Penny pinching...
 

2. The Consumption of Alcoholic Drinks by Positioning Crew section has
been amended to ensure Crew Members positioning in uniform do not
consume alcohol since they may be selected for testing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Smells like an excuse to save a few dollars. Surely logic would come into play for positioning crew when conducting random testing (Oz).

Drug testing
 

*What about " a beer on the bus"- we have blocked off and are outside the airport?
*What about the "banker ******" who has just had a "pissy lunch" and goes back to the office and blows your hard saved investment?
Drug test me ok but do the whole workplace and not just the aircrew, why are we so special?

Management Drug Testing
 

So as not to be seen to be discriminating surely this means no more alcohol for Cathay Management in Catalinas at lunch time, after all they then return to their offices and make decisions on the operation of the airline directly affecting it's safety!!
Carn't wait for the memo bringing this ban into effect immediately...Watch this space!

management in that company has got no moral. Its not up to the CX pilot to impose standards on management - management will however impose standards on the pilots. You should know by now. People are different. No more drinking on those long transfers. Enjoy - nothing is new.

Unfortunately, D and A testing is becoming a fact of life in the various 'nanny' or 'lawyer' states in Europe, and Australia.

In Australia, any aviation workers deemed to be 'airside', including paxing crew, can be selected at random by officious dogsbodies, and if you blow more that the equivalent of mouthwash traces, you are for the high jump. At least one of our crews has been tested in MEL (at the END of a nine hour flight :hmm:), obviously with negative results.

To the best of my knowledge, there has not been one incident of airline crew under the influence of alcohol, or an incident attributable to alcohol, in Aussie aviation history. A whole new 'iron ricebowl' group of public servants have taken it on themselves to declare it a 'problem', and have spawned yet another empire to feed off the taxpayer's teats.

When this program was introduced, a plastic 'drug and alcohol awareness calender' was mailed by out by CASA (its Director, by the way, an ex-CX 'head kicker'), to every pilot in Australia, reputedly at a cost to the taxpayer of $50,000+. Trouble was, it had a whole month missing, wrong days highlighted as 'weekends' and other errors; whoever proof read it might as well have been on drugs or alcohol themselves. This is the idiocy we are up against.

So this time, I think management are innocent. It is more 'nanny state' nonsense that flight crew will have to bear throughout their working lives.

How many pictures have you seen in company publications of a Champagne toast at the end of a flight for one celebratory reason or another?
This is ingrained in our culture and nothing wrong with it.
Sten's outgoing NTC is not very well thought out.
Guess we just change out of uniform first.....

This is a sensible move that actually protects us. If you are PXing in uniform and on the GD you have been on duty and could be breath tested on arrival (pathetic but the way the world is going!). If the test is positive, even if you are not type-rated on that A/C, before common sense prevails the press will have run with the story and your career will be over!

Agree entirely! The important thing however is to protect ourselves from this insanity.

I agree entirely and to suggest the company are doing it to save money is bordering on paranoid. It is simply more 'nanny state' nonsense, nothing to do with the company on this occasion.

So let me get this straight - you are not type rated on the aircraft, you have no intention or qualification to fly that aircraft, yet you are to be "prosecuted" for an offence that in fact you cannot commit, albeit lawfully (putting aside the silly idea of hijacking, - they will never get random tested before the event - Religious and Political intoxication doesn't count!).

Is it an offence to wear a uniform and have a drink, without the intention to fly? Does Random testing cover this?
Is it an offence to be positioning out of uniform and have a drink? I would liken it to sitting at home, having someone coming to your home to carry out a random test in the event that you at some time will drive your motor vehicle?

I think that even in fact you are in uniform, on the Gen Deck, but without the authorisation to fly, then you have NO INTENTION to operate. Test away, get a positive result, what is the offence? Particularly after the flight. What have you done wrong? I think any authority would be hard pressed to bring a prosecution, unless of course there is other legislation that provides otherwise - please, if anyone knows, do tell.

