'Drunk' cabin crew claim cancels flight - Manchester to New York [Archive]

nivsy

24th Nov 2007, 17:58

It all just seems incredible to me. Just what is happening? The temptation nowadays for many young airline staff members must be strong to break particular carrier airline rules. We hear of pilots, we here of cabin crew - what next ATC?

Ironically, and lets not forget this, pax are reminded constantly, drunk or not drunk, of attitude behavioural "norms" expected while passing through airports and whilst in the air. I for one would be in trouble for being intoxicated on my job - and what many "professionals" in the aviation business seem to forget, or deliberately forget that we use your services - not just for the fun of it - but - shock horror - we rely on "a service industry" and that is what you are , to get us to where we want or have to be to carry out our own areas of specialism.

If I ever thought I was being delayed, losing business, or upsetting clients because the staff operating my particular chosen mode of transport were under the influence I would be livid.

Perhaps there is more publicity these days on such "occassions" - thankfully they appear minimistic - however nevertheless it worries me. Pax are always "in the hands" of air crew- for safety and to deliver what we have effectively payed for - to get us where we want to be, hopefully on time with at least some gratification as to why we chose YOU to deliver us. Recent times have made so many changes to how pax are supposed to behave on board - guess it would be nice if the "service industries" - albeit the minority - followed suite and followed their own employers rules.

Nivsy

cwatters

24th Nov 2007, 18:10

> Wonder if a pax was running late and looked at delaying the flight a little?

Six hours before departure? ..and he'd have to know which hotel the crew were in.

MikeAlphaTangoTango

24th Nov 2007, 18:12

Does anybody else hate the BBC's dislike of anything to do with aviation? For example, why splash over the front page of the website EVERY alleged indiscretion in the industry, without ever reporting the counter claims when the rumours prove to be false? :ugh::ugh: I don't know whether this one is true or not, but you can bet your bottom dollar that if it does turn out to be another false accusation the story will disappear quietly onto the cutting room floor...

lomapaseo

24th Nov 2007, 18:13

Interesting that the reaction was made so public and presumably predictable that it will no doubt encourage thousands of copycats without retribution.
Apparently there is no sane way of dealing with annoymous reports of this kind short of placing them in a public (news) setting of the ignorant deciding both the fate of the crew and the economic outcome for all concerned.
We truly sow what we deserve to reap.
and we thought Danny had it difficult trying to vet the posers from the truth sayers among us. How does BA expect to do that over a phone? or did they get an admission from the crew that they are not telling us about?

fernytickles

24th Nov 2007, 18:15

I'm still trying to find out what "minimistic" means, Nivsy :confused:

Mycroft

24th Nov 2007, 18:19

As a humble pax, I am amazed that they cancelled over 5 hours before flight was due, and with apparently no confirmation of their drunkenness. I presumes as the crew were told to remain at the hotel there was no opportunity for managers to check them. If the cabin crew were not available, surely it would have been preferable to get another crew in rather than move the passengers.

Mick Stability

24th Nov 2007, 18:22

Excuse me. The police say that no criminal offence has been committed.

I understand that in this country we are no longer innocent until proven guilty, and that the press and media pass judgement with the click of a mouse. I also understand that the chattering classes, who believe we live the life of Riley, will appoint themselves as public servants by shopping anyone of us as the opportunity presents, on the basis that even if we're innocent then we probably have been guilty in the past or future.

So it's about time that we started fighting back. If you falsely accuse someone of rape, you go to jail. If you call someone a poof, you go to jail. If you incite hatred you go to jail.

So it's about time that crew enjoyed some of that top cover.

This country. I tell you.:ugh:

nivsy

24th Nov 2007, 18:24

So lets confirm - why was the flight cancelled? What were the fare paying passengers told?

StoneyBridge Radar

24th Nov 2007, 18:26

I am told this afternoon that someone within BA was despatched from their bed to Manchester city centre and the crew Hotel to see first hand what the crew were alleged to be doing.

