Below is an extract of a chief stewardess's complaint against her IFM and pilots. The complaint is long and I only produced part of it. If you know the outcome of the company's investigation and subsequent action please put in the comment section below.
9 comments:
If the IFM cannot handle it well,by using the Captain as bullwalk,it leads to unfairness and not taking in both side of the incidents.By putting on this page,it serves to proof that all cases,handled with clean hands,no matters rankings.As long the operational aspect of the flight are not affected,it deserves to be heard and rectified.In my opinions,some of IFM could be bloated in the head,trying to browbeat the juniors ,including CSS.Depending on the case,it is worth sorting out,the rights from wrong,the operating crews are not unfeeling digits,to walk over.Bravo to BT for going in the area where fools rush in when angels fear to tread.At the end,the feedbacks on past handling,cases could be reveals.There are cases of nepotism and mishandling on cases.Let us know,and let it air,otherwise being no 1 and being fair,not a yardstick of SQ.One would avoid if scapegoating happens here.
Apparently over peasant hawker food chow tow kway la in jcl la. Die die must eat asian choice or the sinkie coolie food. Dont have will get upset and throw book and rank la
Css also too much ! Pilots can eat jcl food anytime and b4 paxs but she insisted giving the carrot cake to paxs first. Css was wrong!!!
The following are my thoughts. Apart from those points raised by the CSS, my views are as follows:-
The IFM and the 3 pilots might have stepped beyond their job descriptions, namely:-
IFM - I'm sure there are some established rules/guidelines/procedures for the IFM to counsel/reprimand a subordinate. If so, does it include rallying the Capt and 2 pilots to be present? By doing so, it was either a case of the IFM not having a strong case, hence, requiring backup/support. If the CSS had erred, IFM could have told her off on the spot or, if it was serious enough, he could have easily written a voyage report and let the department take it from there. Hence, it is quite clear that the IFM had ulterior motives.
Pilots - I presume, of the 3, only 1 is the Capt of that flight. Assuming, if, and only if, the IFM cannot handle the matter, it might be justifiable for him to refer to the Capt if it was a serious matter requiring immediate rectification (but it was the end of the flight and a written report to the Dept was a better option). But why are the other 2 pilots involved? In legal doctrine, the Prosecutor (in this case, the IFM), the Judge (Capt) and the Jury (2 pilots) must be independent and cannot be in a position to influence others. In this case the Prosecutor/IFM) had "appointed" the Judge (Capt) and the latter had appointed the Jury (pilots). IFM must have felt that the Capt would support him and, in turn, the Capt knew the pilots would have no choice but to agree with him. So, where is the independency and neutrality? As the saying goes, "Justice must not only be done but SEEN to be done" In this matter, my humble view is that it was a NO for both. So, even if, and only if, the CSS had erred in the performance of her duties, she was deprived of her right to the basic elements of natural justice and one key element is "her right to a fair hearing".
If, in the event it was established that the CSS was not guilty of any wrongdoing, wouldn't it be a case of wilful false accusation and defamation on the part of the IFM? He had gathered others to embarrass the CSS? The Capt might have jurisdiction, but how about the 2 pilots. I am sure their responsibilities are mainly to report to the Capt for flying duties and not to assist him with cabin functions or be part of an Inquiry - unless, of course, the CSS actions had aggrieved them. I could go on and on but I think I'd better not bore your readers.
My humble views and I stand to be corrected.
Kay Poh aka BusyBody
The arguing of main course is another case with another css and tech crew.
This is a different case regarding rest period and conducting of meal service.
Whoever that has received this 'report' and has since forwarded or published it has only three reasons: Either to highlight injustice done by (1) the IFM and Tech Crew or (2) to highlight the incorrectness of the behavior of the CSS, or (3) showing that they are 'plugged into' the gossip grapevine and enforcing a belief of self-relevance.
Whoever that has received this 'report' and has since forwarded or published it (1) does not know what was said during the 'debrief' in the galley, (2) does not know the demeanor of the various participants during the 'debrief'.
Whoever that has received this 'report' and has since forwarded or published it before the matter has been fully investigated, has only done a disservice to the innocent party. Trying to sway the 'court of popular opinion', while the issues and investigations are being carried out.
Whoever that has received this 'report' and has since forwarded or published it now has played a role that is detrimental to both SQ and its customers, as there is only one logical direction: Senior Crew will think twice or trice when correcting or debriefing a crew (even when warranted), as nobody would want to be tied up to any potential scandal or have their day's off ruined attending to phone calls and reports. Outcome? Lower service standards.
The outcome, lower service standards,as a resultant of the whole initial complaint, comment is totally far fetched.This served to show how unfair and bullying, pulling ranks by the affected parties involved.By pulling in the Captain,down to the other ranks shows incompetence and unprofessionalism.If you can't handle the lower ranks fairly,how to expect them to serve well and shine? How much bull and bullying need to be done to win the grace of the PPS and normal passengers ? Fake service,or as Trump said fake news.One would rather be served by a priestly hands of a junior,then a high handed rank IFM,or under pressure CSS,who bites back when hands got stained and tainted ,like a poison chalice.Someone can finally see the light when send to BT,who have the guts and gumption to blog it here.Otherewise, a hardworking CSS had to be fixed by the IFM,and the whole gang band,as they said.Good job BT, you are doing good,any junior crews would be pushed to resignation and a great loss to their parents, society.Any ex crews would seen and heard,and happily attend the end of the perpetrators, whoever they are Repent or dye friendless,and viewed as a fiends on board, and forever on media.
Her JC pax got q fault for purting minimum bufferspriority.Would you sacrifice the pps complaint,comments if they are not given their choices ?In the end sq faults for putting so little buffers,unless stated Cockpit got priority over S pps !Then CSS is wrong,but current facts as stated,Css is not wrong.Complain dept also at fault for throwing the crews to the dogs ,when paxs complaints,wins .So easy,should issues the warning to complaint dept also catering for such situation,dollars and cents over all others.SQ botomline got the highest priority ?What do tou think ?Crews got so used to such high handed comments that it affects all cases on meals shortage incidents.Dont expect it to change.
How about using cattle prod or Henry the 5,beheading those that fails according to their pov ? Then service standard goes higher,higher than Air Kiwi ?Servuce standards ratings seems to be fake news as said Trump.Ine incidents or comment do not raise or lower standard.Comments with limited experieces and knowlege will expel anything from their wrong ends,which we all know,causes methane from cows,and worse.So basically ,avoid them,stay far away,they smells bad.
Post a Comment