OMG!
 

QANTAS flight arriving Perth at Gate 10 of the domestic terminal on Friday 9 Aug 13 at about 0900 ( became the flt to Sydney at 1010) - this huge and I mean huge (did I say huge? I meant enormously huge) woman waddles up the airbridge in a QANTAS dress that you could have stacked a full tray of goodies on her bustle (for modern young things that means her ar*e but her front end was just as bad) and everything wobbled.

She was a flight safety risk. She would not have been able to get out of an overwing emergency exit (one assumes that she must have been able to cope with the other exits as she was obviously able to board the aircraft in the first place). I have my doubts about her being able to negotiate the aisles and would definitely have been a flight safety risk had she attempted to waddle from the galley to an exit thereby blocking pax from getting out in an emergency)

And what message does it give to the paying customer? C'mon QANTAS there must be something in the contract which allows you to put her onto ground duties?

That was my wife! And she has been on a diet for 2 years.

She's obviously got a secret pie store then mate :E

I encountered the male equivalent on a BA flight from Sao Paulo to London earlier this year. Apart from the obvious safety points, I was just surprised to see a top airline accepting such lax standards in the personal appearance of its front-line staff. The poor chap was never going to look smart with a shirt-stretching stomach hanging some way between belt and knees, a tie knotted loosely around an unbuttoned collar and damp-stained armpits... He wasn't a young chap, so his managers had presumably been content to keep him in a customer-facing role for some time...

As an aside, many of the cabin crew on this flight seemed a little jaded and uninterested... The crew on my outbound trip (to Rio) had been excellent, as usual.

Pretty much impossible for any BA cabin crew member to have their tie "knotted loosely" as they are all clip on ties...

For clarity, what do you feel should be done with these staff? For those other FA's that are of a size that while not necessarily a safety hazard exceeds your personal preferences, should the same sanctions apply?

Interesting...

By what standard did you measure this, are you qualified to make that comment, and do you know the Qantas requirements for a FA to safely do her job?

How did you arrive at that conclusion? Were you at her last EP's session, are you privy to her records from Qantas HR?

The above are genuine questions. Or are you just making uninformed and speculative assumptions?

Really? For all you know she could be a professional power lifter.


A different question entirely; one I can answer as an Australian. The paying customer couldn't care less. They aren't going to choose Virgin/J*/Tiger instead of Qantas because of a large Flight Attendant.

The requirements;

Chances are whilst she was waddling down the bridge she seen you scowling and said look at that idiot to her colleagues whilst proceeding to have a fabulous day because you werent onboard!

To the OP, your comments say more about you personality than Qantas standards!

:mad::mad::mad:

How odd! Because BA Uniform Stores has both clip-on and standard ties, for several of it's employment groups.

Quite frankly I am disgusted and ashamed that this has been posted on a public form. Have you no respect for people. She is obviously not a safety risk otherwise she wouldn't be employed as crew.

Cabin crew are not on board for you to gawp at, they are there for your safety and get your ass of that plane in an emergency which I'm quite sure she would do a damn fine job of.

So you are stating that because she's crew she'll block the aisle.....what about a passenger of the same size? You can't discriminate in this day and age, and moderators I think this should be closed as this should not be made a public debate on how suitable or unsuitable a person of physical size is capable of doing a job.

Disgusted

Clone this
 

Yay!!! :ok:

or how candid she is....depending on your perspective :uhoh:

Indeed they do, however Cabin Crew are only allowed to wear clip on ties, as per the uniform standards and what is available to order on the intranet for this particular staff group.

Having worked for the world's favourite many years ago I recall a young stewardess with a full figure accidentally brushing the arm of a (self important!) passenger travelling to Nice. He looked at me in disgust and exclaimed "I thought BA only employed petite girls?" My response was quite simple, "I thought BA only accepted well mannered respectable passengers, which proves we are both mistaken." A light applause quickly followed.

Just a thought from a different view point. Probably would not pass muster down unde
 

I must admit that I am a little surprised at the backlash to sisemen's post. And would like to throw my two cents worth into this interesting discussion.

Beforehand, I commend Tightslop for not closing this thread - you appear to be more liberated these days.:ok:

Anyway, we have to assume that the OP really did see this person and correctly described the size of this person - I.e not being able to get out of an over wing emergency exit. How can any of you disregard straight away or contradict what the OP saw in order to strike up this debate/discussion. Were you with the OP at Perth?

Secondly, we know Australia, just like we know the UK, or the US - basically any western leftist country where if you so much as look at someone the wrong way, you can be accused of ageism, racism, sizeism, etc ad nauseum. Therefore it is quite plausible that IF this woman of certain acreage is employed by QANTAS, one can deduce that QANTAS might be reluctant to get their noses in the press by being accused of discriminating against fat people.

Anyway, this is just my opinion playing devils advocate. The OP may well be over exaggerating in his sizing up of this woman but we have to take his word on this. Therefore the discussion has been made - if this woman can't fit through an emergency exit, should she be given ground duties instead? This is what the OP is asking.

I understand what your saying betpump however your looking at it the right way - personal attacks and immature sniping rightly deserve to be shot down.

"She was a flight safety risk" - how is the OP qualified to judge this?
"stacked a tray full of goodies on her bustle" - is the OP an Abercrombie model?
"paying customer' - the airfare is to be transported from A-B not to ogle the crew...

I could go on!

Benji,

I think these are the knee jerk reactions that are quite the norm the moment a guy makes a negative comment about the physical characteristics of a Fkight Attendant.

First knee jerk reaction to the OP being - who does he think he is, cabin crew aren't there to be gawped at.

There is nothing in his post that talked about the age of the FA, how high her heels were, was she pretty or not. It was purely a size issue and his perception that the FA was a flight risk. The fact that he did make some light hearted remarks to illustrate the size of this person is neither here-nor-there.

Even if he is being overly exaggerated, I think this debate is a necessary one. The service industry requires looks - whether you like it or not.

If it was up to me, all FAs would have to be no older than 40, with a waist line not exceeding 24 inches. 22-23 inches being preferable.

However safety is a number one priority and I would forego my requirements providing they do not pose a safety risk. According to the OP, (who I was not its at Gate 10 at Perth) , the said FA was a flight risk and I agree with him- ground the FA.