British Airways has just added an interesting new restriction on social media use for employees. Is this logical, or a step too far?
Continue reading: British Airways Bans Crew Social Media Posts From Layover Hotels
Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.
A friend of a friend is a FA for one of the major US carriers. He doesn't mention this on social media, and even if you figured out his job, there's no hint of which airline he works for.
Presumably they all will need to halt their Youtube channels telling us the "secrets of flying."
Come on. Go to any local avgeek forum and they will tell you crew hotels.
First target are hotel close to airports in cities with crazy traffic. Like in Delhi, most crew are in Aerocity for example.
Unfortunately for avgeeks, one of the first life lessons one needs to learn besides the (underwear) wedgie you most likely have already experienced if a true geek…
is there are mal-intentioned people in this world and some way more mal-intentioned than others.
BA sounds like it gives a darn about its air crews, much like air crews give a darn you avgeeks aren’t wedgied on their flights.
(:
Prior to social media, airlines did have guidelines about behaviors on layovers. Times change and there have been increasing incidents of unbecoming foolishness recorded. The crew is not on vacation and is still representing their employer. BA may have had enough.
I believe VS began doing this ahead of BA. Some of my favorite crew insta accounts were wiped and destroyed. Funny they were utterly incapable of taking care of passengers like that last time they were stranded in Turkey, but they want to enforce extra hard on stuff like this.
Something to consider about BA or any European airline, is that they operate under slightly different Health and Safety Regulations than other world airlines.
Under current H&S legislation, BA has to carry out risk assessments for all aspects of their business operations. Like it or loath it, the risk assessments appertaining to Crew hotel accommodation could well have flagged up safety concerns which necessitated the implementation of this new policy.
Many will fail to understand these facts and in their ignorance could wrongly choose to berate BA for this policy.
While I agree it seems a bit over the top, it sounds similar to what you do for your own safety: not posting dates of your review trips/delaying posts as to not draw attention to your current location
who cares, not so great britain is in deep trouble. they need to focus on their country men and unfettered illegals and others not assimilating to British culture. Not hand me down inherited "passports".
WTF is wrong with humans that every aspect of their lives must be lived and detailed on SM for the voyeuristic consumption of and validation from total strangers? It is so stupid.
This also poses a safety issue for BA's employees. It's amazing that the idiots that do this don't recognize this.
BA is fully within its right. It is not an overstep whatsoever.
There’s a lady with the handle ‚milehighsharon‘ on IG - she seems to be a DL FA who really requires an enhanced social media policy…
I guarantee if a Middle Eastern airline did this people would be screaming about human rights and slave labour.
Aside from some of the more well known BA crew social media accounts (who don’t post photos from hotels anyway), how would any nefarious actors know who the crew even are to look for anything? Not being able to share photos with friends and family from private accounts is a bit daft though. It’s not like they’re on the clock at that point too.
American Airline company Air Crews abroad are always asked where they stay and always stay mum for security concerns. I think BA was perfectly in the right to put the quash on this.
If we protect the cockpits during flight - why not protect the security of the crew on the ground during layovers.
I think the other thing to note is that if they were found to have been lax on their assessments or even worse, to have found to ignore risks that did appear, they put themselves at serious risk of legal action if something did happen.
@Rain, that's correct. A verdict that they haven't taken reasonable steps to protect the safety of the workforce could even lead to criminal prosecution. They could frame this as guidance rather than a strict policy, but there might still be a risk of something happening to a crew member as a result of information shared by one of their colleagues.
Not sure what's the issue. They usually go to an airport hotel sheraton/westin
BA must be seeing a lot higher employee insurance costs without these restrictions.
We often hear and read more about BA FAs getting in troubles and becoming victims of violent crimes on layovers in Africa and South America than other foreign carriers' FAs. When they live on their employer's dimes, such as layover hotels, they are on the employer's clock. They can post anything on their social media accounts without revealing their employer's ID, such as uniforms, aircraft's livery, business name. The Gulf and East Asian carriers' FAs do not have strict social media policies simply because their FAs have superior nurture and more disciplined corporate work environments and cultures. These two critical deciding factors explain why US FAs provide lackluster services and display attitude from hell. Fortunately I do not travel domestically in the meantime but I have sympathy for the US flying public. When you are more discreet about your private and work lives, you will avoid preventable mishaps and unwanted attention more than when you flaunt it.
One could debate that you have an unfortunate understanding of what is and what is not, as you put it “Company time”, Samo.
Many believe that when a “Company” provides an employee with an easily recognisable uniform, “Company” provided accommodation, etc, etc, then the “Company” can reasonably expect the employees to refrain from acts which might endanger themselves or other “Company” employees. Furthermore, employees should not bringing the “Company” name into dispute, yes Samo?
p2 is a DL FA - They have a similar rule. Can't post the name of the hotel etc for security reasons. They're not as strict but photo recognition software can indeed tell exactly which hotel it is.
Honestly, what is the purpose of showing photos from places you work? It's not you're on vacation or anything your alarm clock is still going to ring in the morning just like everyone else.
The answer to the question in the first paragraph is: money. Folks get paid for views and likes once they reach a certain threshold.
It's definitely not clear cut, I imagine most judges would take a dim view of a contract of employment that impeded an employee's freedom of expression and association during time which is available to them for leisure and relaxation on whatever pretext. The employer would then argue it's done for the employee's own well-being and I suspect the decision might go either way.
