Stroppy cabin crew and groundstaff

[Ye Olde Pilot]

I'm sure I cannot be the only one to have noticed a change in attitude on the part of some cabin crew and groundstaff over the last few years. New security measures and a change in the ANO seems to have led to a spate of power mad jobsworths.

In the latest case the Crown Office has decided not to proceed against Lord Fraser of Carmyllie in relation to what was called an "air rage incident" on journey from London to Dundee shortly before Christmas. Tayside Police officers were called to Dundee airport to meet the ScotAirways flight on reports of disruptive behaviour by a passenger on board. He was arrested, taken to police headquarters in Dundee and charged with a breach of Article 78 of the Air Navigation Order 2005, which related to "acting in a disruptive manner".
Nobody, other than the flight attendant who complained about his behaviour could work out what he had done to incur her wrath. I understand his flight was delayed by up to three hours. Some reports claimed he was "smelling strongly of drink" when he boarded and "berated" a female member of the cabin crew. But others claimed he had not caused any trouble, despite accusations he had been disruptive. Passengers included a former Labour MP, who is now a member of the House of Lords, a current Labour MP, a former Labour city councillor and a Liberal Democrat peer. None witnessed any incident that could be classified as "air rage".Tayside Police decided that the word of the flight attendant merited them charging the peer but the Crown Office decided against proceedings, adding that there was "insufficient evidence of an offence having taken place." One cabin attendant complains about a passengers "wrong or bad" attitude and it's down the road to clink. I'm not defending him. Lord Fraser is the former Lord Advocate of Scotland and was a Tory MP for eight years until 1987. He now sits in the House of Lords as a Tory peer and led the inquiry into the construction of the £431m Scottish Parliament building. He may well be a bit self confident or even arrogant and he admits he had a whiskey before boarding. If he was drunk and disruptive the captain on this flight must have also have been of the opinion that the situation warranted the radio call to be met by police. Therefore there must be evidence to bring a prosecution. However he might just have taken the cabin attendants word and decided to let police sort the issue on the ground.

Is this another example of airline "service" staff behaving like little Hitlers. They can be encountered not only in the air but at airports behind the desk and acting as "security" officers (favourite question: "Can I help you?") It is very dangerous nowadays to make any comment in relation to the conduct of such staff or the airline they represent. If you do they will immediately claim to have been "offended", "shocked", etc and call in the police. A number of pilots have already discovered the most dangerous part of the journey is passing the security screeners.

This story in todays Daily Telegraph makes interesting reading.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=DU5OYXLGFUA5TQFIQMGCFGGAVCBQUIV0?xml=/opinion/2007/02/07/do0704.xml

[X-Centric]

Other passengers included a former Labour MP, who is now a member of the House of Lords, a current Labour MP, a former Labour city councillor and a Liberal Democrat peer. None witnessed any incident that could be classified as "air rage".

No really! It wouldn't have mattered how abusive this arrogant Lord was: do you seriously think that any of his cronies fellow would have spoken up against him? :ugh:

[stilton]

Sad but true, plenty of little hitlers out there.

I would have originally given the flight attendant the benefit of the doubt, but no more..

[A and C]

I have seen no evidence of this problem becoming part of the culture of the airline industry, I have met one or two individuals that meet the discription but you have to expect that in life.

Security staff are another matter but they are not part of the airline industry, they are just part of an empire that has seen a way of making a lot of money from very low grade staff ,occasionaly I have met a good security person but I guess that they have just slipped through the net in much the same way as the stroppy cabin crew and ground agents.

[Litebulbs]

If you are intrusted with a position of authority, you should act in a manner that shows respect, not act in an arrogant manner after drinking. If you are polite to people, it makes it very hard for people to be rude back. However, he may have just been scared of flying, hence the drink. I have seen many normally mild mannered people have a distinct personality change on boarding an aeroplane.

[antonovman]

Well it seems to be a regular occurance these days in places like LPL , but definitly not only LPL, where police are called to meet the aircraft becuase of unruly passengers, probably the same ones who have been served lots a alcohol by the (scared to refuse) 18 year old Flight Attendants

[Wingswinger]

It wouldn't have mattered how abusive this arrogant Lord was

Unfortunately, X-C, you have just exhibited an attitude as reprehensible as that of the cabin crew member on this flight. How do you know Lord Fraser is arrogant? How do you know the cabin attendant didn't deserve a flea in her ear? The Telegraph article is, by its tone, from a gossip column. It's portrayal of Lord Fraser is opinion and hearsay.

However, it is a fact that in Blair's Britain, junior employees in certain industries and services, who are often ill-educated and who lack the most basic social skills and graces, have been given unprecedented power over the rest of us.

