Are male passengers perverts?

[sharksandwich]

From today's Mailonline:


Businessman sues BA 'for treating men like perverts'



By Sophie Borland (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=y&authornamef=Sophie+Borland)
Last updated at 9:14 AM on 16th January 2010


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/01/15/article-0-07DED61E000005DC-694_233x465.jpg Mirko Fischer claims BA brand all men as potential sex offenders

A businessman is suing British Airways over a policy that bans male passengers from sitting next to children they don't know - even if the child's parents are on the same flight.
Mirko Fischer has accused the airline of branding all men as potential sex offenders and says innocent travellers are being publicly humiliated.
In line with the policy, BA cabin crew patrol the aisles before take-off checking that youngsters travelling on their own or in a different row from their parents are not next to a male stranger.
If they find a man next to a child or teenager they will ask him to move to a different seat. The aircraft will not take off unless the passenger obeys.
Mr Fischer, a 33-year-old hedge fund manager, became aware of the policy while he was flying from Gatwick with his wife Stephanie, 30.
His wife, who was six months pregnant, had booked a window seat which she thought would be more spacious. Mr Fischer was in the middle seat between her and a 12-year-old boy.
Shortly after all passengers had sat down, having stowed their bags in the overhead lockers, a male steward asked Mr Fischer to change his seat.
Mr Fischer refused, explaining that his wife was pregnant, at which point the steward raised his voice, causing several passengers to turn round in alarm. He warned that the aircraft could not take off unless Mr Fischer obeyed.
Mr Fischer eventually moved seats but felt so humiliated by his treatment that he is taking the airline to court on the grounds of sex discrimination-He is paying all his own legal
If he wins at the hearing next month at Slough County Court, BA will have to change its policy.

[TSR2]

It seems to me that the most obvious course of action in this case would have been to move the 12 year old boy as I assume it was not Mr Fischer who allocated the seats in the first place.

[Avman]

The solution is simple. Cage the little buggers and put them in the hold. They'll be safe from perverts and the pax will be able to travel in peace and quiet.:E I'm joking of course

In all seriousness he has a valid point. I seem to recall reading a couple of articles recently involving female perverts.

[Final 3 Greens]

Difficult to comment with authority, as I was not there, but the description of the incident does not make the BA steward look particularly good at customer relations.

For example, the wife could have taken the middle seat. or the boy could have been moved.

Then again, there are two sides to a story.

Had this happened to me, I would have declined to move; if the plane misses it's slot, blame the airline for not having the gumption to implement it's own policy when allocating seats.

I had a 10 year old boy (UM) next to me on Air Malta last year, no problems. Air Malta placed him in 1D, where the crew could keep a close eye on him.

I was totally kn@ckered from playing board and card games by the time we arrived at Heathrow. A very charming and enthusiastic lad, whom it was a pleasure to sit next to.

[jetset lady]

The usual standards of reporting apply. This rule, whatever your opinion on it, only applies in the case of unaccompanied minors and is as much for the protection of the male passenger as it is the child. I also think I'm correct in saying that it has been argued out many times in the past on PPrune. I wonder if this gentleman's stance would change, if it was his child that was travelling unaccompanied? As to how the steward dealt with it, that I can't comment on, having not been there. But there are definitely right and wrong ways of handling this highly awkward situation.

TSR2,

There are particular rows allocated to UM's, chosen specifically for their proximity to the galley and the crew.

F3G,

From what I read of the story, the wife refused to sit in the centre as she was pregnant and, apparently, gets more room in the window seat. Not quite sure how that works!

[Runway 31]

Unless the child was travelling alone, why not exchange seats with a parent?.

[Final 3 Greens]

gets more room in the window seat. Not quite sure how that works!

Me neither.

[Capetonian]

This is, once again, a story about Bullying Britain, the Nanny State, which deprives the freedom of thinking from peope so that they will ultimately beome unable to do so.

I hope Mr. Fischer wins, resoundingly. This gives me yet another reason to avoid BA.

Women can be 'perverts' too, so for a start BA's policy is sexist, unless they change it to apply to adults of either sex, in which case it becomes almost unenforceable and certainly impractical.

I've been seated next to children, I've asked the parents if they are happy with that or wanted to change around, I've never had a problem with that and often happily chatted with the kids, who've always taken great delight in showing me how to use the IFE, which is far too complex for me!

[apaddyinuk]

Well there is obviously an elemant of power abusing in the case of the Cabin crew member. A total lack of diplomacy skills is very much apparent and I reckon this lawsuit has more to do with that then the actual rule.

The thing is, I was always under the impression that this rule was only brought in by BA as a result of some wider european law or industry standard practice. We had the exact same rule in Aer Lingus and even Qatar Airways when I was with both of those.

Now I know kids are not always a precious as they come across. I was actually working a flight where we had a very demanding and down right rude UM travelling with us who even threatened to accuse the female crew member looking after her of "abuse" if she didnt get what she want (A seat up in Club is what she wanted...can you believe that from a 9 year old?). Needless to say we had that little madam brought down a peg or two very quickly but to any men sitting next to a UM....Just be very bloody careful about what you do or say when sitting next to a kid. These rules are as much about your protection as they are the kids.

However I do agree that kids are at just as much risk from female passengers. We just have to look at the recent news stories in the UK to know that!

[jetset lady]

Capetonian suggests this is down to Bullying Britain, yet then states that if he is sat next to children, he will ask the parents if they are OK with that? Why ask, if it's not an issue? With UM's, there are no parents to ask.

As it happens, I complete agree with most posters. Females can present as much of a risk as males, but we are dealing with perception and predudice.

Imagine Susie, aged 8, is on her first ever flight alone. Shortly after take off, Susie gets a little upset. The crew are in the middle of service, so the passenger next to her tries to make her feel better by, maybe putting an arm round her shoulder, or giving her a hug. Nothing sinister in that at all. It's what most caring adults would do. By the time the service is complete, Susie is feeling much better and chatting away, ten to the dozen, to the passenger.

The flight lands and Susie can't wait to tell her Mummy all about it. "I was upset and this lady put an arm round me and gave me a cuddle", she says. The Mother will probably think, how nice of the lady to help her daughter out. But.....how about if Susie says, "I was upset and this man put his arm around me and gave me a cuddle". The chances are that in many cases, the Mother, possibly already feeling guilty about sending their precious child on a flight on their own, is going to have a slightly different reaction. Yes, it's wrong and highly unfair, but we appear to have been preconditioned to think that way. Before you know it, some poor gent that has done absolutely nothing wrong, is being questioned.

