A British Airways flight was canceled after the crew got so drunk on a layover that the plane had to be flown back to London empty. Sadly this isn’t the first time that British Airways has had an issue with crew behavior on layovers. It sure seems like putting crews up at all-inclusives might not…
Continue reading: British Airways Flight Canceled After Crew Gets Too Drunk On Layover At All-Inclusive
Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.
Couldn't they have flown the flight just with fewer passengers (proportionate to the number of functional FAs)? Seems like just stranding some vs. all passengers would be better. But maybe BA is concerned about the "fairness" of treating passengers differently?
they're gonna dock Mitsuko Tottori's pay again out of sheer muscle memory, aren't they?
You 'buried the lede' Ben! Those affected passengers are entitled to UK261 compensation! If only we had a similar consumer protection in the US... someday!
I’d argue that if they were more senior FAs they should know better, but agree with your point that putting them at a place like this is asking for trouble. I just find it mind blowing that no matter how many stories like this we get, people are capable of throwing away a great career.
We have far superior consumer protection, in that pilots/FAs essentially can’t strike. Compensation isn’t protection. I’d rather make my flight than seek comp for a missed one, save some rare occasions.
No, it's based on the number of seats/type of aircraft, not the number if passengers
Not knowing your limits should be enough to make you unqualified for the job tbh. I don't know what it is about Brits that always makes them go completely insane when they get drunk and act like acting like animals is a normal part of "having a drink".
The Courtyard by Marriott in Barbados is a perfectly serviceable hotel in a great walkable area with food, bars, and the beach. Why is BA not putting the crew there?
This is such a quintessentially British story! Also reminds me of the backstory to AF 447.
No way these FAs keep their jobs whether their new or long time employees. Them staying at an AI is irrelevant, every hotel* serves alcohol
*Excluding certain countries
It’s one thing if they just went slightly over or had last drink a little over the time limit and did the responsible thing by calling out.
This is just reckless if you’re getting that drunk. Either fire them or force them into a rehab program and a zero tolerance policy for drinking on layovers again.
Gotta disagree with you on the punishment, Ben. It doesn't make any difference how long they've been with BA. After all the years saying "We're on board for your safety", this behavior shows a complete disregard for their safety, their profession and for their employer. They need to be terminated. And, BA needs to find another crew hotel in Barbados.
In what world can you cost your company around 50k per an FA and inconvenience hundreds of passengers and get the luxury of flying back on essentially a private flight in business class and keep your job?
@ Sel, D - you act like strikes happen all the time or without notice. Yes, they can shut down an airline for a few days, but they're well publicized and people at risk of being impacted can make alternative arrangements. I posit that a lot more people would benefit from a UK261 style compensation than are harmed by the potential for strikes. That being said, I am not even sure how the lack of a UK261 style law in the US also prevents strikes from occuring?
WestJet used to, and may still, put its crew up there. The only problem was that one of the best bars on the Beach was across the street at Coconut Court Hotel.
"Suspension" is just due process pending investigation and dismissal. If the facts are as described here, their careers are finished.
Doubtful. I think a lot of the comments on here calling for their heads are not people who work for a large corporation. You don't get fired for a single mistake unless it's something malicious, which this was not. In addition to the money down the drain you spent training these people, cultivating a culture of fear is generally not productive. If they didn't have any prior disciplinary issues, they'll get put on probation, get some training, and that'll be the end of it. And rightly so.
It's nothing like a 'great career'. These people are on minimum wage and only stay for a couple of years until they move to a longer-term job.
How is that consumer protection ? UK/EC261 covers many things. And in most industrialised countries, employees have a right to strike. You then contradicted yourself saying that you might claim it.
@BigT3x , you're right. I think that there may be a variety of sanctions depending on how badly drunk/behaved each of them was- it can range from a simple written warning to dismissal.
Everyone should be limited to one alcoholic drinks in all flights . The crew did wrong and should be fired , but this behaviors is a society problem and crews have to deal with drunks every day , multiple times a day. It is mind blowing that people is allowed to drink at the club and the comming onboard asking for more drinks.
