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

[nivsy]

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

[StoneyBridge Radar]

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]

Too much drunkinness accusations...

I thnik.
ANONYMOUS call... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[tablelover]

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]

get real

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

[tablelover]

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]

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.

Pax were transferred onto a BA flight to LHR and onwards to JFK.

[StoneyBridge Radar]

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]

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]

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.

[Desk Jockey]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.