Eagle45

24th Nov 2007, 18:41

I thnik.
ANONYMOUS call... :D claiming: "drunk" crew!
BA spokesman said: "We are investigating an anonymous allegation made against our cabin crew".
So... let's wait for the results of that investigation, before blaming those crewmembers, just because some journalist said... :=
My 2 cents

Basil

24th Nov 2007, 18:51

nivsy,
We hear of pilots, we here of cabin crew - what next ATC?

Without commenting upon this particular allegation, may I direct your attention to the following thread:
Virgin Co-Pilot arrested, allegedly over alcohol limit. No case to answer.

SLFguy

24th Nov 2007, 18:58

Excuse me. The police say that no criminal offence has been committed.
I understand that in this country we are no longer innocent until proven guilty, and that the press and media pass judgement with the click of a mouse. I also understand that the chattering classes, who believe we live the life of Riley, will appoint themselves as public servants by shopping anyone of us as the opportunity presents, on the basis that even if we're innocent then we probably have been guilty in the past or future.
So it's about time that we started fighting back. If you falsely accuse someone of rape, you go to jail. If you call someone a poof, you go to jail. If you incite hatred you go to jail.
So it's about time that crew enjoyed some of that top cover.
This country. I tell you.
Woah...hang on a minute... it was BA who took action here..

TightSlot

24th Nov 2007, 19:13

The key thing to remember at this point is that none of us actually know any of the facts for sure, beyond the information provided by the BBC.

Some folks are leaping in to their pre-prepared defensive positions and spouting the usual machine-gun nonsense:

Crew are always drunk
Crew are always reported out of spite
Crew are always innocent
It's all a plot by the media/pilots/management/BBC/tree huggers/Security Staff/Younger Crew/Older Crew/Chattering clases and for all we know the Democratic Republic of the Congo etc. etc. etc.

Everyone is entitled to a point of view, but to argue a theoretical point from a theoretical position with another person who is also taking up a theoretical position is just a bit silly?

The accusations will eventually be proven either true or false - at that point, we will all be better placed to argue the merits or otherwise of the situation.

Shack37

24th Nov 2007, 19:32

Well said TS, an anonymous phone call and the "hanger's & floggers" are out in force. IF it IS true, instead of the anon call, why not a knock on the door and a quiet reminder like " Uh, ain't you guys flying sometime soon"? In the event of being ignored or balled out let them know they're just a phone call away from the brown stuff.

In the meantime, benefit of the reasonable doubt eh?

s37:ok:

tablelover

24th Nov 2007, 20:29

I'll start by saying in no way do I know any other details than those already stated here and in no way assume due to this claim whether there is any accuracy in it.

The point of interest (to me at least) is that in the article the GMP say they received the call then contacted BA. One would assume therefore that if BA then cancel the flight following this warning there is perhaps no legal case to answer as a result. Of course this does not resolve the incident but is therefore the legal side ended?

regards

victorviscount

24th Nov 2007, 20:58

we all know it happens i would lke to see random testing when all cre report its the only wayto stap this out

tablelover

24th Nov 2007, 21:19

Stamp what out exactly? As a result of potentially false accusations from almost any quarter, and quite frankly incredibly rare incidents we will subject crew to further stress at the start of their day? The arguement that only the guilty would be stressed is incorrect aswell. Where this type of thinking may end is concerning, should everyone therefore be checked on their competency aswell at the start of the day? How about levels of fatigue? (a far more serious and common problem)

I apologise as this is starting to drift off thread, but needed to be addressed. Procedures are not brought in due to 'claims' but facts.

Regards

RingwaySam

24th Nov 2007, 22:15

StoneyBridge Radar

24th Nov 2007, 22:18

It is amazing how people in the biz leap to the defense of this crew, and now that the thread's been moved, I'm sure more will follow.

Personally, I can wait for the evidence and facts to emerge over the drinking allegation, but who for the love of God would in their right mind be still up at 0415 partying before a 1000 departure, with a pick up from the hotel as early as 0730?

Jeez, some of you need to get a reality check and realise that Joe Punter doesn't have to actually see you in uniform to know you are crew.

