Well there's quite possibly one other reason and that's the difference between unionised and non-unionised labour. Whilst there is nothing wrong with unions per se, in the UK there is a long history of friction between unions and management. BA is not immune from this (see strikes and conflicts passim) and therefore it is often the case that labour can be infected by a cadre of militant workers who can be obstructive to change. Which is not to say that the management of the company are necessarily saints in this process. Historically BA was a state owned enterprise and probably all their staff were unionised - and anyone who grew up in the UK in the 70's will remember what a terrible time this was for British industry and labour relations.

The upshot of this is that BA probably got lumbered with a high ratio of staff who, shall we say, had 'attitude problems' and it would have been impossible to fire them. So not only were/are they burdened by relatively high costs but also difficulties in bringing about change against the obstructions of the unions.

At the opposite end of the scale one has QR who, by all accounts, are able to terrify their staff into conformance.

I would just like to say that on a trip to IST last week we had 2 stellar crews in CE - in particular a w/w crew on the 767 coming back who really did keep the drinks flowing ^