And that is the most innocent of scenarios. As Paddy has already said, not all children are sweetness and light. Some are extremely manipulative and they know just how to work the system. That's why I say, it's as much to protect the passenger as it is the child. It's not ideal, but right now, it's all we have to work with.

Does that make any sense?

[Capetonian]

Capetonian suggests this is down to Bullying Britain, yet then states that if he is sat next to children, he will ask the parents if they are OK with that? Why ask, if it's not an issue?

Because it's a common courtesy and if you don't understand that then I suggest you need some lessons in decent behaviour. Or maybe you don't have children of your own.

The rest of your comments make sense but the above doesn't.

[jetset lady]

You missed my point, Capetonian. Yes, it is indeed common courtesy and I'm not arguing that, but I'm asking if would you feel the need to ask parents if they mind you sitting next to their children, if you were female?

[Jarvy]

Further to Jetset lady, the accusation will most likely come from the Daily Mail.
Simple over reaction by both sides not being helped by the Daily Mail. Why not ask to speak with the CSD, or write to BA direct.
It is my belief that this is not about the rights or wrongs of this policy but about money.

[Capetonian]

but I'm asking if would you feel the need to ask parents if they mind you sitting next to their children, if you were female?

Sorry if I missed your point then, but the answer to your question is yes, I would. I would try to reseat so that the parents and children were as close to each other as possible. I just asked my wife and she said she would do the same automatically, and indeed we've done it when the situation has arisen. Of course some parents prefer not to sit next to their own children!

[Boss Raptor]

repeated from Cabin Crew thread on same subject - same thing happened to me best part of 8 years ago now - as I have been in the industry a fair time and used to travel a lot on ID tickets I was often asked if I would mind sitting next to an unaccompanied minor by the cabin crew just to make sure they were ok, not scared, sick etc...of course the cabin crew would also be coming by and doing their job to do the same

then I travelled on a US airline with a pre-reserved seat and the next seat was to be taken by a UM, I was asked/told very abruptly by cabin crew I should change seats as I was a single male next to an unaccompanied minor and that was against recent company policy...I explained I was airline staff and was quite happy with the scenario...but no

Yes I took offense 'single male = pervert' and refused to move and told them that was their issue/problem and that I had a pre-reserved seat and wasnt shifting, I suggested they 'shift' the kid...(and if they didnt like it they could off load me and my baggage delaying their flight...followed up by one hell of a PR nightmare/offensive by me on my return home...come on make my day!) - they shifted the kid...

At the time I and other passengers took great offense at that policy, its' insinuation and ramifications

Well done Mr. Fischer :ok:

[jetset lady]

Sorry if I missed your point then, but the answer to your question is yes, I would. I would try to reseat so that the parents and children were as close to each other as possible. I just asked my wife and she said she would do the same automatically, and indeed we've done it when the situation has arisen.

In that case, I apologise. I read your post incorrectly, thinking the parents were in say A and B, with the children in C,D and E, with yourself in the F seat. I have to admit to also trying to rearrange families where possible, so that a child has at least one parent next to them. But that's also in the interests of safety, should an emergency arise.



Of course some parents prefer not to sit next to their own children!


That is so true. You'd be amazed at how many parents travel up the front, in Club, whilst the kids are sat down the back of the aircraft!

[surely not]

I have had this argument with a represenetative from BA who was auditing us as the Handling Agent and had found that we had committed a heinous crime by seating a UM next to a male passenger. Like others I was astounded that such a blanket rule can be brought in to cover ALL male passengers as potential kiddy fiddlers.

It is bl:mad:dy nonsense and there is no justification for such a blanket ban. I have been vetted by the police and cleared as safe and suitable to coach youngsters at cricket, but this would not matter to BA, oh no, to them I am a male and therefore unable to control myself to behave decently and therefore a potential kiddy fiddler.

I hope he wins his law case. He felt embarrassed and insulted by the loud actions of the cabin crew member. Change the regs BA.

[Final 3 Greens]

This is not about the rights or wrongs of this policy this is about money.

Be very careful Jarvy, that it close to, if not, libel.

[apaddyinuk]

I have had this argument with a represenetative from BA who was auditing us as the Handling Agent and had found that we had committed a heinous crime by seating a UM next to a male passenger. Like others I was astounded that such a blanket rule can be brought in to cover ALL male passengers as potential kiddy fiddlers.

It is bldy nonsense and there is no justification for such a blanket ban. I have been vetted by the police and cleared as safe and suitable to coach youngsters at cricket, but this would not matter to BA, oh no, to them I am a male and therefore unable to control myself to behave decently and therefore a potential kiddy fiddler.

I hope he wins his law case. He felt embarrassed and insulted by the loud actions of the cabin crew member. Change the regs BA.

I have already stated my opinion that I think the rule is stupid and it does sound like the crewmember didnt exactly handly the situation with tact BUT I will defend it in the case of your arguement.
As a handling agent who are you to question (argue or debate) YOUR CLIENTS rules and regulations? you are getting paid by this company to do things as they want it done and by failing to do so you are simply passing the buck to the cabin crew and that is how these very examples occur! Lets not forget the highly unprofessional path you are taking your company down.

Also as a handling agent you should be aware that this is not BA rule, the vast majority of airlines impose such rules including all members of the Oneworld Alliance, Star Alliance and Skyteam (I have also worked for Qatar Airways in the past and they had the rule), correct me if I am wrong but I believe this rule has its roots in the US where even sneezing in the direction of someone can have you in court for attempted manslaughter!

Also, you may have undergone a security check to ensure you are not a kiddy fiddler but the airline cant prove that, its not like you carry these certicates prooving you are not a paedophile with you and anyways, just cos someone has never been caught doing something does not mean they dont!

At the end of the day airlines are taking huge gambles in accepting the carraige of children unaccompanied. We have already seen countless times in the past stories in the press of children being lost in airports by airlines, crews being sued by parents for administering first aid medication to sick kids etc etc. This is just another little rule (and lets face, in the grand scheme of things its no big deal and although "offensive" any reasonable person should understand why it is in place if explained as such) that the airlines have agreed to in order minimise their exposure to prosecution and I personally think this man sueing the company should not be allowed win any kind of monetary compensation simply because his problem seems to be with the crew member and not the rule itself and he is effectly getting on a high horse to make a point!


