What offence could possibly be caused by a Christian openly wearing a crucifix at work, something Nadia Eweida says she has done for many years at the British Airways check-in counter.

But BA insanely objects to this and today Nadia was told that she had lost her appeal, though she has vowed to fight on. But, unfortunately, I do not hold out any hope of her succeeding. And this is the reason why.

Having studied culture webs and ethics last weekend for my PR diploma, I decided to check out British Airways’ mission statement. In former CEO Bob Ayling’s words:

“British Airways remains proudly British, but perhaps we need to lose some of our old fashioned Britishness and take on board some of the new British traits. Abroad, people see this country as friendly, diverse and open to other cultures. We must better reflect that.”

While that is commendable, what is wrong with our old-fashioned Britishness, doesn’t it stand for traditional values like courtesy and good service? And what does he mean by “new British traits”? BA seemingly wants to retain the word ‘British’ because of the worldwide respect and recognition it carries, despite trying to achieve global succes by being seen to as multi-cultural.

If you remember, one of the first changes Bob Ayling made following his appointment was to drop BA’s traditional Union Flag tailfin livery in favour of world design tailfins, in an attempt to change its image from a strictly British and aloof carrier to a more cosmopolitan airline. This alienated the public and was not a success because we are proud of being British and our symbols. This is the message that came over clearly during my PR class when we studied the culture of a fictitious company, UK plc, people all over the world like the British traditions.

According to corporate branding consultancy Newell and Sorrell, BA wants to be seen as a citizen of the world. They say that a major review of the company’s strategic direction, based on extensive international research among customers, revealed that BA wished to be ‘global’ and ‘caring’ in its operations, personality and behaviour.

So have they applied their own mission statement to Nadia? Will they fall foul of the Home Office definition of religious discrimination, which states:

“The Home Office’s purpose is to build a safe, just and tolerant
society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced and the protection and security of the public are maintained.”

It is quite clear that Bob Ayling and BA have gone too far against Britishness, there is no common sense or logic behind the refusal to allow Nadia to openly wear a crucifix, their mission statement must surely apply fairly to everyone, but if they can’t stick to it, maybe it’s time to review it.

Update: Iain has posted on this too, calling for us to boycott BA.