I'm retired from a major U.S. carrier. Like most carriers, we had a 12-hour "bottle to throttle" rule that applied to all crew, including the cabin crew. This behavior, considering how drunk this crew was, would in fact get you terminated. Whine to your union if you must, but in each and every case the termination was upheld in arbitration.
Did they stay at the recently opened Royalton? The drinks there will black you out.
Nothing to see here. A few Brits got tipsy over free booze. What's the big deal?
@uldguy , US management will normally be quite trigger-happy when it comes to that sort of thing. The culture in Europe/Britain is different.
When it comes to low-wage, high-turnover jobs, you're often better off sticking with the devil you know because the next person you hire may well be even worse than the employee you've dismissed.
Let’s simplify the HR situation.
Too impaired to work.
Cost a heap of money. UK261 Compensation. Then…Fuel, staff time, aircraft cost for a rescue flight.
Fired.
LOL, no Sel, D. Just no. You're so wrong. What happens in the US is you get delayed/canceled, and no recourse, no compensation, other than maybe a partial refund. We should have a UK-261 equivalent, or at the very least bring back Rule 240, so folks can get to where they're going, even if on a competitor.
Oh lets see; The absolute cost that BA has incurred for an IROP, hundreds of inconvenienced passengers, reputational damage, UK261, I mean THATS THE BIG DEAL, VS.
Considerable IMO
These are supposed to be trained professionals. They are all adults, not children. They are responsible for the safety of themselves and hundreds of passengers, and they understood that responsibility.
There should be zero tolerance for this behaviour. Fire the drunk ones without delay.
I agree. I to am retired crew and this sort of thing would be termination. Damage an aircraft, cause a cancellation, show up under the influence...Buh Bye
You clearly have little knowledge about this industry. This crew was likely quite senior and well compansated, particularly unionized British. The younger crews fly regional UK, Ireland and Europe. Seniors get the intercontinental runs and fewer trips per month.
British Airways’ crew have stayed at the Hilton Bridgetown for about 50 years and is a normal hotel that is not all-inclusive. But BA switched last year to the all-inclusive Wyndham Resort Sam Lords Castle, which only opened in 2024. No doubt BA got a good deal at a new hotel in an area of Barbados that is not that popular with tourists. It is on the East Coast, where the sea is rough and there is a big seaweed problem currently. It seems dangerous to let crew on a one night layover to stay at an all-inclusive hotel. Thankfully the pilots were responsible.
This isn't a Boozy joyride to Malta, it's an 8+ hour flight. That they have to ferry over empty, pay for a plane load of tourists to stay in hotels, fly in new crew and so on, and pay extensive compensation.
I don't know the seniority details, but, unless you consider their hours to fall short of a full-time job, there is no BA cabin crew member that's 'well-compensated'.
I've been seeing many references to their pay on Head for Points and elsewhere and the absolute highest-paid senior BA cabin crew don't clear £50k including all allowances etc.
In other words, the best remunerated BA FAs barely reach the median London salary, which in itself is an artificially low number (it's skewed by public sector salaries where the low headline figure is compensated by getting a massive amount of pension entitlement on top) for a city where the cost of living is ridiculous and where a reliable nanny or chauffeur can earn £75k+.
Are you assuming all the pilots were 'responsible' ? Did they take breathiayzer tests before operating the deadhead flight ? Sadly, some of them have been equally irresponsible.
Looks like BA should immediately institute a JAL style system of testing at least all cabin crew before each flight as there is most assuredly a problem here... Maybe it finally hit the fan with bean counters when the final bill($$$) come due not to mention the crappy publicity....
Would you like to be the agent at the counter/gate telling the already irate pax who goes & who stays ? I think that'd be even worse than screwing the whole planeload. Either way, I feel sorry for the ground crew there....