There certainly is good reason no doubt to "test" the operating crew and we should all expect that to happen to us at some time in our careers.

Christn...spot on.

Simple really. Ask for a boarding pass, get out of your uniform shirt and don a 'Screaming Skull T-shirt (with collar of course).

Not necessary to be on the GD unless you have to take the jump seat, in which case it's a dry sector anyway.

Screaming Skull T-Shirt from Zazzle.com

Bob, there are other more important battles to fight but if you want to be splashed all over the front page of the Apple Daily, be my guest.

This is nothing. At my previous company drinking in uniform on or off duty was strictly a firing offense and their official definition of in uniform was wearing any part of it. On top of that, you weren't allowed to ever be at the bar in uniform for any reason even to just pay for food. And we don't have a random alcohol/drug testing here... yet. That would be interesting here to say the least.

But here's the obvious: If you feel the need or insist on drinking alcohol in uniform (on duty or not), you are an alcoholic.

I think you are missing the point VR. I believe that the notice concerns the scenario of getting drug tested after a flight, in which case (under current company policy) you will be in uniform. It is not an issue of actually consuming alcohol in uniform - that is just plain common sense. They are just warning you that you will be seen as "part of the crew", so therefore you will be fair game to any testing that occurs.

So the real question should be why do we bear all the responsibility of working crew when we PX but only incur half the cost to the company? I think the AoA should be approaching the company about this recent notice demanding that we get 100% credit for PX. If we must wear a uniform, can't enjoy our in-flight meal with a beverage, then why are we at a discounted rate?

They could also solve this whole mess by letting us travel in plain clothes, just like every other friggin' company in the world when they have a need to move their employees around. You don't see an executive for Coca Cola wearing company t-shirts and logo covered hats when traveling on business.

When we PX we are traveling somewhere at the request of the company, we are not STANDBY FILL-INS. And if something happened on said flight that would require the assistance of PXing crew, shouldn't them wearing a uniform be the least of your worries? :ugh:

Skwak7700, couldn't agree more.

How naive are you
 

As Captain Dart said, anyone working in a safety sensitive occupation can be tested under CASA rules. Safety sensitive extends to anyone involved in daily flight operations - pilots, cabin crew, engineers, doctors, flight dispatchers, tug drivers, etc.

Doctors, nurses, train drivers, truck drivers, bus drivers, power workers, so on and so on have been randomly tested for many years in the UK, USA, Australia, NZ.

If you travel in plain clothes you would need to be resident of the destination country or have a visa. PX solves the problem of a visa because you are on the GD.

As VforVENDETTA said, most major airlines do not permit drinking in uniform or part of it - taking your slides, name tag and tie didn't count - you are still in part uniform.

So you can only be "partly" tested???

Really? Name one airline that does that. Do Coca Cola wear company t-shirts and logo covered hats to work?

Lufthansa.

They were behind me in the crew channel at an Asian CX online airport about 3 weeks ago, half of them wearing civvies. When I asked what the situation was, they told me they were "dead-heading" (obviously their term for our PX).

They were quite shocked when I told them that although we can change to non-uniform onboard, we are required to go through the crew channel in uniform.

I was PXing back to HK one day spilled coffee on my white shirt during the previous sector so changed to my polo shirt for the PX sector.

HK wouldn't let me go throughout the crew channel without my uniform shirt on even though I was listed on the GD and had my HK CAD issued crew card around my neck :ugh::ugh::ugh:

What a crock! Many a time and oft, I have flown three sectors, handed over to the relief crew, then deadheaded back to home plate on the fourth sector. Invariably, we would remove our slides and ties, sit in the back row of the cabin, where we would be well looked after by the girls (no male stewards on my company in those days.)

Some Champagne, a splendid lunch, washed down with a fine claret, then a quiet kip and all was well with the world. The result? Arrived at home plate after a 12 hour duty feeling like a box of birds!