Yes the rule needs to change but apart from the idiot crew member involved I dont really see why BA is getting all the stick!

[surely not]

Paddy don't get all ar$$ey about something you weren't anything to do with. My discussion with the BA auditor was about the inference of the rule, not whether we would comply. As you correctly point out as a Handling Agent we do as we are bid unless it is in contravention of the law.

Most airlines allow discussion though as they recognise that some people in handling agents have also worked for airlines and are well qualified to make comment. You it seems, from your tone, think Handling Agents are all idiots.

Just because something is in the rule book doesn't make it right. Unquestioning compliance can be as dangerous as non compliance.

I have over 30 years in avaition and I can think of only one occassion where an Unmin was lost for a short while.

If a successful law suit against BA changes things to a more sensible solution then let it go ahead.

[jetset lady]

Paddy don't get all ar$$ey about something you weren't anything to do with. My discussion with the BA auditor was about the inference of the rule, not whether we would comply. As you correctly point out as a Handling Agent we do as we are bid unless it is in contravention of the law.




Your discussion? That's not what you called it in your first post. An argument is a whole different thing from a discussion!

[surely not]

Thank you Jetset Lady my whole argument is of course nonsense thans to this pedantry. I now humbly accept henceforward all males should be viewed with great suspicion when in the vicinity of children in airports as anyone of them could be kiddy fiddlers or they are about to become kiddy fiddlers.

I am disappointed that so many on here think this is a reasonable viewpoint. How many thousands of UM's have travelled unmolested on aeroplanes versus any that have had a problem? A sense of proportion is sadly missing.

[jetset lady]

I am disappointed that so many on here think this is a reasonable viewpoint. How many thousands of UM's have travelled unmolested on aeroplanes versus any that have had a problem? A sense of proportion is sadly missing.

Surely Not,

How many more times do we have to say this! Most of us agree with you, which you will see if you actually read our posts. But rules is rules and onboard an aircraft, we have to stick to them.

We have tried to explain some of the reasoning behind the rule, regardless of whether we think it is fair or unfair, but you can't seem to get it. This is not just about protecting the kids!

If this gentleman wins his case, it's not just BA that will have to amend their policies. And it will open up the possibility of many more law suits of this kind, against an awful lot of airlines!

[Capot]

What a bloody stupid rule, if it really exists.

If BA really wants to protect children, it should ban children sitting next to their parents. Studies show that 83.86% of abuse of children takes place within the family, 15% is by people known to the family, and 1.14% by strangers. I'm sure BA knows this, so why can't they get the priorities right?

Oddly enough, of all the risks faced by a child in an aircraft with or without its parents, the risk of abuse by a male stranger in the next seat during the flight is so low on the list it's invisible. (Is there a single case on record? Eh? Thought so.)

It's a risk that has been invented by one of those who make it their life's work to invent or exaggerate risks that must then be guarded against. The risk of being killed or injured in other ways at some point in the child's journey is greater by many orders of magnitude. Who was the reckless fool who allowed, even encouraged, the child to travel by air in the first place? Seize, try and execute that criminal, I say.

Another issue that BA should step up to the plate about within the time-scale of the here and now is the probability that the risk of encountering a person who might abuse vulnerable kiddies is probably greater among BA's male cabin staff than among BA's male passengers. Not many in either population, of course; it's the relative risk we're talking about. Is BA on to that little problem? Eh? Thought so.

And then, if a child is found next to a male passenger who might attempt to abuse it while the passengers in the same row suddenly have an attack of deafness and blindness (the problem only arises in full aircraft, as I understand it), it is the child who should be moved. But where to? Nowhere is safe in the fantasy world of lurking dangers inhabited by the morons who dream up this sort of idiocy, aided and abetted by the morons who try unprotestingly to enforce these "rules", probably chanting "More than my jobsworth, innit, pervert, to let you stay there; if you talk back to me and don't obey instantly I'll have you thrown off, because we can do that."

I hope that guy wins his case.

[apaddyinuk]

Paddy don't get all ar$$ey about something you weren't anything to do with. My discussion with the BA auditor was about the inference of the rule, not whether we would comply. As you correctly point out as a Handling Agent we do as we are bid unless it is in contravention of the law.

Most airlines allow discussion though as they recognise that some people in handling agents have also worked for airlines and are well qualified to make comment. You it seems, from your tone, think Handling Agents are all idiots.

Just because something is in the rule book doesn't make it right. Unquestioning compliance can be as dangerous as non compliance.

I have over 30 years in avaition and I can think of only one occassion where an Unmin was lost for a short while.

If a successful law suit against BA changes things to a more sensible solution then let it go ahead.

Surelynot, I fear it is you with the attitude and tone and not me! I am not getting arsy, I am merely rising to the debate that you set with your previous comments. I too have worked for a handling agency and it was the best few years I have had in the industry...or at least and airline that provided handling to numerous carriers and I know exactly how it works so try not to assume what my opinions are towards handeling agents and perhaps try to understand why some people are questioning your opinion. As already said I do think its a stupid rule but your wording in your previous message seems to suggest that you were to become a law onto yourself and your sarcastic response to Jetset also suggests you are incapable of rising to a sensible professional and mature debate!

I am disappointed that so many on here think this is a reasonable viewpoint. How many thousands of UM's have travelled unmolested on aeroplanes versus any that have had a problem? A sense of proportion is sadly missing.

Planes crash and people die! But the sense of proportion is also very small. So why bother doing all the security, safety checks/training day in day out in the very very remote chance that the plane might crash again? Its ludacrise isnt it?

Not at all, and thats why precautions are taken with UMs cos people hold a very high value of their children and if anything happens to a child when in the care of someone else it is a big deal apparently. Airlines learn from the tombstone imperative therefore it leads me to assume that once upon a time a child was sat next to a molestor and it was a big deal hence the airlines have come to this procedure!

You have your views, but does not always mean they are flawless!

But ill say it again, I still think the rule is stupid!

[apaddyinuk]

Another issue that BA should step up to the plate about within the time-scale of the here and now is the probability that the risk of encountering a person who might abuse vulnerable kiddies is probably greater among BA's male cabin staff than among BA's male passengers. Not many in either population, of course; it's the relative risk we're talking about. Is BA on to that little problem? Eh? Thought so.

