Crew Drinking on Flights

Forums › Off topic › Crew Drinking on Flights - Why!?

networkn

18234 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5238

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Topic # 160032 21-Dec-2014 09:20

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11377454

Several staff have resigned over drinking episodes.

One of the things in that article is that some staff are allowed to drink whilst on Duty. I can't think of a single good reason this should be allowed? I don't drink whilst I work, nor would I expect any professional I work with to do the same.

Surely there is no harm in banning it.

1 | 2 | 3

1622 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 275

Subscriber

Reply # 1201364 21-Dec-2014 09:30

Hmmm define on duty - your suggestion seems to be very knee-jerk.. Obviously they should not drink during or leading up to flying a plane. Surely a simple guideline suggesting that drinking in the 9 hours before a flight is inappropriate. If they have problems of intoxication during flights they need to put in place a checking system to enforce compliance.

networkn

18234 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5238

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1201365 21-Dec-2014 09:34

Cabin crew general manager, Leeanne Langridge, emailed staff after the incident saying that Air New Zealand had "no other choice other than to immediately stop the consumption of alcohol" for crew working on short-haul and mid-haul flights.

Perhaps I misread that. Does she mean staff who work short/mid haul aren't allowed to consume alcohol ever? I presumed she meant whilst flying.

Geektastic

11885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3854

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1201366 21-Dec-2014 09:39

I agree - my immediate reaction was why not have a zero tolerance policy. Kiwi Rail do - and they apply it across the board to all the office staff as well as operational staff. They have random drug and alcohol testing and failing either will result in dismissal.

The article appeared to suggest that if you were paralytic, as long as you stopped drinking 10 hours before work then you'd be fine. I can't imagine a staff member evacuating an aircraft with a serious hangover would be very effective.

At the very least, there should be no difference in standards of alcohol use regulations between pilots and cabin crew.

Drug use of any kind is not something I want to see in people responsible for my safety, personally. If cabin crew have such an alcohol addiction that they cannot restrain their use to their days off, they probably need to find alternative employment.

Fred99

7346 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3841

Reply # 1201367 21-Dec-2014 09:41

7 people support this post

Yet another example of a poorly researched and written article. It's as clear as mud. Perhaps the reporter and editors have been drinking on the job.

Dratsab

3127 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 947

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1201369 21-Dec-2014 09:57

One person supports this post

I'll agree it's not a well worded article, but if you read it in it's entirety and take note of what's actually written, the reference to a 10 hour period PRIOR to flying is quite clear.

In-flight service managers are able to breath test crew if they have reasonable cause to suspect that they have been drinking within 10 hours of operating a flight.

Nowhere does the article say that crew are permitted to drink while working [i.e.on active duty] on flights. They never have been and never will be - it would be a clear safety violation. Hence the allowing of, and necessity for, breath tests.

Poorly written article + comprehension fail = this thread.

nathan

4975 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1321

Trusted

Microsoft

Reply # 1201376 21-Dec-2014 10:08

The way I read it was the cabin crew were drinking on the flight but they were off duty in mufti etc

Handle9

1772 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 620

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1201383 21-Dec-2014 11:07

Geektastic: I agree - my immediate reaction was why not have a zero tolerance policy. Kiwi Rail do - and they apply it across the board to all the office staff as well as operational staff. They have random drug and alcohol testing and failing either will result in dismissal.

It's all very well to have zero tolerance for drug and alchohol policy for office staff but the reality is you are unable to randomly test for staff who are not in positions deemed 'safety sensitive'. The case law is very clear. You can test for cause though.

networkn

18234 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5238

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1201408 21-Dec-2014 11:27

Handle9:
Geektastic: I agree - my immediate reaction was why not have a zero tolerance policy. Kiwi Rail do - and they apply it across the board to all the office staff as well as operational staff. They have random drug and alcohol testing and failing either will result in dismissal.

It's all very well to have zero tolerance for drug and alchohol policy for office staff but the reality is you are unable to randomly test for staff who are not in positions deemed 'safety sensitive'. The case law is very clear. You can test for cause though.

Huh? You can test office staff but not crew?sounds nuts to me. Office staff unlikely to be able to affect the safety of passengers

Handle9

1772 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 620

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1201413 21-Dec-2014 11:39

networkn:
Handle9:
Geektastic: I agree - my immediate reaction was why not have a zero tolerance policy. Kiwi Rail do - and they apply it across the board to all the office staff as well as operational staff. They have random drug and alcohol testing and failing either will result in dismissal.

It's all very well to have zero tolerance for drug and alchohol policy for office staff but the reality is you are unable to randomly test for staff who are not in positions deemed 'safety sensitive'. The case law is very clear. You can test for cause though.

