Some conclusions: clearly there is a toxic relationship here. In the nature of things, if neither party trusts the other, no amount of "Well, I'm a mover/I'm aircrew and I'm really good, stop picking on me" will help.
There's also a typical failure to understand the supposedly private sector practices the last three governments have been so keen on. Giving public-sector organisations a strict budget to stick to, a business plan, "trading funds", having to pay capital charges back to Treasury etc - it always seems to add up to one thing: we work until the budget is reached, then stop dead.
A real company supplying the government that has contracted to provide something and received payment doesn't have this privilege. If they miscalculated their costs and discover halfway that it's a bad deal, tough. Essentially, AT has contracted to serve the pax - and if it's going to burst the budget, well, shoulda thought of that when you took on the job. Naturally, as fake private sector practices are always imposed to save money, the budget is never sufficient. And because it's possible to walk away from serving the public, the efficiency savings never turn up.
Another point is that there is a classic sign of a sick organisation, which is that doing ordinary routine jobs well requires leadership. Leadership is what you need when things get weird. It shouldn't be necessary to do outstanding things to provide the basic normal job, but clearly it is. Also, no-one seems to be responsible for it.
Suggestions; break down the mover task and hire civilians to run BZZ. Works for Virgin.. Routinise the lot. There is no real need for special personnel and facilities to run a smallish airline, which is what the airbridge is as far as Akrotiri or Dubai. They become necessary down-route in operational theatres and if an airborne operation is planned - which should anyway be colocated with 16AAB at Wattisham.. Appoint one person to be responsible for each trip in all respects.