Yes they are aware of that (Dont know if i agree that male cabin staff are a great risk, what are you basing that on exactly? Sexual orientation? Being in a position of care? Or the fact that they all undergo security checks which however I fear is flawed simmply because it only counts if you are caught doing something) and that is why it is policy that male staff looking after UM;s never do so alone or leave themselves in a position to be accused of any indecent behaviour!

And can I just reiterate...(im not shouting) THIS IS AN INDUSTRY WIDE POLICY...Its not just BA that enforce it!

[jetset lady]

What a bloody stupid rule, if it really exists.

If BA really wants to protect children, it should ban children sitting next to their parents. Studies show that 83.86% of abuse of children takes place within the family, 15% is by people known to the family, and 1.14% by strangers. I'm sure BA knows this, so why can't they get the priorities right?


Aaaaaaaarrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhhh! :{

Have you read any of the previous posts at all?

Maybe it's time to give up.....

[Capot]

Hello, Jetset Lady,

Funnily enough I did read the thread, including your rather unhelpful lectures to everyone else without much original thought.

Your remark I have to admit to also trying to rearrange families where possible, so that a child has at least one parent next to them. triggered my comment along the lines that this action may well place the child in the most risky situation possible (..."most abuse is within the family"...OWTTE).

Your remark rules is rules and onboard an aircraft, we have to stick to them. triggered my comment about jobsworths; that general principle applies to aviation safety rules and not idiotic rules that are nothing to do with aviation safety.

And finally your remark And it will open up the possibility of many more law suits of this kind, against an awful lot of airlines! led indirectly to my comment about people who invent risks. What did you mean by "law suits of this kind"? If the gentleman wins his case and airlines abandon the policy as a result, cases "of this kind" will cease, won't they? If the gent wins and they don't abandon the policy, then they should be sued and sued again until they do.

If you meant that if he wins, airlines will be sued more often because the floodgates of abuse of children by adjacent male passengers will thereby have been opened, I wonder why you think that male passengers will suddenly start abusing minors in a next door seat? Did you observe a lot of that sort of thing going on, in the bad old days before male passengers found sitting next to a strange minor were accused of being potential abusers and told to move immediately?

[jetset lady]

capot,

If you can't take my comments in context, think I am "lecturing" just because I have a stab at trying to explain why these rules may exist and finally, imply that I am a jobsworth solely on the basis that I follow the rules that I have to follow, then I really can't be bothered to try anymore.

You're right. I'm wrong. Does that make you feel better? :rolleyes:

[kaikohe76]

Should not apply to me I hope as I continue to avoid BA at all costs. Furthermore, when you book with BA, are you advised of this rule / regulation at the time?

[Capot]

JSL, Yes, thanks.

I don't think anyone needed the rule explained to them, or why it exists; what's so difficult to understand about that?

The argument running in the thread is that it is a silly rule, and the reasons for it do not stack up.

My first post was meant to show just how ridiculous (meaning: "laughable") it, and the reasons for it, really are.

Simply telling us all that you agree that it's wrong, or something like that, but that you'll enforce it because your bosses tell you to doesn't move the argument forward much.

If you think that not allowing male passengers to be seated next to a child, and ordering the male passenger to move if that happens, is a sensible rule that responds to a quantifiable and real risk, then please tell us why you believe that and what the evidence is supporting your belief.

If you think that all that is plain daft, then stand up to your bosses and say that you will not allow yourself to be embarrassed by and mocked for enforcing it.

[jimbeetle]

There have been quite a few instances in the states over the past few years of females having affairs with or molesting minor children (I think we've had three over the past year in the NYC school system alone). So it ain't just men airlines should worry about. That Perfect, she's a school teacher, she can sit next to him's hand can creep under the blankie just as easily.

[jetset lady]

Capot,

What's the point? You aren't interested in listening to my view/lecture, therefore, I would be wasting my time and your time by even attempting to answer any of your points.

One I will say though. The reason I asked if you had read the thread, was your opening statement...

What a bloody stupid rule, if it really exists. (my bold)

This point had been covered pretty comprehensively, a few posts back.


kaikohe76

As explained more than once, it will depend on where you are flying and who with, but if it's within the UK, chances are, yes it will affect you, BA or no BA.

Jsl

[Glamgirl]

You'll all have to bear with me on this one...

The rule within a lot of airlines is that no single man (as in travelling alone) is allowed to sit immediately next to a UM (unaccompanied minor). The cabin crew have no choice in the matter, we must follow the rules set by our employer (unless we'd like a P45, of course).

The rule is mainly to protect the male passenger. Unfortunately, children sometimes lie. As an example: A few years back, I had a call from a manager asking what happened on a certain flight with a UM. I got a lot of questions. It turns out the child said my crew and I hadn't looked after the child and ignored him throughout the flight. This was (obviously) not true (I wouldn't be here otherwise). Basically, the child had wanted a teddy and sweets from the duty free trolley for free (as he was bored) and this was naturally declined. Therefore, he lied to his mother, who was the one complaining to the company. It got cleared up pretty quickly, thank goodness.

The above is one example as to how careful one must be when dealing with children. I would love for all kids to be little angels and all sweetness, but unfortunately that doesn't always happen.

I know that there are female abusers out there, but traditionally (for the lack of a better word), abusers tend to be majority male. Remember, kids read so much on the internet these days, that they may get "inspired". This whole thing is such a minefield, unfortunately.

I have to say that although I wasn't on the flight described in the DM article, it sounds like the situation wasn't handled very well by the crew member. One has to be very discreet in such situations, especially when having to move someone. I suspect this crew member will have received a b:mad:ing from their manager (or worse). This crew member (by the sounds of it) hasn't understood the ruling properly. The passenger shouldn't have to move as he was travelling with his wife. Then again, we don't actually know what happened that day.

Gg

[west lakes]

As an aside it is worth notiing that, even tthough CRB checked, national guidelines for statutory and voluntary organisations are that no adult should be alone with any young person at anytime, even if this is just in sight of another adult.
And yes it is for the protection of the adult more than anything
In some organisations this advice predates CRB?PC etc.

[al446]

As I posted in another thread currently running -

I have just opened today's incoming mail and received my enhanced CRB check which is clear. However, if it was explained to me discretely that the policy existed I would have asked that a solution be found which is acceptable to myself and my wife. As Matt101 states the stats uphold this but I would argue that the stats are wrong as has been recognised by at least one national broadsheet (Guardian). Maternal and female physical of children has been with us for ages, nuns spring to mind, female sexual abuse of kids was not seen as being as widespread as it is now presently feared. Until the situation becomes clearer I think this policy will remain in place and the court case will fail.