Let's just say that the relevant law in the UK is pretty complex and nuanced.
LOL.... I"m sure these BA crew 'escapades' are the only real rea$on behind this !
I hope such inflight 'service' won't be 'compromised' due this draconian measure !
BA has a long climb to regain any of its past admiration...
I'm comforted by your empathetic words of support regarding the crappy state of US commercial airline service, although I don't think British/European carriers are that much better as evidenced by the most recent BA ( 'Bare Assed' ! ) incident ! In fact I'm almost sure 'BA leads the way" in crew layover conduct, sadly even including it's pilots... !
I'm not so sure. It may be semantics and although the crew isn't 'actively' staffing a flight, I believe they're still on duty in the sense that they are continualy collecting a per diem compensation during the entire trip and subject to rerouting by crew scheduling (in compliance with contract/governmental regulation). Also, the fact that BA is providing the layover accommodation further supports this position.
Lol.... the only 'darn' BA gives a crap about is $$$ & related negative publicity which can be reflected in it' profit$ ...( not to pick on BA, but rather all corporate entities ).. If they truly gave a rat's ass about their staff, they wouldn't have screwed them over big time during Co-vid, for example. It took a legal settlement to settle that.
Let's get real....
All the comments from people living joyless lives... A lot of folks DO enjoy their work and their colleagues and their travels, and will post photos. Try linked-in if you don't believe me.
As it is, creating rigid policies discourages esprit-de-corps and generally depresses morale. Especially if the policy's utility is easily disproved as Ben mentions, or anybody who's flown evenings has seen (why yes, those are uniformed crew going to a hotel, one of a few choices near the airport- wonder if that's a layover hotel?!)
Policies that are easily picked apart weaken ALL related policies (if this one was under false pretenses or a knee-jerk reaction, what else also is) which is why good management avoids them, even if old people in the comments section don't understand the majority of the (western, adult) population that does use social media.
It is a good policy to protect airline crews from unwarranted attention or terrorist attacks .
Omar, from reading your post it would appear that you have little or no knowledge of the UK Health and Safety Regulations. Even those of us who are “Living joyless lives”, know that it is better to engage a brain cell before our typing fingers.
You may believe that “Creating rigid policies discourages esprit-de-corps”, however, the BA risk assessments clearly demonstrate that the lives of their employees is more important, yes?
The per diem is to cover expenses, it doesn't form part of the consideration paid in exchange for labour. The bit about rerouting would apply if they're staying a few days extra and receiving a standby allowance in order to provide the airline with additional rostering flexibility, but it wouldn't make any difference if it's just a rest period.
Generally speaking, this arrangement can only be enforced as a health and safety rule, and even then it's not 100% certain that judges would be happy with it.
True or not - I think it’s fine. But then, I think we need much less digital “anything”.
Rigid policies don’t discourage esprit-de-corps, nor do they depress morale.
My team always had great times on their off hours wether they were home or on assignment. One doesn’t have to “post” to have a good relationship with co-workers.
It is really no secret. I have seen Delta FAs at hotels in multiple cities, including Atlanta.
As a British airways cabin crew, I find these new social media policies to be absolutely ridiculous.
I understand the security aspect, of keeping our layover hotels secret, but these are not secret.
Let’s talk about the SFO incident where the crew member died (RIP ️). Our crew hotel name was blasted all over the news. You’d think they would have to change our hotel due to security, but nope. We are still staying at that hotel, whose name will forever be associated with BA on multiple news cites due to the death.
Around a year ago, we got updated social media guidelines, which forbade any photo taking when were professionally engaged at work. Ie on the aircraft. But in that social media policy, it was specifically stated that we are fine to post in the hotel, and we’re actually encouraged to post Get Ready With Me’s, and Roster Reveals downroute.
Now they are changing the policy, and enforcing it retroactively. This has caused a lot of anxiety, as how much of a deep dive do we need to do to purge all social media sites of pictures.
I understand to the average person, this may sound dramatic, but this is our lives. Being crew is a lifestyle. I spend more nights in hotels downroute, than I do in my own flat in west London. I have so many instagram posts, stories, from the hotels.
For example, a big thing all crew do every year, is take a crew picture on Christmas, either in hotel lobbies, onboard before boarding, or in the crew report centre at LHR. Well these specific photos have now been banned by BA. Even though they used to love these, as it showed us normalizing being away from our families over the holidays. It promoted BA as a family, which clearly it is not. Maybe a dysfunctional family at best.
I’m just over it.
Low pay, long hours, overbearing management. This is not what we all signed up for.
The world has become such a mad, bad place if this sort of paranoia has crept into some BA management wonk’s head leading to this ridiculous policy.
Brought to mind my honeymoon trip to L.A. 25 years ago on a surprisingly good Virgin Atlantic flight - in our usual steerage class - with a great crew.
Next morning, we headed for the pool at our Santa Monica hotel to find most of the cabin crew from our flight on the sun loungers making the most of their layover in the SoCal sun ahead of the return rotation back to London that evening.
Obviously, none of the crew was in uniform but they told us this was one of two or three layover hotels VA used near LAX and a crew favorite.
Armed with such knowledge we did nothing more sinister than enjoy the rest of our holiday and hope we might get that great crew for the following week’s flight home to British fall weather.
Sadly, we didn’t.