The responses and comments in this thread clearly show the behaviors I was referring to. Unfortunately, this kind of conduct marked by hostility, dishonesty, and underhandedness is something I’ve repeatedly encountered from certain British and Australian colleagues.Someone earlier mentioned that they come across as “strict.” In my experience, that’s not true. Rather, the problem is a widespread lack of knowledge among some individuals, particularly in operational contexts within EK. When their mistakes are pointed out constructively, the response is often emotionally immature, defensive, dismissive, and at times, outright disrespectful.
Let me provide a concrete example: You’re on a flight and notice a colleague has made a procedural error. You politely point it out and explain the correct method. Instead of engaging in a professional dialogue, the person becomes combative, accuses you of not knowing what you’re talking about, and defends their actions by citing their years of experience. When you reference the official manuals and standard operating procedures, they may claim the documents are flawed or written by incompetent pilots. Eventually, when they realize they were indeed mistaken, instead of acknowledging the error, they shift the blame by literally making up stories often directing it toward the very person who tried to help.
Thankfully, EK still has a few individuals in management and safety roles who are willing to listen objectively and take appropriate action. Notably, these individuals have not typically been from the groups in question.
Unfortunately, the hostility often doesn’t stop there. The individual may continue the conflict through passive-aggressive behavior, ridicule, or baseless accusations even blaming others for situations on days they weren’t even flying. These subtle attacks and unfounded gossip most often continue simply because someone performs better or demonstrates a stronger understanding of procedures. Why respond with resentment and personal attacks?
This pattern is also evident in the simulator environment. Alarmingly, this behavior is sometimes exhibited even by training captains, who should be setting the standard for professionalism and openness to feedback. Again, most of them Brits and aussies.
To be clear: I’m always open to learning, and if someone respectfully shares knowledge or corrects a misunderstanding, I’ll listen and take it onboard. The problem is not with being corrected it’s with how the correction is delivered. Many of the examples cited above, such as explanations of cold weather operations or LVO procedures, are marred by an aggressive, arrogant tone that compromise effective CRM.
I encourage anyone reading this to revisit the previous comments in this thread. The dismissive and immature tone from a few users only reinforces the concerns I’ve raised.