Kaikohe - I am sure that if you phoned BA to specifically book a seat next to an UM you would have been informed of this as would pax involved. I similarly doubt that when booking with any airline that you are informed that you must not throw food or drinks around onboard or of any other normal societal norm.

In this case the fault does not lie with the policy but its implementation if all is it seems. However it could be that the CC involved acted properly and this has been an over-reaction or that the seats were allocated with the intention of the wife being seated next to the UM (was her pregnancy disclosed and asked to be considered at booking?). So many variables we are unaware of.

[G-CPTN]

As a newcomer to this topic, I can accept that the airline will have their 'rules' WRT seating of unaccompanied minors and single adult males.
I can see the advantage to the male passenger, but, as I understand it, the ruling is intended for 'male passengers travelling alone' rather than a male accompanied by his (pregnant) wife.

Had seating allocation been determined as on Easyjet, then there could be a case for asking the male passenger to find an alternative seat, but, as it was the airline's agent who agreed the seating, I believe it was up to the airline (ie cabin crew) to resolve the situation by moving the UM, or, by offering the male (and, in this case, his pregnant wife) alternative seating that was to their satisfaction.
If the UM could not be found a suitable seat, the married couple should have been offered equivalent (or superior) seating as an incentive rather than be instructed (on pain of delaying the flight) to move! The problem was the UM, not the male passenger.

Sounds to me like the steward was having a dose of 'authority'. Under the circumstances I, too, would have resisted being separated from my wife - pregnant or otherwise.

Extremely bad PR IMO.

[Haven't a clue]

If the risk of a single chap sitting next to an UM is that great then why on earth don't the airlines try to leave the adjacent seat free?

And why do they introduce charges for seat selection (accompanied with a phrase like "ensure you sit together") to force parents to pay to make sure they are sitting next to their offspring when (according to the Daily Mail article posted by the OP) the rule applies not only to UMs but any child.

I find it difficult to reconcile the airlines' position here against an earlier thread relating to a parent claiming his legal right to sit next to his children.

[hval]

I can think of a flight with BA (LHR - CDG) where I was a Unaccompanied Male and was placed besides a young (approximately nine years old) French boy. This was a number of years ago and the BA crew knew me (I flew that often with BA I knew them better than my partner).

The poor young chap had a bad cold and had blocked ears. He spent much of the flight in tears. I was able to assist by speaking French with the boy and to comfort him (with words) much of the flight. I was also able to convey to the cabin crew his troubles and what he was saying. I got the impression that some one who was flying first class (other legs of the journey) and whom was willing to assist was much appreciated. This left the crew to carry out their duties as per usual. I certainly know

To me this seems eminently sensible. Why the stupid rules now a days?

As an aside I refuse to fly BA these days. After too many strikes, cancelled flights, lost baggage, delayed flights, having to get a bus to a plane etc. I refuse to travel with them. Do I mind? Yes. I had a good rapport with the crew.

[Mike X]

Anything stopping the CC from fiddling ? They're human too.

Have helmet, rations, compass & heading for door.

[Tolsti]

Hang on chaps.... could we not use this to our advantage ?.... If you're sitting directly in front of some apprentice chav who insists on kicking the back of your seat, folding and unfolding the meal tray (where fitted) can you not ask to be moved as you 'might be a pervert'?

[Glamgirl]

Before any more people get in a tizz about this:

As I understand the "article", the husband and wife were not asked to sit separately. They were asked to swap seats between the two of them.

We don't know for sure whether the child was a UM or sitting away from his parents (for whatever reason).

I'd like to remind people that although it seems that the cc in question seem to have been somewhat ott, none of us were there and therefore don't know the full story.

Gg

[MathFox]

Glamgirl, you are assuming things I don't read in the original article. It could be that "the Flight Attendant" didn't communicate clearly enough to Mirko... :E

I am single, male and flying regularly (for business.) On two flights I ended up seated next to "young women" that could use a hug (One girl was on her first holiday alone... age: AM-optional, the other (US-)girl was just refused entry to the UK :ouch:)
What happened... I acted as a gentleman, listened to their stories and tried to provide some distraction. I even accompanied the "girl on first holiday" to her connecting gate (my flight was three gates down from hers).

But according to BA I would have been a :mad: criminal... just because the airline gave me a seat next to a female "minor"... b:mad:t!

(BTW, how can one commence anything serious in the space an airline allots in economy class?)

[MG23]

As I understand the "article", the husband and wife were not asked to sit separately. They were asked to swap seats between the two of them.

And? Why should they be forced to sit where they don't want to sit because of some paranoid scare stories?

Personally I'm more than glad to be told that kids won't be allowed to sit next to me on a flight because I'm sure to have a much less annoying time with adults sitting next to me who know how to behave. But if you have a problem with kids sitting next to adults then move the kids; I didn't ask them to be on the plane.

As to the idea that this is 'protecting adults', I would imagine that any sensible person would be more scared of discovering that our culture is bringing up kids so badly that they'll make accusations of sexual abuse against strangers just for the heck of it than that some pervert might try something on a plane full of people who'd probably be quite happy to beat the heck out of them for doing so.

P.S. I have no problem with moving when there's a good reason for it: on the last transatlantic flight I made I changed seats so a couple with a baby could sit together. But this is just nanny state nonsense: a kid on a plane is more likely to be blown up by a terrorist than abused by a stranger.

[Capetonian]

a much less annoying time with adults sitting next to me who know how to behave.

Really? The most annoying people who've sat adjacent to me on flights have been adults. Overflowing into my space, opening their newspapers into my space, playing their ghastly noise through raspy hissy headphones, farting, belching, sniffing, picking their noses, breathing halitosis and garlic laden breath over me, non-stop talking, trying to convert me, fidgeting, spilling drinks, falling asleep lolling over me. Children are far more pleasant travel companions.

Except the 24 year old blonde who had her hands all over me on the flight and tried to seduce me into coming to her hotel when we arrived in the evening. Sadly though I woke up and discovered my coffee was cold and it was all a dream.

[Final 3 Greens]

I think it is a great shame that JSL is getting some stick for explaining the BA SOPs and saying that she will apply these.

One should remember that cabin crew are in the chain of command and also that English company law says that employees must execute lawful instructions.

There is nothing 'jobsworth' in this attitude, it demonstrates a professional and disciplined attitude.

