There is one letter of difference between the adjective crass and the noun cross. British Airways was criticised as tactless and insensitive after it banned last September an employee, Nadia Eweida, from wearing at work the most potent symbol of Christianity. The airline came as close as is likely to be the case to uttering a five-letter word, sorry, for the ensuing controversy yesterday when it announced its uniform policy was being changed. Staff will now be allowed to wear all religious symbols, including crosses. There will be "some flexibility" in the case of staff wearing an emblem of faith on a chain.

There is one letter of difference between the adjective crass and the noun cross. British Airways was criticised as tactless and insensitive after it banned last September an employee, Nadia Eweida, from wearing at work the most potent symbol of Christianity. The airline came as close as is likely to be the case to uttering a five-letter word, sorry, for the ensuing controversy yesterday when it announced its uniform policy was being changed. Staff will now be allowed to wear all religious symbols, including crosses. There will be "some flexibility" in the case of staff wearing an emblem of faith on a chain.

This is not so much a change in policy as a U-turn the Red Arrows would have been proud to make. Ms Eweida, who has been on unpaid leave since refusing to remove her cross at work, plans to return to her job, her dignity restored. It appears, then, that one of the most ridiculous disputes in recent years has been resolved satisfactorily. We trust the airline will recompense Ms Eweida for her loss of earnings.

In truth, BA had no option but to back down. Inconsistency in implementing the policy on uniforms contributed to making it unjustifiable. The company underpinned the principle of people of all religions having the right to demonstrate responsible public expressions of their faiths, free from the interference of authority, in the case of male Sikhs (who could wear turbans) and female Muslim staff (hijabs) to name but two examples.

But it undermined that principle in the case of the cross, a symbol identified with British heritage, culture and tradition and this country's predominant religion. Equity seems to have been restored and common sense has prevailed. BA said it had decided to drop the ban after a wide-ranging review that produced a response the company must have realised was inevitable. It perhaps hoped the review would provide a get-out clause.

It is not only this sorry episode that prompts questions about BA's sureness of touch (or lack of it). The company finds itself mired in negotiations with the trade unions that could lead to strike action, and the cancellation of flights, over sickness absence, pay, staffing and pensions entitlement. Coming so soon after thousands of items of passenger luggage were left undelivered to customers (the consequence of more than 800 BA flights being cancelled last December because of severe fog), it has been a turbulent start to the year for the airline.

On top of this, Brian Wilson, the former government minister, has threatened in a letter published in The Herald today to boycott BA flights unless the carrier withdraws plans to replace Glasgow Airport ground staff with personnel from outside contractors. Business knows the value of a trusted brand and, as Carphone Warehouse has demonstrated in the Big Brother saga, it is also aware of how easily a brand can be damaged by adverse publicity. BA needs to learn that lesson anew.