discussions with us on other ways of ensuring that BA gets in the right shape to ensure long-term survival in the interests of our customers and all our staff.”

Another cloud on airline’s horizon

British Airways’ plans to tackle its ballooning pension fund deficit have been delayed as it concentrates on cost-cutting and a possible strike by cabin crew.

The BA pension fund had been expected to publish a new valuation of its deficit in September, but this may now not appear before the end of this year. The deficit is likely to have nearly doubled to more than £3 billion since 2006. People familiar with the valuation said that BA’s management had put the issue to one side while they dealt with its numerous other problems.

BA said that the publication of the valuation was a matter for the pension fund trustees and their actuaries. The airline has until June to agree terms with the trustees on how it will rebalance the account.

However, BA has already warned that it will not increase its contributions to the fund while it faces financial difficulties. This has raised the prospect that it could put assets, such as the new Boeing 787 aircraft it has on order, into the fund in lieu of payments.

Nick Cunningham, aviation analyst at Evolution Securities, said: “BA management certain has plenty on its plate. But it is important that they get the pension fund issue resolved.”

Times Recommends

• Lies and cover-up at MG Rover exposed by report
• High oil prices push manufacturing costs up
• Primark founder steps down as chief executive