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

If you want to disrupt a flight you don't any longer ring to claim there's a bomb on board, just ring up and say the crew is drunk. :}

If you want to disrupt an airline, annonimously claim everybody/anybody wearing their uniform is drunk.

Where will it all stop.

camlobe

"Officers contacted the airline to make them aware so they could carry out their own inquiries."

Which presumably they did? or are crews automaticallly pulled?

Drunk crew
 

This is now pathetic, be it either tech or cabin crew, there are too many non
industry folks who hate the :mad: our industry and will do very silly and spiteful
thinks to satisfy their jealousy. I've had to work with this at non UK stns, so am not surprised, but it's still ****e went it happens.

Rant over

I have to agree with merlin.....this is absol;utely pathetic, truly disgusting. How on earth a cabin crew can be partying just 6 hours before take off is outrageous. BA should sack them all on the spot and let be a lesson to the other trolley dollys.

chookattack. Is that your tongue I see pressed into your cheek? :O

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

Or maybe 'tree huggers' / Green's... a lovers tiff / etc... making scurrilous accusations ?! :E

Funny, when its pilots have these accusations thrown at them by the media you guys on here say " innocent until proven guilty"

when its cabin crew... well its just "sack em"

How do you know it was a pilot (s) that wants to "sack" cabincrew?
And if it was, maybe it was meant "tongue in cheek".

Correct. you don't

here here true tui

Will the passengers get some cash for the two canx flights?

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

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

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

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


Nivsy

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

This country. I tell you.:ugh:

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

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.

Too much drunkinness accusations...
 

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

nivsy,
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.

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..

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.

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

In the meantime, benefit of the reasonable doubt eh?

s37:ok:

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

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

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

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

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 !

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.