Grow up and save it for days off !

dustybin

24th Nov 2007, 23:23

My god! these crew have no chance the way people are going on. Yes it does happen on trips but lets think about it, if you are working the next day you watch what you are doing as we all know drinking and flying don't mix. Also when down route there may also be more than one crew night stopping so is it possible the informer had one to many themself and overheard the wrong crew? For gods sake give them a chance to explain before you hang them.

mini

24th Nov 2007, 23:40

Why didn't BA just arrange to have someone "meet" the crew at the gate and take it from there? cxd'ing a flight on an anonymous call seems a bit daft. :confused:

Desk Jockey

25th Nov 2007, 00:21

My understanding on friday night was that the flight was cancelled because there was a technical issue with the aircraft. There may have been a crew issue as well but I was unaware of it until I just read this thread.

Nov71

25th Nov 2007, 02:03

IMO IF cabin staff were drinking in the wee small hours, the tip-off prevented legal action but not a BA disciplinary so I doubt the facts will be publicised.
Flight crew were not accused nor did it involve anyone manning a security checkpoint at Manchester. To date the anon allegations are unsubstantiated
The timing is suspicious, coming so close to the 'no case to answer' result on the Heathrow Virgin pilot. I believe the fire service still categorise false alarms as malicious (liable to prosecution) or with good intent (safety first)
It would be reassuring for all if the Police investigated false alarms and prosecuted malicious calls.
All warnings have to be acted on to minimise risk, so anyone could have a motive for causing disruption, tree-hugger, disgruntled employee or pax, but the honest whistleblower should not be penalised for safety reasons
I agree there is a tendency to assume guilt until proven otherwise and that is why anyone making a malicious false claim of rape should go to jail, but most don't - because it may deter legitimate accusations-not in the public interest
Disk Jockey suggests an alternative reason for the conspiracy theorists
He suggests the a/c may have been declared tech before the cc incident.
A cynic may want to check the Mcr flight was commercially viable or whether there was an intention to transfer passengers to the later HRW flight on cost grounds and avoid EU pax compensation. It happens!

VS-LHRCSA

25th Nov 2007, 06:40

I was thinking that myself Mycroft.

There is a crew shortage at the moment, so I am thinking that there was no crew to hand (MAN staff are being re-deployed to LHR) so replacement crew would have to have been sourced from LHR, which would have at least delayed the flight. This would have thrown out the operation and left LHR short of standby crew. If they could have re-routed the affected passengers, this may have been the better solution at the time.

It certainly wouldn't have been an easy decision and would have been decided by a number of people considering a number of factors.

clicker

25th Nov 2007, 06:57

It would be reassuring for all if the Police investigated false alarms and prosecuted malicious calls.

Regret to say its not that easy, If a call comes on a 999 line then we are presented with some of the callers details, however if it came via a non emergency number, which this call should have, then we get no details off the exchange equipment. So the starting point can be a problem if all the person did was utter the meassge and replace the phone.

Also, when compared to the Fire service we get a lot more calls. For example for the area I work the two fire brigages are likely to have taken around 27000calls for the year, we know that because of their reference numbers. The police will take that number of logged calls in less than a month. My force's daily totals between 1500 to 2000 a day.

Finally, its up to the CPS to decide what action will be taken. We have a person who can ring with 20 or so non malcious calls on the 999 system but they don't take action because that person has mental health problems and may need a phone in case of a real emergency. So what chance would this call have of being followed up, very little I would suggest.

Wiley

25th Nov 2007, 07:25

Gee, you know.... I cannot help but think that with five hours lead time to sign on, a MANAGER might have had time to contact any union reps who might need to be contacted, organise a breath testing unit and, with the union rep in attendance, explained to the crew of the allegation that had been made. Mindful of union niceties, those that wished not to take the test would have an opportunity to report sick, while those willing to take the test could have done so, and the flight may well have departed on time.

I suspect the union rep would have headed off anyone not willing to take the test well before they got to sign on with a quick call to the Purser, so I cannot help but feel that action along these lines would have saved ten or twelve, and possibly all, of the crew from months of grief as they attempt to prove that this allegation was false.

