Air France 747 flying back empty from SIN

[recceguy]

Last Saturday October 24, the 777 from Singapore to Paris (AF 257) had to come back empty - as flight attendants refused to perform their service due to a sudden illness of one of their colleagues at the hotel... but they were fit enough to board the empty aircraft back home of course :rolleyes:
In this company, emotional shock can be a reason for not showing himself for duty.
Guess how it's going to count for the monthly balace of profit in this company...

Tentative de suicide d'une htesse de l'air d'Air France - Entreprises - Actualité Challenges.fr (http://www.challenges.fr/actualites/entreprises/20091028.CHA8597/tentative_de_suicide_dune_hotesse_de_lair_dair_france.html)

[HZ123]

Unless you are party to such actions it would serve the majority to keep their remarks to themselves!

[Reinhardt]

There is a lot of possible comments to this. A lot of companies would not care and would have flown the aircraft back with the passengers.
This european one decided that the crew was unfit for duty, for moral reasons - but curiously not unfit for flying ?? :confused:
It also tells a lot about the power of unions, especially the cabin crew ones.. as in the current economic climate, you wouldn't have expected a wide-body to come back empty for a 10hrs flight...

[cityfan]

There is a big difference between fit to fly and fit for duty. I can fly on aircraft all day with my leg in a cast, but am not exactly fit for DUTY, and that is a simple physical issue. Mental health is as important, if not more so, as physical health!

I know we all like to roll our eyes at cabin crew issues (see above!), and, as a global BB we hear views from every the globe, union loving and union hating included, but one also has to understand that many, many international cabin crew bid to fly together as often as possible because they are close friends.

Also, call me crazy, but I don't want a cabin crew serving me if they have all been up crying half the night and are in no mood to provide any service whatsoever, let alone whether they are up to the SAFETY ASPECTS of their job, which is often overlooked by many.

[WrldWide]

I think the comment about not rushing to judgement is appropriate. Until one knows the real circumstances of the situation, it would be appropriate to withhold the stone throwing. There is another board on the web where that sort of sport is more the norm.
Cheers,
WW

[kiwiandrew]

Somewhat different situation but I recall a couple of years ago someone decided to kill themselves in LA by throwing themselves off a motorway overbridge . They struck a van carrying NZ cabin crew to LAX to do a LAX-AKL sector ( the flight crew were in a different van ) . In that particular case NZ ( rather than the crew themselves ) decided that the crew having witnessed someone splattered all over their windscreen would not be fit for duty and at considerable expense to the airline accommodated all pax in LAX for an additional night and deadheaded the crew home . It was interesting that at the time , IIRC , there was a lot of comment about the crew being 'too sensitive' ignoring the fact that the decision actually came from the airline rather than the crew .

[Ludo]

Funny that everybody is ready to believe whatever rubbish the journalists say about the French, especially when it is indeed rubbish. Only occasion when journalists are given any credit here.
Anyway, the article has everything wrong, starting with the type of aircraft (it was a 777 indeed).
No suicide attempt happened and the crew did not apply the "droit de retrait" as the article states, since it is something that only the Captain can do, no one else in the crew under French laws.
For privacy reasons I won't get into details, but an accident happened and the whole crew was involved, not only one person, and it was not suicide.
But of course, the explanation given by the article is much sexier :rolleyes:

[recceguy]

The type of aircraft (either a 777 or a 747) is totallly irrelevant to the subject.

[the crew did not apply the "droit de retrait" as the article states, since it is something that only the Captain can do, no one else in the crew under French laws ]

Wrong and wrong ! on countless occasions - like bird flu and the HKG flights, remember ? individuals from the cabin crew have been walking out singly, leaving the rest of the crew and the company to deal with the problem. Guess the same is going to happen now before flights to Kiev with the swine flu...

Now sorry, but apart imminent death nobody really see what could cause such a big airliner to come back empty from so far away ("une petite fatigue collective" maybe ?) Anyway, we all agree that it was important enough for the company to validate it...

[Ludo]

You appear not to be well informed recceguy. A crew member deciding not to fly for any reason is not at all the "droit de retrait". A crew member can only claim not to be fit to fly or fatigued. The "droit de retrait" is something else. It is based on the Code du Travail, Articles L321-8 and following, and protects workers placed in a working situation that could cause imminent and serious danger for their life or health.
The Conseil d'Etat deliberated (after a request for clarification from the Ministère des Transports), based on the Code de l'Aviation Civile, that only the Captain has the right to decide on behalf of the crew if an aircraft can safely fly without causing any danger for the safety and health of crew and passengers (référence n°377.142 du Registre des Déliberations, séance du 12 Mars 1985). All the manuals in French airlines must be based on this deliberation, it is the law. Every crew member knows it, and no one except the Captain would never dream of claiming that right.

[recceguy]

OK ludo, thanks for the clarification which suits me fine, and thank you for the search work involved (even recceguy can change his mind, you see)

[pax britanica]

If this was related toa suicide attempt there may be more to this than meets the eye because of the situation in France. By this I mean that the country's biggest telecoms operator FT/Orange has experienced a spate of suicides by employees and these have been attributed to work or immninet redundancy related stress. This has become a big political issue with the company setting aside a huge provision financially to try and alleviate stress and its effects in a company undergoinga radical change.

Given the 'rights' of the crew/captain described above and the political situation I do not see an AF management wanting to force any issues in this case.
In any event in France there is still more power/leverage with the employee side of the bargain than in many other countries and frankly as recent events in the world have shown perhaps thats not a bad thing at all.
PB

[Dairyground]

Now sorry, but apart imminent death nobody really see what could cause such a big airliner to come back empty from so far away


Of course, an empty passenger cabin does not necessarily mean an empty airliner. I understand that on some routes there is significantly more revenue from what's under the floor than what's above it. And out of position aircraft also have a cost.