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.

# senior member of various RAF Flight Safety committees
# active pilot
# spent more hours in the air in the front and the back than you can shake a big stick at

and finally.....

# perfectly good eyesight that can easily recognise a grossly overweight person that would have extreme difficulty in getting through an overwing escape hatch let alone getting down the aisle without undue difficulty.

Now.....if you could just put your handbags away ladies and let some sense percolate as betpump suggests....

In the USA you must be able to fasten the seat belt without an extender and be able to walk down the aisle without turning sideways. And if a full figured flight attendant passes recurrent training with no issues there is no way they can be grounded!

We, the travelling public, are constantly reminded by airlines that cabin crew are there for our safety and are NOT there simply to dole out meals, pander to passengers inane requests / demands, be abused by PAX who think the universe revolves around them the minute they step on a plane etc etc etc ...

Is it unreasonable for passengers to expect that in return ALL cabin crew are actually capable of performing the safety-related aspects of their job and that airlines will ensure that their employees are up to that?

Just asking like ...

CS

There are civil aviation requirements in place by all countries that cabin crew remain up to date on safety procedures. Generally every 12 months they go through recurrent, some countries could be less but never more. If they can pass recurrent they stay. There are no civil aviation requirements that all female cabin crew weigh less than 135 pounds!

At Qantas recurrent training (ep's) are every 6 months. She obviously passes or else she would not be able to crew a flight. Also as crew are last off in any emergency what does it matter to you the passenger if she can't fit out of the exit?? I do work with some very large ladies and besides them being extremely good at their job and a pleasure to work with I have no doubt in my mind that they would fit through any exit on the aircraft in an emergency situation.

The OP (sisemen) deleted this thread his/her self, along with derogatory comments about moderators and any other contributors to this thread that took a different view. I have now reinstated it - PPRuNe doesn't operate in Tantrum mode.

There is an issue here worth discussing, although some of the language and attitudes demonstrated in both the original post, and some follow-up posts have done little except polarise. The OP was unable to recognise that a potentially serious issue is trivialised by inappropriate language and attitudes: Let's try to address the issue without falling in to the same trap?

Yawn. Pardon me, but so what? None of the above makes you qualified to assess this particular flight attendant.

Unless you've got access to her EP records, were an instructor on her last EP session, or saw her performance in an actual evacuation, all you're able to do is give us an unqualified opinion.

Did you even see her walk down an aircraft aisle? Not according to your opening post!

If you are a "Senior member of various RAF Flight Safety committees", then I hope to god that you apply better reasoning and judgement skills on those committees than you're displaying here on this thread.

Referring to Ep's as a reference for 'being safe' isn't a very good judgement. Unfortunately the specific examining criteria from what both the company and the regulator expect isn't very high.

Shouting 'commands' and operating a door isn't rocket science. Being able to manoeuvre one's body through a hatch/door at a practice event every 6 months doesn't necessarily reflect what one would do during an event.

Sadly, the quality of EP instructors isn't increasing. Many prefer the easy way out with turning a blind eye as opposed to taking someone offline for their inability to perform due to physical proportions. Let's face it, it seems the easier way out instead of having to deal with unions and cabin crew manager blowins.

If the current advertising campaign by Virgin Australia is anything to go by it would seem that they have sound policies wrt size and weight :E