FC5474 (C) - Treatment of Cabin Crew and the pressures exerted upon them
Initial Report
As a Captain I have grown increasingly concerned over treatment of cabin crew by their line managers and am quite sure that some crew are operating when unfit for duty, either unwell, fatigued or distressed because they fear the consequences of ‘doing the right thing’ may have on their prospects of promotion or continued employment. Indeed, I know cabin crew management use a system to judge the worthiness of candidates for being asked back the following season or for more permanent contracts.
I have witnessed that by the lottery of staff parking, that crew are arriving to staff car parks over an hour before report time, to ensure they arrive at the crew room on time. Sporadic, unreliable staff buses and unpredictable staff security waiting times are the main causes. These issues will only be further compounded as staff from more airlines are set to use our car park. I’m concerned that the company is not making any allowances for the long transfers from car park to crew room which can be way in excess of the 90-minute total commute time the FTLs assume.
Those who are late, by even a minute, are then subjected to late reports and discussions from SCCMs, at the insistence of cabin crew management. These discussions can cause great distress to crew members, who then spend the following duty fearing repercussions instead of focussing on their safety critical roles. I believe that late reports are detractors in the system used to determine ‘ask-backs’. The same applies to crew’s willingness to report unfit, fatigued or sick. I feel that intimidation is overruling their duty not to operate when unfit to do so.
I accept that some lateness is avoidable and those or repeated instances should be investigated. But this should be done after a duty and never upon report. I have heard anecdotal evidence of more junior crew being so upset following these discussions that they have been in tears during the duty. We would probably all agree that an individual in such a state should be stood down. It should be noted that the same principle applies to crew arriving for airport standby, who could potentially be on duty for 16 hours. Such long periods of wakefulness cannot be conducive to safe operation. I care strongly that FTL protections are being eroded by airports and companies passing responsibility on to crew, especially since airside crew rooms are now the norm; then the lack of support from Management which has led to a strong sense of distrust. As Commanders, since Cabin Crew report times are usually earlier than Pilot report times; crews have often already left the crew room for the aircraft by the time Pilots report, we have no idea that we could be delegating safety-critical roles to unfit persons.
comments
Company Comment
Base teams do use discretion wherever necessary, including in cases of infrastructure disruption, and this has been taken into account previously. We do have a system for contracts, which exists to ensure fairness both to individuals and to their colleagues. This system provides a clear and consistent structure so that we can measure performance objectively and select the right candidates for permanent roles, while remaining fair to those they are competing against.
Following recent feedback, we have reviewed this process and removed absence levels from the scoring system. It is important to stress that this framework is not used as a form of punishment for colleagues who take fatigue-related absences or who experience lateness. Rather, it is also designed to protect those who have consistently met the criteria throughout the season.
Lateness is taken into account to support all colleagues and to ensure fairness to those who have made it to work on time. Without clear measures in place, there is a risk that permanent crew could be placed under additional pressure if colleagues were awarded permanent contracts without meeting the expected standards, potentially resulting in others having to cover flights due to frequent lateness or performance issues.
That said, base teams use discretion. For example, when infrastructure issues or car park transport problems affect a wider group, teams may choose not to issue late reports, understanding the broader context. In this case, however, a late report form is issued solely for monitoring and feedback to the airport authority, aiming to minimise disruption. Conversations with crew should focus on this purpose and make it clear that, although a report has been issued, this reason will not impact the scoring process.
All fatigue absences are reported directly to the fatigue team. Non-roster-related absences are shared with base teams, for welfare purposes and to allow for support from a team that the colleague is more familiar with. These meetings are intended to understand any underlying issues and to identify whether additional support may be required.
It would be wrong for the business not to have a structure in place, and each situation is considered on a case by case basis. We take the welfare of our crew very seriously and remain committed to supporting colleagues wherever necessary.
The Fatigue Safety Team monitors multiple factors contributing to fatigue, including airport infrastructure and crew commute times. When commute is cited in a fatigue report, we collect if the crew reported it exceeded the regulated 90-minute limit.
The main theme: crew report needing to arrive early due to transfer time from staff car park to crew room via staff buses. Each case where this specific issue was raised, it was addressed individually through manager discussions and written feedback.
Although not always formally reported, we recognise that bases requiring third-party bus transfers can contribute to fatigue and create feelings of unfairness. Fatigue management is a shared responsibility, and we remain committed to supporting crew.
This issue is being discussed industry-wide at the Flight Operations Liaison Group (FOLG) fatigue subsection and internally at the Fatigue Safety Action Group (FSAG) for ongoing monitoring, particularly at bases with car park bus transfers.
Ultimately, the 90 minute commute allowance covers the entire journey from home to work. If crew cannot meet this, temporary accommodation closer to base should be considered. Contracts specify living within 90 minutes (or less subject to contract date), and regulations clearly define responsibility.
CAA Comment
Cabin crew have a responsibility to ensure they do not operate when unfit and it is a regulatory requirement that crew members shall not perform duties on an aircraft when unfit due to fatigue, sickness or other similar causes. Most operators have a sickness policy to monitor crew welfare, however the policy should not be in contradiction to a just culture or encourage cabin crew members to report for a duty when unfit to operate.
The reporter has noted a number of issues such as staff parking and clearing security that may be a contributing factor to fatigue in crew members. It is important to report these concerns through the operator’s reporting system, which ensures the operator receives the feedback in the appropriate manner, allowing for an investigation and the introduction of any necessary mitigations.
CHIRP Comment
The report raises concerns about the treatment of cabin crew and the pressures they experience in the workplace. Some crew may feel unable to report being unfit, fatigued or unwell due to perceived repercussions for career progression, assessments or future employment opportunities. Such a culture can compromise safety if crew continue to operate while unfit for duty.
Operational challenges, including long commutes from staff car parks, unreliable transport and early report times, can further contribute to fatigue and stress. Addressing lateness or fitness issues at report time, rather than after duty, may cause distress and reduce crew capacity to focus on safety-critical roles. Over time, these factors can erode trust in management and weaken the protections intended to support crew wellbeing.
The operational need for crew to report on time is recognised; however, the way in which lateness is managed and communicated is equally important, particularly during periods of disruption.
CHIRP has received similar reports in the past reflecting these concerns, suggesting that the issues may be ongoing and affecting multiple crew members from multiple operators. Ensuring that crew feel able to report fatigue, illness or unfitness without fear of reprisal is essential to maintaining a just culture, where safety concerns can be raised openly and addressed constructively.