[WHBM]

I don't have any connection with them other than as pax, but must say that I have found the CC on Scot Airways, the carrier in question here, to be universally pleasant, competent and well used to handling difficult situations and premium pax (I mean, just look at that passenger list on a 30 seater ! ). They are a world away from the AeroChav carriers and their typical loads some above are making reference to.

And Merlyn wouldn't have it any other way !

Regarding the air ragers, although alcohol is often blamed my experience is that it is the smokers who have been unable to smoke for an extended period who lose their control most readily. They may well of course take to alcohol in partial substitution. This accounts for the great increase in such incidents since smoking was banned on aircraft and at airports.

[Finals19]

This is laughable. The bottom line here is that the aircraft commander has the final word on whether or not the police are called to the aircraft, or a passenger is off-loaded for being drunk. Boarding an aircraft and appearing to be under the influence of alcohol in any way is a breach of part 5 of the UK Air Navigation Order.

Do you think that any Captain is going to rashly make a decision to have police meet the aircraft based on one person's observation?? Its very simple - you board the aircraft under the influence, you get off-loaded. You manage (by a stroke of luck) to get on board and then, inflight, become belligerent and the crew have reason to believe you are intoxicated, you can likely expect to be met at the other end by the boys in blue.

[Flying Lawyer]

X-Centric do you seriously think that any of his cronies fellow would have spoken up against him?Surely the point the columnist is making is that, despite the FA's allegation, no-one else on the flight witnessed him "acting in a disruptive manner" or behaving in a way which could reasonably be considered to be 'air rage'.
And, he adds for good measure, (not even) "a former Labour MP, who is now a member of the House of Lords, a current Labour MP, a former Labour city councillor and a Liberal Democrat peer" (who might be thought to have no reason for misplaced/misguided loyalty towards a former Tory MP, former Tory Minister in the House of Lords and current Tory Peer.)
Some reports claimed he was "smelling strongly of drink" when he boarded and "berated" a female member of the cabin crew. But others claimed he had not caused any trouble, despite accusations he had been disruptive.

Like you, I'm limited to press reports but FWIW, if it's correct that no other member of the crew and no passenger confirmed the allegation, the Crown Office decision not to prosecute him based on an allegation by one FA seems to me to be entirely proper and sensible.

[Captb747]

Finals19

Of course you are right in what you say in regard to the Aircraft Commander having the final word as to wether a passenger is offloaded or not, BUT.............

The Commander has plenty of other duties to be getting on with so more often than not will take what the CC member has said and act accordingly.If the CC member belives the pax need to be offloaded for unruly behavior, the Commander will generally act along the lines of " if you say he is being unruly, he is being unruly so we will offload him"

I have seen many Commanders make decisions based purely on what CC say.

Cheers.

[Life's a Beech]

I agree with Flying Lawyer that the decision not to prosecute was proper and sensible, as it appears there was insufficient evidence.

However as a pilot I came in here when I read the article to see if there was any comment, as I was rather cross with its implication that the CC had been necessarily in the wrong, and people's assumptions about crew. It is entirely possible that passengers can be rude and disruptive to crew without affecting other passengers - often relating to drinking or to smoking in the lavatories, the latter possibly the most threatening behaviour unarmed pax indulge in. It is the press that coin the term "air rage", it appears nowhere in the ANO, so that his fellow passengers did not see any air rage only tells us that they read the papers and foolishly believe what they read.

I was also cross that commentors on the article had connected well-trained cabin crew, in my experience generally pleasant, reasonably sharp to rather intelligent and with a positive attitude, with the under-trained, often in my experience) authoritarian, negative and none-too-bright security staff.

[apaddyinuk]

It is a bit unfair to say that it is only airline employees who seem to be adopting this "hitleresque" attitude...I think it is safe to say that every work position in every industry is affected by it so some extent in this day and age. Fortunately it is just the minority.

[Flying Lawyer]

Life's a Beech

"It is entirely possible that passengers can be rude and disruptive to crew without affecting other passengers"
Possible but, if he did anything that could reasonably be regarded as an offence under the ANO, it's at least a little surprising that no-one witnessed it.

It is the press that coin the term "air rage", it appears nowhere in the ANO.
That's absolutely right, but those on board (other CC & pax) would not have been asked if they witnessed 'air rage.' They would have been asked to describe what they saw/heard (if anything) and, on the basis of all the evidence obtained (incl the allegation made by the FA), an assessment would have been made whether there was sufficient or any evidence to justify prosecuting him under the ANO.

