Being Cabin Crew | The Ugly Truth Part 3

Table of Contents

Being Cabin Crew | The Ugly Truth Part 2

Page 1 – When Cabin Crew Tell Lies
Page 2 – Hideous Bunch of Misfits 
Page 3 – Writing Performance Appraisals 
Page 4 – Incompetent Middle Management

Being Cabin Crew | The Ugly Truth Part 4

Hideous Bunch of Misfits

I want to start this section by talking about pre-flight safety briefings. After delivering these for nineteen years and receiving nothing but praise for the content and atmosphere I created, I was now being interrogated about the way I delivered the briefing on my Christmas flight to Atlanta.

The following comes from evidence I submitted as part of my defence. Crew manager Fred is the same manager who later carried out the investigation into the second grievance matter regarding my tongue-in-cheek comment on Workplace.

copy of written correspondence

The reason my briefing and entire performance as a Flight Manager was being investigated was because of a complaint submitted by a crew member still in his probation.

Almost nothing I said in my defence was believed by the two line managers who presided over the case or the Head of Cabin Crew who heard my appeal. It would take almost three years for me to understand why.

Following the publication of the first two chapters of my blog I spoke to many colleagues both past and present. Some of the stories I heard regarding how they had been treated over the years by crew line managers were truly horrific. Maybe I had been naive but I had no idea this was going on.

Two people I spoke to were ex crew line managers themselves. They reported directly to the Head of Cabin Crew. One told me she calls the shots with regards to the outcome of disciplinary hearings. Apparently it’s not in anyone’s interest to go against what she wants.

The other ex crew line manager also didn’t have a good word to say about her. She told me she could “tell me stories that would make my hair stand on end.” Sadly I heard similar stories from many past and present employees who had dealings with various line managers.

I was told by one of the crew line managers that evidence in a case they were dealing with was very flimsy yet the Head of Cabin Crew said she wanted the grievance to be upheld. She also said she wanted the person to be dismissed. The line manager refused which didn’t go in her favour.

Don’t forget less than two weeks before hearing my appeal for the grievance raised against me by Bart, the Head of Cabin Crew asked for a second grievance to be raised against me.

I was told from the start that if upheld I would receive a second final written warning. She knew that could lead to me losing my job.

Although the grievance was upheld it was downgraded to a written warning. That was the only reason I was not dismissed.

Just a few weeks later when redundancies were announced following the outbreak of Covid I was told I was being made redundant.

copy of a policy
Company policy regarding disciplinaries

I had been told what it was like to work under the Head of Cabin Crew by two previous crew line managers. Even so I still didn’t understand why she was so desperate for me to lose my job. I thought I had discovered the reason but realised shortly afterwards it was something far more sinister.

The Head of Cabin Crew was fully aware of what I had been dealing with in my personal life well before the grievance raised by Bart. She was also aware of my struggles with mental health whilst trying to defend myself from his fictitious allegations.

Even with that knowledge she requested the second grievance matter which I’ll share in the next chapter, to be dealt with in a way that would ensure I could be dismissed if upheld.

During my appeal meeting with her I asked whether she knew how many men of my age commit suicide because of depression. The comment was omitted from detailed minutes that were taken from the start of the meeting.

The following screenshots are different pieces of evidence I submitted as part of my defence/appeal.


With my flight to Atlanta in 2018 being over Christmas I wanted to make it a little bit special.

Despite my dad being in the last days of his life my thoughts were with the cabin crew who would not be at home for Christmas. I had only flown with one of them previously and didn’t know anyone else.

I turned up with a large box of chocolates and six boxes of Marks and Spencer mince pies. Thanks to icloud I have a photo of the chocolates because I asked my partner whether they would be okay. He said I was bonkers spending so much money and should have gone to Lidl.

I spent almost £40 on chocolates and “luxury” mince pies for a bunch of people I had never met.

large box of guylian chocolates

The outbound sector of our flight to Atlanta on 24th December 2018 was very quiet. The Economy cabin had 233 seats with 164 passengers. Premium had 38 seats with 32 passengers. In First Class we had 20 passengers in a cabin with 45 seats.

We took off twenty two minutes late at 09:47. The flight time was eight hours forty minutes. Due to it being so quiet I was able to give the cabin crew a two hour rest break in the bunks. I didn’t take a break because I didn’t feel comfortable leaving the cabin.

You’ll see from the following screenshot that during the flight I was in Economy talking to customers when the seatbelt signs were turned on for turbulence.

You’ll also notice crew member T had no observations about my onboard announcements. Bear in mind he worked up as Economy Purser. He would have been sat in his crew seat on both sectors whilst I made the after take-off welcome announcement and the after landing announcement. I also made other announcements during the flight.

He says he was aware a few crew members commented about them not sounding particularly professional.

Peter, Ven, Bart and Anna all criticised my announcements. As you will have seen from evidence included in my blog so far, little of what these four individuals says is reliable or honest.

You would have thought having been told by “a few crew members” my announcements didn’t sound “particularly professional” T would some recollection of them. Bear in mind Mia stated in her statement she didn’t believe I came into Economy during the flight.

copy of written correspondence
From witness statement of T

We arrived in Atlanta fifty five minutes early at 13:24. It took twenty minutes to get to the hotel. Mia and Peter had companions travelling with them and everyone was happy and looking forward to the evening ahead.

