Nonsense. This is just the media picking up on a story which broke the week before. The Unions are involved in discussions. Just because it is British Airways doesn't mean that all the pilots are British!
You're right. The story about the British pilots has been widely misreported from the outset. At
no point did the British pilots object in principle to armed marshals, and any imputation of cowardice etc is way out of order. The detailed statement of BALPA made it clear their only misgivings were technical and procedural. What they objected to was a sudden unilateral statement by the British government that armed marshals would be introduced, without any discussion with or even information to the pilots about the protocols and procedures - such as the command relationship between pilot and marshal, nature of weapons and ammunition, procedures to be adopted by pilot if the weapon is used etc etc. All they got was a 'trust us - it'll be OK' from the government.
Now anyone who's ever flown a plane knows that procedures of this sort are what a pilot's job is mostly about - procedures rigorously and systematically applied to minimize risk. They're all the more important, for obvious reasons, in this sort of context. It was entirely reasonable for the British pilots to expect similarly strict procedures for this, and to be cautious if they weren't forthcoming - in fact it would have been irresponsible not to. In the event, their reservations have been satisfied very quickly, and agreement already reached with Virgin, for instance.