I suspect if you asked a senior long haul FO what they had in common with a new FO at LGW, I suspect it might be easier for the list of differences to be highlighted rather than what they have in common within the context of their job. One doesn't need to look too far to see how there are numerous aspects of flying for BA that can create differences between colleagues. LHR vs LGW, Shorthaul vs Longhaul, Carmen vs Bidline (in a historical context of course) and BARP vs NAPS and that is coming from someone who doesn't work for the company, so I suspect more could be added to the list!! The more differences amongst colleagues, then the more challenging it has to be to create any solidarity in the workplace.
Reading some of the previous posts reminds me of an ex BA skipper who stepped into a Flight Ops management position at my last company after he retired. It was rather irksome to see how reluctant he was to engage with management and to address any issues that were passed up the food chain. After a few beverages down route one night, one of the cabin crew actually took him to task over his reluctance to communicate and help create change where it was needed. He admitted he had no desire to 'rock the boat' unless he himself was going to benefit as well. A carry-over from his BA days perhaps?
As I said earlier, I am not at BA but I do have a few friends still there, so I do read this thread from time to time out of interest. I left the UK to become an ex-pat aviator before EASA FTLs were brought in, so my knowledge of them is rather scant, to say the least. Regardless of that, any manager worth their salt will use their FTL framework as a guideline for enhancing crew productivity and I have seen this where I am now. It seems that no airline in IAG appears to be immune from this nowadays either. If 24 hours down route in the US west coast is legal, then it's a case of when rather than if it ever happens before your management consider tweaking with your rosters. Having crews away from home base longer than needed, seems to be a bête noire for management in any airline and it is a very easy way for them to reduce operating costs.
Some of you seem to have suggested that change will be forthcoming for trips that are changed to include shorter layovers, once a paper trail has started involving safety and fatigue reporting. I can assure you from first-hand experience that it is nothing short of a gargantuan task to revert roster practices, back to a level that reduces crew productivity. If a trip is deemed to be legal and if you raise your head above the parapet and shout fatigued and not fit to operate, then I would suggest that caution may be prudent, since BA may find it convenient to view the reporter as the problem rather than the timings of the trip itself. A number of you commute and some involve air travel in this process. The company could take delight in wading through staff travel records and probing into your travel and rest arrangements prior to your trips, so that a cause for your fatigue can conveniently (for the company!) be established. With the company seeming to wish to take a greater interest in how you all travel to work, then I suspect what may seem to be a rather invasive action, is not beyond the realms of possibility. Such actions could also act as a deterrent to those thinking of whistleblowing as well. If a trip is deemed to be legal in the eyes of the regulator, then it takes a lot of people to create a case for it to be deemed to be not fit for purpose.
From reading this thread it would seem that some BA aviators here, seem to have lost hope in your CC as well but this has to be your last line of defence against unfavourable change. If enough of you are disillusioned about your CC as some of the posters on this thread appear to be, then what would the outcome of a petition of 'No Confidence' in your CC be?
Good Luck and I shall be watching from the sidelines!