It would be shame if the status-quo were maintained, particularly if the reasons were fundamentally those of ingrained snobbery and (misplaced) elitism regarding rank/trade/branch that some posters are exhibiting.
It’s not elitist or snobbish to say that cabin crew is a role which can and should be carried out by junior ranks, if that’s what you’re implying. Unlike some trades (e.g. aircraft technicians) the pay and status of junior RAF cabin crew is in the same ballpark as their civilian counterparts (and probably substantially better when housing, pension etc is considered). In today’s highly technical service there are seriously well-educated and accomplished individuals to be found at every rank. It’s an elitist view to say that junior cabin crew should hold higher rank simply because they fly, when they are supervised (by the purser) to the same extent as any other junior rank. So perhaps the most appropriate answer to the regulatory conundrum would be to remove the requirement for aircrew to be SNCOs.
But I can see why this could be perceived as the thin end of the wedge, especially for some (e.g. ISTAR mission crew) where the ‘unsupervised’ argument isn’t as clear and obvious as for others (e.g. loadmasters). Plus it needs to be borne in mind that there have been sensitivities over the lower-than-expected pay banding of NCO aircrew, which is going for review in the near future. The politics of that are complicated: ISTAR mission crew roles are highly technical, but then so are intelligence-related ground trades. Opening the opportunity for MOD job assessors to solve the problem at neutral cost by moving the trade up a pay band while down-ranking junior roles is probably not high on the trade sponsor’s to-do list. As ever, the plot is more complex and political than it appears. As ever, careful what you wish for...