I have often wondered what I would do if the plod came to my cockpit before departure telling me they had received a report that I was drunk and wished me to take a breath or blood test. I am probably fooling myself, but I do not believe I would be outside my rights to agree to take the test, but only after I see the complaint in writing, with the name and address of my accuser clearly written on the letter making the allegation against me, with the clear inference that I will be taking the person making the allegation to court for every penny they own if I deliver a clean test.

Surely the police could be instructed to adopt a policy of informing any person attempting to place an anonymous report of this nature that their report will be ignored unless they are willing to give their name and address. If some such sytem is not adopted, we will quite possibly see flights cancelled and delayed by the dozen as those who think aeroplanes are polluting the environment realise they have stumbled on a surefire way of reducing such "polluting" flights.

Siguarda al fine

25th Nov 2007, 07:25

The effects of Booze has no place airside. Only way to ensure soberity is to breathalize everyone prior to the flight; end of problem. It would take 2 mins at briefing and sort out the drunks and skunks from the pros.

tablelover

25th Nov 2007, 07:36

What problem? It is frustrating to see comments like this posted. There is not a problem, there may have been an incident but it does not suggest a problem infecting the industry. Or that the claims in this case were correct or incorrect. Kneejerk reactions to occurences benefit no one, do not deal with problems and are not the way professionals in this industry work especially when it affects flight safety.

Regards

Basil

25th Nov 2007, 07:46

I do not believe I would be outside my rights to agree to take the test, but only after I see the complaint in writing
OTTOMH I think the police officer only requires reasonable grounds to suspect and will, of course,subsequently say that your behaviour gave those grounds.
Been wrong before but that's my guess.

VS-LHRCSA

25th Nov 2007, 08:23

All sorts of factors would have been considered here.

The company, with a tip-off from the police will need to weigh up whether it is worth checking in and loading up a flight with passengers, cargo and luggage on the off-chance that the cabin crew may or may not fail a breath-test at -40 mins.

MAN is pretty much an outstation to the company, so there are no crew on hand to call out, so cancelling the flight must have been the best option to them at the time.

If you were a passenger on that flight, would you want BA to wait until the last minute to catch them out, or would you rather BA made use of the notice time and re-booked you, so you could get to JFK on time, or close to it?

What happens to the crew now will be determined after a lengthy investigation conducted by the company and overseen by the unions. Most likely, ALL of them will be suspended on basic pay. It will be determined whether any of them have a case to answer. Clearly innocent parties will be re-instated. Then there will be a dragged out "he said, she said" with possible terminations and/or demotions.

discostu

25th Nov 2007, 09:17

VS- you are right.
And it seems to me, if the story is to be believed, that the police & the company acted with a fair amount of diplomacy.
Had the police not informed the company of the anonymous tip off the crew may have turned up at the gate only to find themselves in a whole lot more :mad:
Obviously the company wouldn't have wanted the publicity and so, once informed, went to deal with it themselves.
Question is, who told the media? The whistleblower?
Remember there is always someone watching :*

DB6

25th Nov 2007, 09:32

...Ringring....ringring...."Hello, British Airways, can I help you?"........"What's that you say, our cabin crew are drunk in your hotel?"............"Yes I see, and can I have your name sir?"..........."Oh I see, do you realise what a serious allegation it is you're making sir?".........." You do, and you're not prepared to give your name?".........."I'm sorry sir, you do understand that you could be just anybody with an axe to grind, maybe even a passenger running late who wants to hold up the flight?"........."Yes sir, but unless you give your name we will be unable to proceed with your complaint"........"Oh I see...I thought not, sir. Goodbye".

I rest my case.

monkeybusiness2

25th Nov 2007, 09:51

DB6 Not that simple. Even if the airline suspected it was a false allegation it would have to investigate and take the correct course of action. Lots of people dial 999 and decline to give a name. The police still have to investigate an allegation!

cwatters

25th Nov 2007, 10:03

> Excuse me. The police say that no criminal offence has been committed.

Without wishing to break the innocent until guilty rule... Perhaps that's because they didn't actually report for duty at the airport.