Ben’s website is a mess, both design-wise and as a commenting platform. Why bother commenting when there’s no way to get notifications of replies or further activity? He's like stuck in 1998.
Happy and fully functionally crew vs the alternative! I'll choose the BA crew.
I tend toward leniency, however I can't imagine my employer would keep me on if I had just cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars...
This behaviour is outrageous. Anyone who returned a positive alcohol test must be fired.
“I’d rather make my flight than seek comp for a missed one”
You completely miss the point. The whole point of the compensation regime is to incentivise airlines to reduce the number of delays and cancellations. The compensation is deliberately set at punitive levels to ensure airlines stop treating passengers like cattle and, instead, hit the airlines in the wallets where they sit up and take notice.
This punitive compensation is more likely to give you what you want — a reduction in the number of delays and cancellations, so you more often make your flight.
Aren’t we all good capitalists who believe the only effective incentives are financial ones? How else do you incentivise airlines to improve?
I'd be surprised if there were ANY airlines that would give someone a slap on the wrist for showing-up drunk for work. It's just not acceptable under any circumstances.
Have you ever considered, Maybe they do not like to Fly BA themselves and maybe they will only Fly when they are Drunk?
A milder punishment? No way. If you cant control your drinking and breaking the rules there should be zero tolerance policy. I jave noticed the brits when they start drink they cant stop. You could see that on stag parties all over the Europe.
This is disgusting and very worrying .
British Airways should not put crew in an ''all inclusive '' hotel . Crew should pay for their own drinks .
There should be staff rules about how much they can drink and a mandatory breathaliser around 9 hours before take off ,and penalties like for driving a car under the influence . Some suggestions are a fine through deduction of pay over a few months ,a partial loss of benefits , like reducing paid holidays ,and a reduction in pension contributions for a few months . It is not too difficult to arrange this and I am sure the regulator will be supportive if it means a safer situation for passenger . I am sick of reading about drunk aircrew , BA , Air India , Lufthansa and others . Come on British Airways ,get organized .
Pete ,The problem is that BA need crew and cannot afford to fire staff whom they have taken many months to train. Penalties like I have suggested in another post are the way to go . Like the penalties for drunk driving a car .
You're an effing moron if you think this is acceptable, you absolute horse's arse.
This layover was not a vacation irrespective of it being a resort. The layover was work. You don't drink or worse, get drunk, at work. Their actions impacted passengers, the ones paying their salaries.
Strong disagree. If they can't be trusted to come to work sober, then what else can't they be trusted with? It's a fundamental violation of their employment conditions, and they have to go.
Absolutely sacked. No question in my mind - none whatsoever.
The reputational damage to BA is immense. The inconvenience to passengers is unacceptable. The financial cost, as Ben said, is easily in the many tens of thousands per crew member.
None of them can possibly claim they didn’t know.
Well excuse me. I live in Malta, and do not want to fly with any drunk crew. Pick on your own country.
Unfortunately it's not just a matter of how much they drink, but they generally tend to get very rowdy when drinking even amounts that would be considered relatively okay in other parts of the continent. Sometimes it feels like they're compensating for their general stiffness/fakeness during the normal sober times...
BA wants to hire 18 year olds and pay them peanuts, and then gets surprised when they act like 18 year olds who are paid peanuts.
There shouldn't be any doubt about the punishment.
All flight crew are there primarily for safety.
Fired on the spot,do yourselves a favour give BA a wide berth always,this is not uncommon just they were caught.
What do you mean man,
Age is irrespective,they are in a safety critical role.
Obviously you haven't worked in an industry of this nature,airline,railway,
As a former BA stewardess (1968-85), I would say that although in my experience none of us ever disturbed other hotel guests, nor puked in public areas, heavy drinking during a slip (aka layover) was more or less the norm.
I think that most of us observed the twelve-hour rule, ie twelve ‘dry’ hours before going on duty.
Having said all that, I feel the offenders should be sacked — as they probably already have been — not least as a warning and a deterrent.