[Ye Olde Pilot]

And the bottom line was that despite opinions and assesments of others on how this person conducted himself on board the police/CPS found ther were no complaints to suggest he was a threat to the aircraft.
There are often situations where obnoxious people share our space in trains,the tube, planes and elsewhere.
We have no right for others to adhere to a pro forma.
Thanks to Flying Lawyer and others such as Sir Geoff Bindman we still do not live in a biased police state!

[Flying Lawyer]

This is laughable .....
Boarding an aircraft and appearing to be under the influence of alcohol in any way is a breach of part 5 of the UK Air Navigation Order.

Laughable indeed, and nonsense.

It is a breach of Part 5 of the ANO to enter any aircraft when drunk, or to be drunk in any aircraft.

Not "appearing to be"
Not "under the influence of alcohol in any way"


Just as well you fly cargo aircraft.

FL

[Juud]

Some things in life are fixed and unchanging. Like Flying Lawyer ivariably posting on any thread that makes Cabin Crew look bad.

Other things are subject to change and the needs of the moment. Like Flying Lawyer´s opinion on personal attacks.

Thankfully, we very rarely have personal attacks in this forum.
Just as well you fly cargo aircraft.

[srs what?]

Flying Lawyer may be able to confirm or deny this but as I understand it, unless you are medically qualified you can not actually determine someone as being drunk and to do so could end up with the accuser seeing private legal action themselves.

[apaddyinuk]

SRS...Crew have specific training and capabilities to determine this themselves in the event that someone may be about to or is causing a disturbance onboard an aircraft as a result of being under the influence (note how I dont say "drunk"). We are trained to notice when passengers are about to go or be over the limit or behave irratically.

Now unfortunately the off side to this is that we must then deny access to alcohol for these customers and it is very difficult to explain to these people why we are not allowing them to have further alcohol without suggesting that they are drunk, it can be done but takes some major diplomacy skills and also depends on the passenger involved. Now Im not medically qualified but I do feel I am qualified to tell when someone is "under the influence"!!! I also know that should the poo hit the fan (from a legal perspective) that I am covered by the policies of my company and fully indemnified as I was simply carrying out a task asked of me as per my contract.

Now, I wasnt on this Scot Airways flight nor do I really know any of the details so I cannot comment on this but I assure you that I have dealt with many situations (seems to happen to me at least twice a month these days) of similiar nature and I must admit, what scares me most is the mix of reactions we get off other passengers in the immiediate area as they witness it regardless of how descreet it is carried out.

[Finals19]

Laughable indeed, and nonsense.

It is a breach of Part 5 of the ANO to enter any aircraft when drunk, or to be drunk in any aircraft.

Not "appearing to be"
Not "under the influence of alcohol in any way"


Just as well you fly cargo aircraft.


Thanks for pointing that out to me Flying Lawyer. Its exactly because of people like you that I would prefer to fly cargo aircraft. Pedantic to the extreme and a complete lack of diplomacy.

Have a fabulous fun filled day. :D

[Flying Lawyer]

Like other people, I participate in threads which interest me when I think I've got something to contribute. In addition, and in the hope that it will be helpful, I respond when there's a legal aspect. Sometimes to explain the legal process (eg Why the decision not to prosecute might have been made), and sometimes to correct something that's been posted about the law which is incorrect and might mislead if uncorrected.
Juud is, of course, entitled to her view; others have been kind enough to say they find my legal posts helpful. I've learnt an enormous amount about the aviation from PPRuNe, and try to put something back into the pot when I can. However, it takes all sorts, and it would be impossible to please everyone all the time.

The Mods moved the thread here from R&N. I didn't notice Finals19's error the first time I posted, saw it when I looked at the thread again, and thought I should correct it

Like Flying Lawyer ivariably posting on any thread that makes Cabin Crew look bad.What a curious allegation. :confused:
Those of a less paranoid disposition might like to read this (post # 38) and decide for themselves whether that allegation is justified: Link here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=3080915#post3080915).

Some things in life are fixed and unchanging.
So it appears. :rolleyes:


Finals19
I assumed it would be obvious my 'cargo aircraft' comment was a light-hearted quip, so didn't think a smiley was necessary.
I'm sorry you think the difference between what you said and I've said about the ANO is pedantry. It isn't. What you said was just plain wrong.

srs what?
A court can be satisfied by non-medical evidence that someone was drunk. A non-expert expression of opinion alone wouldn't be enough, but a description of someone's behaviour might be.
eg
"In my opinion, X was drunk" = Not enough.
"X's eyes were glazed, his speech was slurred, he was staggering around and his breath smelt of drink" = Enough (in the absence of an explanation).