Huh? You can test office staff but not crew?sounds nuts to me. Office staff unlikely to be able to affect the safety of passengers

No, other way round. It is not possible to blanket test office workers. My point was "zero tolerance" policies sound great on paper but can be largely unenforceable. My work place deems safety sensitive to be anyone who does work on site or who drives a company car.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
61302 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12043

Administrator

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1201426 21-Dec-2014 11:48

The latest incident involved cabin crew having dinner with two pilots during an overnight stay in Wellington on October 31. Once the pilots had left, the flight attendants continued to drink.

One became so drunk, she reportedly had to be carried back to the Rydges Hotel.

It is understood an intimate video of one of the crew was recorded during the night.

Not clear anywere in the article this was within the ten hour period prior to a flight - it could be if the flight was on early morning, but the article misses the most important information here.

Meanwhile, the off-duty flight attendant who allegedly straddled Dagg during a flight from Los Angeles on November 27 is back on duty after being given a warning. It was reported she had been drinking during the flight where she had been a passenger.

"Off-duty" is right there. If she was not wearing a uniform (which again is not clear in the article)...

Teacup. Storm.

Backblaze cloud backup (personal and business) | Geekzone broadband switch | Amazon (Geekzone aff) | MightyApe (Geekzone aff) |

My technology disclosure | Business Transformation | Enterprise Content Management | Customer Relationship Management

gzt

10173 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1557

Reply # 1201437 21-Dec-2014 12:01

NZHerald: "And in July, crew assigned to fly stranded passengers from Hawaii to Auckland were understood to be drinking heavily, making them unfit for duty if the plane had been airworthy."

No other details on that in the article. But taken at face value it appears in the case above the assigned crew were on duty but knew they would not be flying so went to a bar and hit the proverbial while being paid for it. But without further details it could mean anything really. It's a mishmash of an article. Looks like it was originally longer then someone had the task of making it shorter and lost all the sense.

Edit: Articles on stuff and nzherald are often edited after they go up. Stuff articles can go through a few iterations, Herald articles less imho. This one needs fixing badly.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
61302 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12043

Administrator

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1201439 21-Dec-2014 12:03

gzt: NZHerald: "And in July, crew assigned to fly stranded passengers from Hawaii to Auckland were understood to be drinking heavily, making them unfit for duty if the plane had been airworthy."

No other details on that in the article. But taken at face value it appears in the case above the assigned crew were on duty but knew they would not be flying so went to a bar and hit the proverbial while being paid for it. But without further details it could mean anything really. It's a mishmash of an article. Looks like it was originally longer then someone had the task of making it shorter and lost all the sense.

This is a case I would say they were on call the whole time - yes, they shouldn't drink in that situation.

Backblaze cloud backup (personal and business) | Geekzone broadband switch | Amazon (Geekzone aff) | MightyApe (Geekzone aff) |

My technology disclosure | Business Transformation | Enterprise Content Management | Customer Relationship Management

sbiddle

27050 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6503

Moderator

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1201447 21-Dec-2014 12:17

3 people support this post

gzt: NZHerald: "And in July, crew assigned to fly stranded passengers from Hawaii to Auckland were understood to be drinking heavily, making them unfit for duty if the plane had been airworthy."

No other details on that in the article. But taken at face value it appears in the case above the assigned crew were on duty but knew they would not be flying so went to a bar and hit the proverbial while being paid for it. But without further details it could mean anything really. It's a mishmash of an article. Looks like it was originally longer then someone had the task of making it shorter and lost all the sense.

Edit: Articles on stuff and nzherald are often edited after they go up. Stuff articles can go through a few iterations, Herald articles less imho. This one needs fixing badly.

My understanding of the July issue at the time was that a passenger who were on the delayed flight saw crew members who they recognised from their flight out socialising and complained to the NZ Herald about this who then wrote a headline story about this. This apparently wasn't the crew that was on duty and none were in uniform.

The real problem we face now is media writing content based on multiple sources such as social media without gaining a full understanding of what they're writing about.

Both Stuff and NZ Herald are terrible when it comes to editing articles, with typically no mention of edited corrections as to now show up their errors.

gzt

10173 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1557

Reply # 1201449 21-Dec-2014 12:23

Last time I was on AirNZ (codeshare with some other airline) the cabin staff were really grumpy. Hangover might be a good explanation. After codesharing on Korean Air the experience was so good I booked it next time. Codesharing on AirNZ had the exact opposite effect on me.

gzt

10173 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1557

Reply # 1201451 21-Dec-2014 12:26

sbiddle: My understanding of the July issue at the time was that a passenger who were on the delayed flight saw crew members who they recognised from their flight out socialising and complained to the NZ Herald about this who then wrote a headline story about this. This apparently wasn't the crew that was on duty and none were in uniform.

If that is true then the inaccuracy of this piece is shocking and NZH should take it down immediately for legal reasons if nothing else.

1 | 2 | 3