[InSeat19c]

Whatever the rights and wrongs are in an airline having such a ruling, Mr Fischer should not have been asked to move in such a way as to embarrass him.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty ?

No wonder he feels upset enough to sue.

I hope the cabin crew member concerned learns from this little escapade.

[apaddyinuk]

Whatever the rights and wrongs are in an airline having such a ruling, Mr Fischer should not have been asked to move in such a way as to embarrass him.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty ?

No wonder he feels upset enough to sue.

I hope the cabin crew member concerned learns from this little escapade.

And I personally think this is the core of the dilemma! It is not so much that BA do not want UMs sitting beside men, its because Mr Fischer was dealt with very poorly and was made to feel embarrassed as the crew member clearly failed to use any tact in the enforcement of the rule!

At the end of the day, agree or disagree with the rule, us crew must enforce it (and those attacking Jetsetlady deserve a slap for accusing her of being a jobsworth, from reading her replies over time she actually sounds like a hoot to work with) as that is their job! There are sooooo many rules and regulations that us crew must follow, so many of them are stupid and futile (and I can think of at least two others which could be considered offensive by some but am soooo keeping those to myself) but at the end of the day we must do them. We can take it up with who ever sets the rules but until we are told otherwise we must enforce!

[Xeque]

Is this thread for real?
I have no problem sitting next to an UM provided the UM behaves itself and doesn't upset me. The moment it does upset me I call a member of the cabin crew and tell them to deal with it.
What is wrong with that?

[MG23]

And I personally think this is the core of the dilemma! It is not so much that BA do not want UMs sitting beside men, its because Mr Fischer was dealt with very poorly and was made to feel embarrassed as the crew member clearly failed to use any tact in the enforcement of the rule!

By attempting to enforce this rule you're either saying:

1. You believe that the man is a pervert who can't be trusted around kids, or:
2. You believe that the kid is going to cry 'rape!' for no good reason.

There's no way can be 'tactful' about something as insulting as that.

As for 'enforcing company rules', personally I've routinely ignored stupid company rules in my professional career when it was clearly detrimental to our customers; I think you'll find that's the norm in most other industries, because the airline business seems to be one of the few which doesn't believe that 'the customer knows best'. Anyone who uses that excuse is merely trying to avoid taking the blame for their own actions by passing the buck: they are precisely what we use to call 'jobsworth' back in the days when Britons used to laugh at such people rather than take them seriously.

My question is what will happen if he wins this case, which I suspect he has a good chance of doing given it clearly is sexual discrimination? Either BA will have to start putting kids in their own section of the plane, or simply ban them from flying altogether to ensure that they're 'protected'.

[al446]

Without being judgemental I notice that nobody has yet forwarded the possibility that Mr Fischer is just throwing HIS dummy out of the pram and the CC acted correctly. We do not know.

[Capot]

English company law says that employees must execute lawful instructions.

There is nothing 'jobsworth' in this attitude, it demonstrates a professional and disciplined attitude. Hmmm, does "English company law" really say that? Act, Section, any references? I would be interested. Does England have its own laws?

That general line is what I understand the lawyering trade call "The Nurnberg Defence". In short, "Only doing what I'm told, snot my fault innit."

It doesn't stack up any more than the feeble drivel about "it's to protect the adult, not the child". I'll decide what protection I need, thanks, and if I feel threatened by a child next to me I'll ask to move and explain why.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

I really understand that this is a serious subject, but are we now looking to Security confiscating Werther's Originals, just in case?

PC has gone completely mad.

[Final 3 Greens]

Capot

In my opinion, you are slightly deranged, but I will defend you right to be deranged to the death.

For the reference,try the Employment Relations Act 2000.

[InSeat19c]

Is this thread for real?
I have no problem sitting next to an UM provided the UM behaves itself and doesn't upset me. The moment it does upset me I call a member of the cabin crew and tell them to deal with it.
What is wrong with that?

@Xeque

I think you've misunderstood this thread. No one is objecting to sitting next to a youngster, but some (including me who as a single chap that sometimes flies alone) object to assumptions being made that we are somehow a threat to a child travelling on their own.

That's bad enough, but if a member of the cabin crew loudly insists that you move (as happened to Mr Fischer who was sitting next to a child he did not know) then I think we have a right to feel aggrieved.

[Xeque]

I was being sarcastic (or trying to be). I do think the whole thing is shameful. Protect children - yes. But this? It is a very sad reflection on the state of affairs that exists in poor Broken Britain today.

[kaikohe76]

There appears to be little difference these days in flying as pax with BA & all the fun of arrival or departure through any US major airport, I would avoid both these situations.
Personally, I hope the pax wins his case & takes BA to the cleaners & oh a big kick up the backside for the particular CC member, who did a great discredit to his/her colleagues by leaving his brain at home that day!

[mmurray]

Really? The most annoying people who've sat adjacent to me on flights have been adults. Overflowing into my space, opening their newspapers into my space, playing their ghastly noise through raspy hissy headphones, farting, belching, sniffing, picking their noses, breathing halitosis and garlic laden breath over me, non-stop talking, trying to convert me, fidgeting, spilling drinks, falling asleep lolling over me. Children are far more pleasant travel companions.

Well said. You missed snoring. I wish I could have swapped the guy on my last flight for a crying baby.

It would seem that on this whole issue a strategic upgrade might be the solution. I think I could manage to cope with `excuse me sir we think you might be a threat to this child could you please accompany me to first class' without taking offense. At least if I was starting in my usual economy class seat. Of course the guy in question had his wife with him who seemed to want the window seat due for some reason I assume related to her pregnancy. So swap the child with someone else.

Michael

[Wannabe Flyer]

A Policy set up by BA is their Prerogative taking into account the times/litigious society we live in. However am I missing something here...........

His wife, who was six months pregnant, had booked a window seat which she thought would be more spacious. Mr Fischer was in the middle seat between her and a 12-year-old boy.

Have people not been taught to gauge the situation before enforcing policy blindly???

If the steward thought the man in question was a threat in spite of sitting next to his pregnant wife then switching seats in my opinion would not have helped as this would imply that his pregnant wife in the first place would have assisted or condoned his behavior if he so chose to molest the child by simply leaning over her. Apparently her presence or for that matter a third persons presence is not an adequate deterrent.! If that was the case then BA should amend their policy to read "No Children to be seated in the same row as a un related male!"