"could end up with the accuser seeing private legal action themselves."
In theory, yes. But, in the absence of evidence that the accuser was being untruthful (as opposed to honestly mistaken) and knowingly making a false accusation, unlikely.


FL

[jerboy]

Finals19... Completely agree!
The fact is that CC and groundstaff have to follow the rules set down by the company and authorities. There are many times I would love to let people travel even if they're not technically allowed to (turning up late to check in due to heavy traffic etc), but the rules say no... and often no amount of begging with the guys in charge will do any good. The vast amount of times when we appear to be 'little Hitlers' is entirely not our fault and we know that if we don't go by the book, ultimately, our job is on the line.


Going back to the thread starter, I have never encountered a bad or unhelpful member of staff either on the ground or in the air. Maybe I'm just lucky but I believe the vast majority of front line staff do care about the passengers and will do what they can to help them; I certainly do.


However we are humans and have limits. Conditions can be pretty bad and sometimes we just snap. After all the security nonsense last summer I still had pax screaming at me because of lost luggage at gone 2300... I started at 0530 that morning. It was hell, but if those passengers even had a tiny amount of understanding of what had gone on that day (I can accept that being delayed 4+ hours is no ones idea of fun, least of all mine) and treated me as anything vaguely human, maybe that service industry smile would have been present on my tired, sweaty face... but it wasn't.


So, we do what we have to. On the vast majority of occasions we are limited by the rule book... and yes we do snap sometimes, but treat us with respect and on the whole you will see it returned.


Thats what I think anyway!

[Life's a Beech]

...if he did anything that could reasonably be regarded as an offence under the ANO, it's at least a little surprising that no-one witnessed itOff the top of my head, how about being told not to smoke in the toilets, and not taking that very well? I understand it is not an uncommon occurence, and he could well be standing a little away from other passengers and out of their view. It is also a serious threat to the aircraft, and difficult to control so crew authority must be strongly upheld and their response robust. That is just the first thing that popped into my head, I am sure there are other possibilities.

I comment on the term "air rage" because its use tends to set us as commentors in mind of a certain type of behaviour that is very conspicuous, not because of the terms the police might have used. It is clear that if any offense was committed then it was not especially conspicuous, so using the term distorts the debate when it is introduced, even though it might be useful shorthand elsewhere.

Surely cabin and flight crew are not qualified to judge if someone is drunk or not. I was under the impression that case law suggested that only police officers were considered able to judge. Therefore crew would have to assume that any alcoholic influence might be drunkeness under the ANO, and so response must be the same.

OK so I am exagerating to make my point, but where does affluence of incohol become drunkenesh? Since the responisibility under the ANO lies on the Captain and therefore his crew as well as the passenger, it is a serious question.

[Final 3 Greens]

Pedantic to the extreme and a complete lack of diplomacy.

No, precise and straightforward.

You misquoted the ANO, Flying Lawyer quoted it correctly.

[Monkeytoo]

I put a lot of the aggro down to the 'No Smoking' laws, not only can they not smoke on planes but in most cases (unless I think you are in Asia or the MIddle East) you can't smoke in the terminals as well - that's a lot of hours for a committed smoker. Perhaps nicotine gum could be on hand to feed to passengers that are getting stressed :)

[Flying Lawyer]

Life's a Beech Surely cabin and flight crew are not qualified to judge if someone is drunk or not etc.

I believe experienced CC are able to distinguish between drunk and under the influence, and that the overwhelming majority deal with each situation appropriately.
'Drunk' is relevant to whether someone is guilty of an offence under the ANO. Captain/crew discretion is not limited to that.

No special rules for police, BTW.

FL

(Edit)
To avoid any further 'misunderstandings', I meant experienced based on dealing with passengers. :)

[sebby]

Having to communicate with sometimes hundreds of people daily for generally 20 days of the month helps in distinguishing whether someone may be under the influence of alcohol. A sense of smell can also assist in that. Remember airline policies state that their crew (depends on the company) must not consume alcohol a minimum of 10(my company) or 12 (some others) hours before sign on. So I can smell booze on someone when im at work, having not dabbled for at least that ammount of time.

Say these symptoms arent present upon boarding, then if someone has had 4 beers in the past 90 minutes, the crew know that there is a high chance that intoxication is possible regardless of the size of the person. I find making a deal with this person, say they have a glass of water and wait 30 minutes goes down better than telling them they are drunk and that we wont be serving them anymore alcohol.

I dont claim to be an experienced flight attendant, I have only been flying for 2 years, but prior to that I worked in bars and hotels and restaurants and have seen plenty to know when someone has overconsumed. I know the tech crew and the onboard managers at my company will always support the crew but in return I give them the same respect by not falsely accusing anyone and taking such an accustion very seriously.