Another possibility based on the sketchy info posted by others...is that the flight was cancelled for technical reasons THEN knowing they wouldn't be flying they went to the bar.

Just hope it all turns out ok for them.

d71146

25th Nov 2007, 10:10

Maybe one of our 'resident' journos on here might have a view on all this.

Self Loading Freight

25th Nov 2007, 10:33

Oh, for heaven's sake...

Cabin crew recruitment selects for gregarious, energetic, young people who then get thrown together in an highly technical environment with all the stresses and boredom of dealing with hundreds of irritable punters for hours on hours, get their body clocks messed with and finally get dumped en masse in hotels in unfamiliar cities. Combine that with the UK's drinking culture, and what else is going to happen? (Yes, I know what else happens!)

We've all seen hung-over CCs on morning flights - or perhaps they were just fatigued due to rostering, timezones or any of the other factors that affect humans when operating in the highly un-natural business of running around the planet at Mach 0.9. From my point of view, it doesn't really matter what the factors behind reduced performance are, it matters what the practical risk is - and I don't offhand know of any accident where CC impairment was a significant factor. So the practical implications, while serious, are limited.

I'm not saying that cabin crew don't need to be sober, rested and alert on the job: of course they do. But until the culture of the job is changed - a culture largely created by the airlines - incidents as described by this thread will continue to happen, as surely as putting fuel into a jet engine produces exhaust gasses as well as thrust. Moral outrage is misplaced and unhelpful.

R

Ixixly

25th Nov 2007, 10:34

Its also worthy of pointing out that just because they didn't break any laws doesn't mean that no company policies were broken. But in all honesty i don't anyone should slag them off until some sort of truth comes out.

All we have at the moment is a news story which could very well be incorrect in some ways, reports of allegations and the confirmation that a flight was cancelled with varying reports on cause of the cancellation (Some have mentioned tech, news obviously reports crew).

It will be interesting to find out the whole truth about this one though!!

6chimes

25th Nov 2007, 22:16

Personally, I can wait for the evidence and facts to emerge over the drinking allegation, but who for the love of God would in their right mind be still up at 0415 partying before a 1000 departure, with a pick up from the hotel as early as 0730?

That depends entirely on what time zone your body clock is on. In an industry that expects its employees to be fit in a time zone +8 hrs from GMT and the next week 8 hrs GMT, is it not to be expected that crew will be up and about when the rest of you that live in a particular time zone are sleeping and visa versa.

Don't quote me the rules laid down by the authorities (CAA), they were redundant years ago.

Many crew use alcohol as a way of getting sleep when the body clock is saying you should be awake. Sad but true.

Bear in mind the crew who were in MAN would have just done a London to Newark and be going back to the US again the next day. When you have done a back to back please let me know if you knew what time it was at any given point in the trip. How many SLF cross the pond 4 times in 6 days?

6

PC767

26th Nov 2007, 09:28

1) Offence only committed when crew report for duty and are over the defined alcohol limits. Therefore no offences reportable by the Police have been commited. CAA/Company regulations may not have been adhered too.
2) BA have no presence in MAN anymore. Therefore the 'Manager' who was dispatched would have been LHR based. Earliest flight LHR-MAN is 0635hrs, (if on-time). Manager would not be at hotel until at least 0900hrs. Cannot dismiss idea that Manager may live closer to MAN than LHR but would have to be contacted and briefed and then make own way.
Point is no BA Manager could confirm the allegation as it occurred or shortly after.
3) Flight deck could have, but having been woken from rest they would have issues regarding their own rules re rest and duty, whether allegation true or not.
4) This crew have two local nights acclimatization in JFK prior to flying to MAN. Therefore bodyclock could be JFK time of 2315hrs.
5) As always innocent until proved guilty. BASSA web forum has been locked on this issue. The last I checked the BA company crew web forum had no apparent mention of the issue. The allegations are being investigated and idol speculation is clearly not invited or indeed helpful.

TightSlot

26th Nov 2007, 11:18

Presumably, neither is idle speculation?

:E

Basil

26th Nov 2007, 13:25

Presumably, neither is idle speculation?