My personal opinion all policy written by a lawyer that BA hired of the thrift line (probably an ambulance chaser) to save a few bucks and enforced by an inadequately trained crew member. :ugh:

[hotmetal]

For the reference,try the Employment Relations Act 2000.

Can you be more specific. I have had a quick look and can't find this act in UK law. I have found a New Zealand act but nothing for the UK. Which section do you think applies?

[radeng]

So what happens if it isn't possible to find an alternative seat in the class booked, or a higher class? Is the male passenger going to be downgraded or off loaded?

I did have a flight to Nice a few months back, when I was seated next to a very attractive Italian girl in her early 20s. When we hit turbulence (actually enough for CC to be instructed to fasten seat belts), she said 'Talk to me. I'm frightened'. She didn't need a cuddle, though......

[apaddyinuk]

@ Radeng and anyone else asking similar questions about offloading of men.

This is what I wrote in a similar thread in another part of Pprune...








The fact of the matter is that the rule states that UM's cannot be seated next to "Male passengers travelling alone"! No male passenger needs to be moved or offloaded. It is actually up to the checkin agent to ensure when the UM is being allocated a seat that it is next to a female. What happened on board this flight happened because the crew member WAS IN THE WRONG. This man was NOT travelling alone so therefore does not come under the ruling AND even if he was, the rule does not state that the male needs to move, the crew member should have used some cop on and just move the kid without causing any fuss or even needing to reveal the rule.

Every company has idiots like that who both get the rules wrong and seem to glee in imposing their version of the rules on others...suppose its a power trip thing!

[radeng]

Paddy,

It's not unknown on a Friday night for Club Europe to be full of men and no women travelling back from Europe to Heathrow. Now if a UM was booked in Club Europe with an onward connection to Oz, then what? Downgrade the UM, and upgrade someone from Economy? You can see that going down well with the UM, espeiclaly if they are expecting a meal. Even if every possible opportunity was taken at check in to avoid the problem, one can see that circumstances can arise from this rule where CC are in deep dodo whatever they do - especially if there's been cancellations.

I've had a similar experience on Amercian Airline. The CC wanted to keep the last row clear to put stuff on, and lady with three kids had them in the same row as me, and her over the aisle. CC didn't want to know (usual AA CC bloody mindedness) until I politely asked if they didn't have SOPs for unaccompanied males sitting next to children. With bad grace, she moved me back a row......probably because she figured someone knowing what SOP stood for just might be able to cause trouble.

[gdiphil]

Thanks radeng, I hadn't spotted that ploy. I'll use that one to get a better seat when I next have an UM next to me.

[Papillon]

Perhaps the perfect government solution would be to ensure that only those who have been through the Vetting and Barring process are allowed in the same cabin as children. :uhoh:

[apaddyinuk]

Redang,

Im crew and as such I am more aware of the many holes in this rule then you can imagine. It is a difficult one and one that needs to be dealt with on the day. But the fact of the matter is this.....No other passengers need to be made aware of the situation! The crew should deal with the child as such and leave everyone else out of it.

Like a broken record...yes the rule is daft, yes its a very grey area BUT its here and we have to obey it until something changes and as such you can pick holes in my apparent "defense" of the rule as much as you like but those are the facts! lol

But to be honest, I dont think I have ever seen a UM actually booked in any cabin other then WT.

[radeng]

paddy,

I've seen one UM in Club Europe from Nice (LHR - NCE - LHR is almost a commuter flight for me these days): I believe it was transiting on to the Far East in Club World. But I agree, it's not usual.

Just as having 2 pax assigned the same seat isn't usual......last time it happened to me, I kept the seat even though I was second one there, because they'd got the special meal booked for that seat!

[kaikohe76]

Does anyone know what the current position is of the particular CC member in this case? I feel the vast majority of CCs presented with this situation, would have engaged their brains first & then dealt with it using respect, diplomacy & tact, funny that often gets a good result all round.

[Piltdown Man]

I hope Mirko Fischer wins his defamation/discrimination case. This sort of nonsense and the numpties who make these stupid rules and have to be sorted out quickly and hopefully, very expensively. It's amazing how quickly rules are changed when cash provides the incentive.

PM

[ExXB]

Actually, I would hope that Mr. Fischer could be appeased by an apology. Not from BA but from the CC that caused the problem - by not applying BA policy and engaging one's mouth before one's brain.

I also hope that BA has a second thought about this. If they are going to take responsibility for the UM, they simply cannot dump them in a seat 'near the galley' and hope for the best. Why not confirm a stand-by staff member to sit next to little precious?

[bkehoe]

Funny, I had never intended on posting on my recent experience with BA until I saw this thread.

The exact same situation happened with me 3 weeks ago when travelling back from Baltimore to LHR. I paid to pre-select a window seat in Economy, checked in online all with no problems for my assigned seat. Got to my seat and there's an unaccompanied minor sat beside me on the aisle seat. I must point out that I'm only 24 so hardly fit the old man pervert image but that it subsequently how I was made to feel soon enough. Just before pushback a cabincrew member comes over after they've checked seatbelts, etc.
She bluntly tells me that I'm not allowed to sit beside a young child and tells me that I have to move. Of course I'm not going to give up my paid for window seat without at least questioning the reasons so I protest the case and tell her that I specifically selected a window seat and didn't understand why I had to move. The child, a 14 year old boy, at that point offered to move as he didn't even want to be near a window and there were 2 middle rows free down the back. However she was having none of it and told me that I was the one that had to move as I shouldn't have sat there in the first place!!!! So I get brought down the back and put right at the very back in a seat that wouldn't even recline due to the bulkhead behind it so as a result I couldn't sleep.

While I've no intention of making a bigger deal out of this other than an email to customer services, I won't be travelling with BA in the future because of the way this was handled and how they made me feel. Handled differently I'd have no problem with this policy, even a simple apology from a member of the cabin crew would have been sufficient. The fact the matter wasn't dealt with using discretion annoyed me most. All the passengers in the near vicinity heard what she was saying.

Already I've booked my next flight to the US with a different airline even though BA was €30 cheaper. Good work guys ;)

[radeng]

You should at least demand the money back that you paid for a window seat. I'd write a personal letter to Willy complaining and demanding the money.

