It is disappointing that Cabin Services has to pay their crews an extra sum to work one crew member down.
Swiss_tonni,
What I find 'disappointing' is the fact that on this thread, it would seem that Cabin Crew just can't seem to do anything right. For instance, on the one hand people lambast BA C/C for a payment for working crew members short. Yet on the other, people call out for 'benchmarking' (which would apparently bring the 'overinflated' 9,000 a year salary down to more realisticly low levels). In actual fact, this 'benchmarking' would show that BA is actually already 'benchmarked' with many major carriers who routinely pay their crew for working short.
United Airlines pays crew members a premium for every crew member short. So if you fly the 747 LHR-SFO with 12 crew instead of 18, they get a substantial allowance. The flip side is that because the 'short crew' are getting paid extra for this, UA expects that the full service still be completed (albeit with allowances for the fact it will take much longer than usual to complete the services). A good friend of mine recently worked AMS-ORD with only 3 crew members working Economy on a 767. One of them was the designated aft galley position, so that left 2 crew members, one for each aisle. Yes, they got short staffing, but I think they would have much rather have not taken the extra $$, and had full crew with a pleasant working environment and good service for the passengers, and not an 8 hour 'stress-a-thon' trying to serve 150+ people with a full trans-atlantic inflight meal, beverage and duty free service.
'Benchmarking' might also show that BA Crews work more hours than many of their full service counterparts at AF, LH, UA, AA, NW, CO etc etc, most of whom work no more than 780-800 'hard' hours a year max. So if you want to compare 'apples to apples' with total compensation, you might want to reduce the total by a percentile mirroring the reduced number of hours worked at other carriers to obtain a more 'true' picture.
While I don't dispute that some of the 20+ year service L/H LHR crew might take home a fairly goodly sum, the reality is that for people like me starting today, the salary is 'reasonable', but certainly not 'generous'. We are told to expect 1000-1200 a month take home (however some of that is to cover the cost of meals etc downroute). I hear that some S/Haul crew can make more than this, but it is not guaranteed. Now I don't know about you, but as a single person in London, with a salary of 9,000, a mortgage broker would laugh in your face if you tried to buy anything other than a garden shed. Even if they factor in your 'allowances' (despite the fact that a large proportion of these is for costs one will incur downroute etc), you are STILL struggling to come up with enough for even a one bedroom flat (god forbid a small house).
Before I am shouted at by all and sundry, am I 'complaining' about my salary. No. I understand what I am getting into, and am prepared to take 'lifestyle' and 'job satisfaction' over high $$. What I am saying is that I certainly don't feel that the crew of today are being overpaid. The higher cost of longer serving crew is a reality, but one cannot (by law) suddenly turn around and pay them 9K a year to 'benchmark' them. Over time though, as more people leave or retire, as new entrants join, BA will continue to see C/C wage costs lower.
Finally, before anyone states that the 'benchmarking' should actually be done between BA and EZY, Ryanair, Air 2000 etc, I would argue that again one has to compare like to like. British Airways is a full service 'world class' carrier. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the level of total compensation be 'benchmarked' with similar carriers (such as LH, AF, UA, AA, CO etc) with the appropriate cost of living/currency adjustments and considerations.