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

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.

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.

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 :*

...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.

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!

> 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.

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

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

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!!

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

lets see
 

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.

Presumably, neither is idle speculation?


:E

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

The facts
 

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

PC767
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

"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.

And lets face it Aviance do need supervising!!

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)

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.