Originally Posted by chipster

F LHR-Newark recently: enthusiastic crew, pleasant enough but three of them didn't know how to work the table on the 787 and told me they had never done it before, but "the details are in the leaflet"! I often think of the LHR-IST crews as unmotivated as I am often on this route and the crew seem to spend as much time as possible in the galley even though they seem to get a decent layover there. There is a lot of time to provide a good service to passengers on that route but often they just don't seem bothered.

Originally Posted by GCab

I had a near-identical experience (to OP) when flying LHR-YVR in CW last Jan (tired old 747, upper deck, half-empty, made to feel a nuisance for e.g. asking for red wine top-up when my meal arrived, then eventually having to go to galley to get it myself while they chatted and dawdled over trays, because I had specifically wanted it to go with the beef and there was no sign of it - just one example).

The relation to original post is to ask, is there any connection between 'less valued routes' and equipment/service (older planes, poorly-motivated crew, low passenger loads)? This occasion certainly felt like a 'poor relation' flight compared to LHR-JFK.

Originally Posted by WingsAroundtheWorld

The crew members should be identified and then sacked. If they don't want the job, there are plenty of others that do!
Shame to let the airline / brand and rest of the hard working crew down like this.