No, no, it was right first time, demonstrating the esteem in which we hold our cabin crew - honest :O

Get Smart

26th Nov 2007, 21:07

The JFK cabin crew were not partying in the bar at the Arora Hotel.

7 out of 8 of the crew were in bed.

There were more than one set of BA crew staying in the hotel that night.

The JKF crew's report call was delayed.

They were told of the allegation and all of them removed from flying duty.

There were tested by an independant company appointed by BA.

Only one crew member reportedly was over the limit.

I hope the anonymous caller is pleased with themselves. Firslty, they got their facts wrong which resulted in the cancellation of an entire flight affecting 150 passeners holiday.

If he/she was so concerned, a call to BA directly or the Capt/CSD would have resulted in the problem being sorted out far more effeciently without the need for so much disruption. They are, after all in charge of the crew. Sounds like one very nasty, jealous, spiteful caller to me!! :=

Just my opinion

TURIN

27th Nov 2007, 22:12

PC767
2) BA have no presence in MAN anymore. Therefore the 'Manager' who was dispatched would have been LHR based. Earliest flight LHR-MAN is 0635hrs, (if on-time). Manager would not be at hotel until at least 0900hrs. Cannot dismiss idea that Manager may live closer to MAN than LHR but would have to be contacted and briefed and then make own way.

Not quite accurate.

BA have closed the base but about half a dozen "Terminal Managers":confused: remain plus a bunch of chaps (40 or so) who keep the flying machine thingies airworthy. :D

Muizenberg

27th Nov 2007, 23:00

"Terminal Managers"...didn't see any when I operated MAN-JFK. I would have thought there would have been BA presence to supervise Aviance but in my experience have never seen anyone. The last time I operated MAN-JFK we needed a "BA" manager as there were problems with check-in, the aircraft was tech and the flight crew went into discretion. It was also mid-week...Where was this so called BA terminal manager then??

Bizzare, as anywhere else in the world we have a handling agent, there is also a BA uniformed CS manager and a BA suited manager above.

dollydaydream

28th Nov 2007, 08:59

And lets face it Aviance do need supervising!!

czechvoyager

28th Nov 2007, 10:08

I think that this is another example of the police going over the top regarding minor issues. As PC767 points out any offence wouldn't have been committed untill they reported for duty. Surely it's possible to have a couple of drinks the night before and still be under the limit the next day. What are the regulations/guidelines for cabin crew alcohol consumption in the period prior to commencing a shift? I once had an anomymous do-gooder call my base to say that I'd been drinking vat 19 from a bottle in the boot of my taxi, it was iron brew! (Scottish soft drink, the same colour as vat 19)

calltheball

28th Nov 2007, 10:21

Czechvoyager said
'I think that this is another example of the police going over the top regarding minor issues.'

I'd have to disagree on this occasion, it sounds like the police took a rational, sensible viewpoint and contacted the airline. This proactive approach is exactly what I want to see from the BiB.

Desk Jockey

28th Nov 2007, 23:24

Actually you shouldn't legally fly for a week after drinking irn bru because it's made from girders and then you affect the the compass thingy.:=

Basil

7th Dec 2007, 22:59

Just heard investigation revealed that the crew were cleared of any wrong doing, and that they may have been the subject of a malicious hoax.

TopBunk

8th Dec 2007, 07:55

Basil

The word on the street is wrong - source: a union rep close to the case.

Basil

9th Dec 2007, 10:03

Oh dear - I thought my source was well informed :sad:

deplanedeplane

9th Dec 2007, 12:37

Have to agree with you on that one bru. But only on the Frankfurt run. Went there 2 month ago for first time and asked if they had anything bigger than a pint ( No Pun Intended). Anyway the Bar Wrench came back with what I could only discribe as a Glass 5litre BUCKET. My Captain "O" Captain not to be out done or shown up by someone of LESSER rank Asked if he could have one too. Lets just say we were lucky to at the begining of a 48hr layover.

Woke up lunch time the next morning and even the hair on my toes HURT.

Strong and EVIL:E stuff that german beer.