[MathFox]

[The cabin crew member] bluntly tells me that I'm not allowed to sit beside a young child and tells me that I have to move. Of course I'm not going to give up my paid for window seat without at least questioning the reasons so I protest the case and tell her that I specifically selected a window seat and didn't understand why I had to move.
I wonder how a cabin crew member would react if you replied:
"I am willing to move to another seat, but as I paid to reserve this seat I would like that request from you in writing, so that I can pass it to my lawyer to get a refund of the reservation fee and compensation for ending up on a worse seat than is part of the contract I have with BA."
Any crewmember willing to answer?

[amanoffewwords]

Where does it say in your contract with BA that certain seats in a given class are better than others?

[Final 3 Greens]

bkehoe

No problem, write them a letter outlining your loss of enjoyment on the flight due to their breach of the contract by failing to provide the seat you paid for.

Ask for a refund of the cost of the seat, pus £50 for loss of enjoyment (couldn't sleep due to non reclining seat etc)

Give it 7 days, if they don't reply or you aren't happy with the reply, give them a final warning and let them know (in temperate language) that the next stop witll be the small claims division of the county court, set a deadline of 10 days

If you get there, you will be able to have a good laugh when the administrator questions (a) why they were not able to manage their own policy by allocating seats to minors that comply with that policy (b) why they decided to breach their contract for the seat and to provide another seat with inferior comfort, when you had paid specifically for a seat with recline - if they argue they reserve the right to change seats, that will be a huge laugh given the lad offered to move and they forced you to and (c) rest assured that the cost of defending the action will be many time more than any compo you get.

Like other posters, I understand the reasons for this policy, however it does not excuse this type of jackbooted behaviour by cabin crew.

You were bullied, IMHO and bullying should be punished.

[UniFoxOs]

Like other posters, I understand the reasons for this policy, however it does not excuse this type of jackbooted behaviour by cabin crew.

I don't believe that BA employ FAs that are so thick that they don't know and understand the rules and how they are supposed to be applied. I think it more likely that this sort of behaviour is a cheap revenge for not being able to carry out their Christmas strike, similar to the "throwing away vintage wine and unused travel packs" stories we have been hearing. A sort of "work to rule" in the most bloody-minded way possible. Shows how pi55ed off they are - unfortunately pi55ing off the paying customers as well is not the recommended method of keeping your job!

UFO

[Final 3 Greens]

UFO

I had written a final sentence questioning whether this type of behaviour could be driven by the cabin crew's beefts with management, then deleted it on second thoughts.

But you may well be spot on the money with your analysis.

BA needs to be punished for the actions of it's employees, since if enough people take a stand, the company will have to react.

[Haven't a clue]

As I hadn't heard about this policy until this thread started one wonders whether there has been an "incident" triggering a reminder to CC to enforce this particular SOP?

And as for UniFoxOs' point re BA CC having a hissy fit, he may be right. I was irritated on my last BA LH flight to hear the CSD's welcome announcement include an apology in advance for any slippage of service standards "because we are now required to have 14 cabin crew onboard instead of the usual 15".

[LetsFlyAway]

BA obviously had discussions with the UM's parent/guardian before the flight or at time of booking.

So why cant the policy be that during that discussion you ask the parent if they object to their UM sitting next to a male travelling on their own?

How many parents would actually say "yes i object, please sit them next to a female"???

[UniFoxOs]

How many parents would actually say "yes i object, please sit them next to a female"???

Probably not a lot. But how many other pax, cc, airport staff are going to jump to the wrong conclusion when the UM is crying and the pax alongside has tried to comfort her? I don't want to take that chance.

It's a bloody sad world, but I am coming to the conclusion that if I see ANY child in difficulties the only safe steps to take are long ones - in the opposite direction.

UFO

[radeng]

UFO,

My thoughts exactly!!

[belfrybat]

It's a bloody sad world, but I am coming to the conclusion that if I see ANY child in difficulties the only safe steps to take are long ones - in the opposite direction.

Something like that happened a couple of years back. Someone saw a little girl passing by, evidently lost, but didn't approach her for fear of being called a pedo. She was later found drowned in a pond.

[kaikohe76]

Yes belfrybat you are absolutely right,
Great pity all this & could have so easily been avoided had the particular CC member engaged their brain first, the situation in question just should never have taken place, what happened to respect, diplomacy, consideration, tact etc.
When I was a youngster, we were told, if you were ever alone & got into trouble, go & speak to a man if you could & ask for help. Can,t do that these days of course, BA would think you a possible pervert.
As I understand, pax are required to obey all `lawful` instructions from the Crew, that is fair enough, but in this case, was it a lawful instruction, to require the man to move seats?

[marsie]

I can understand a need for caution, but slapping on a generic rule like 'no UM next to male passengers' is really sad. About 8 years ago (maybe more) I was on a CityJet flight from Dublin to London City, down the back on a BAe 146. The flight was only half full and I was in a window seat with the two next to me empty. A CC member asked me if I would mind if she sat a young lad (of about 10) next to me as he was a bit nervous about flying. I didn't mind at all and as it was a clear day and he was very interested in where we were, swapped seats with the lad and pointed out towns and landmarks on the way. He had noticed that the footballer and actor Vinnie Jones was on the flight and was very excited about this. When he went to the toilet I mentioned it to the CC and she had a word with Vinnie who, to his credit, asked her to bring the lad up to chat. When he came back, complete with an autographed copy of the in flight magazine, he was over the moon.

Now I'm a danger to him.

[etrang]

There are sooooo many rules and regulations that us crew must follow, so many of them are stupid and futile

Paddy, or any other CC. Do you try and pass the message back to the people who make the rules when they are stupid or futile? and do you ever just ignore the stupid rules as is done in many other industries?

[DIA74]

Back in the bad old days at LHR we had specific seats for UMs, and did not seat anyone but UMs in those rows unless we were chock, in which case check in would ask an adult couple if they would mind being sat next to an UM. It makes sense to have specific rows for UMs and not to check in any adult to those rows unless necessary. THAT SAID I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments on this thread. It is both offensive and humiliating to treat single male passengers as if they were a danger to children without having good cause. Sorry to say BA CC do let the airline down sometimes. Sounds like one of their finest was responsible for upsetting Mr. Fischer! BA have in my view excellent pilots and engineering, (one of the airlines I feel "safe" with) but they badly need cabin crew who treat the pax as "guests of BA" - I was on a flight recently where the Captain welcomed us aboard with these gracious words, only to be looked after by a steward who was trying for the "speed service" medal,and was literally throwing things at everyone! Great to know the FLIGHT DECK hoped we had a great flight (PA before landing)