At the request of the company the hotel laid on a buffet dinner for us that evening with an open bar. It was 2:30pm, we arranged to meet downstairs at 6pm.

In his grievance Bart told more lies about my apparent behaviour during the layover as did his now ex fiancée Anna. It began with a comment they allege I made in the hotel lobby after we arrived.

In her witness statement crew member Mia tried to support this allegation but got confused about what she was supposed to say. Bart, Anna and Mia all wrote different versions of what allegedly took place.

It didn’t make any difference because all three managers who investigated the case believed their version of events instead of mine. Needless to say nobody else on the crew had any recollection of the incident.

I’ll return to this matter in a later chapter. For now I want to go back to my pre-flight safety briefing prior to leaving London Heathrow.

Bart complained about several aspects of my briefing as did Anna in her witness statement.

The following comes from Peter’s witness statement;

copy of written correspondence
FSM (FM) Flight Manager. CSS – Purser. From Peter’s witness statement. Time with the airline 6 months. Never flew previously.

copy of written correspondence
Taken from evidence I submitted as part of my defence

Ven is the person who was called out as Purser. For reasons already explained I put him at the front of the aircraft working in Premium as cabin crew not at the back. Clearly he spoke to Peter about not being given the opportunity to work up.

Remember the only two people to accuse me of disappearing from the cabin despite working at opposite ends of the aircraft were Ven and Peter. They have their arms around each other in the photo taken at the hotel.

I was only told as I left the cabin crew check-in area for the aircraft that someone had been called out. By that time I was comfortable with T and Katrina working up and didn’t want to start changing working positions around.

Having spoken to Ven as soon as he boarded about not working up, he repeated several times that he didn’t mind where he worked. We had never met but he seemed liked a nice guy and I was happy to have another experienced member of crew.

Peter says I “chose” Katrina to work up and makes a point of saying she was one of the least senior. In fact he was the least senior having been flying for just six months. Katrina had been flying for thirty years although she’d only been with the company for about sixteen months.

Having explained my reasons during the grievance investigation meeting for asking her to work up, I was asked a series of questions.

These were; when did I allocate working positions, how long before the pre-flight briefing were they entered into my iPad and who would I have asked to work up had I not asked T and Katrina.

The reason for asking was because in his grievance Bart complained he wasn’t given this opportunity. He also accused me of not entering crew working positions into my iPad (I’ll come to that in a moment). Anna made the same allegation in her witness statement.

Take a look at this which comes from Ven’s witness statement. It shows again that he was disgruntled at not being allowed to work up as Purser;

From Ven’s witness statement. CM7 is the working position based in Premium

The reason his iPad would still have shown him as working up as Purser is because he was called out to operate in that rank. Therefore that wouldn’t change even if the Flight Manager changes his position which I did.

He states having looked at his iPad he could see he had been allocated CM7 (CM = Crew Member) although it still showed him working up. The fact he could see that confirms I had entered positions into my iPad. Had they not been entered none of the crew would be able to see their working position on their own iPad.

The Flight Manager is responsible for allocating working positions not the crew control department. They’re responsible for calling additional crew out for a flight and for ensuring (if possible) it has the right complement of crew.

They would have told Ven he was required to work up because when they called him from standby they would have been aware I was missing two Pursers.

Ven doesn’t understand how the system worked. I believe as you’ll see in a moment that he told Bart or Anna I didn’t enter working positions. None of them understood how the system worked.

The following comes from Bart’s grievance. The black text is from the performance appraisal I wrote on him. The blue and green is his response;

In saying “allocate roles” Bart means allocate working positions. Even after eleven months he still wasn’t familiar with correct airline terminology.

Without going into more detail than necessary, cabin crew working positions have to be entered into the FM’s iPad in order for the pre-flight briefing to proceed. They also have to be entered so the FM and Purser can complete mandatory performance appraisals on their crew.

The cabin crew also have to complete a short upward appraisal on the Pursers and Flight Manager. If working positions are not entered none of that can be done. It’s how the system is programmed to work.

The following comes from Anna’s witness statement, Bart’s now ex fiancée. She had been with the airline for less than twelve months but had flown previously for British Airways.

JR90 indicates a crew member has been with the airline for less than eighteen months.

Claire who was working in First Class did upward feedback on me. Scores used to be out of 10 but are now out of 5. She scored me 5 out of 5.

Take a look at the link above to see what she wrote. The comment below her feedback is from the witness statement of Katrina. In Ven’s witness statement he says “she was given no support by Laurence“. “She” being Katrina.

The following screenshot comes from minutes taken during the meeting between Bart and crew line manager Lana. She met with him prior to meeting with me. The fact he received 10/10 on both sectors confirms positions were entered into my iPad.

Katrina who had been with the airline for just a few months longer than Bart and who was working up, completed his performance review. This was discussed in depth with the Head of Cabin Crew during my appeal meeting.

Crew manager Lana told me during my initial meeting which took place after she had met with Bart, that having explained to him how the system works this complaint was removed.

In Anna’s witness statement which was written several weeks later because at the time of Bart’s meeting witness statements had not yet been requested, she still accuses me of not entering working positions into my iPad.

Despite their inflammatory remarks, collusion and blatant lies, two managers and the Head of Cabin Crew were still happy to believe their version of events over mine. The Head of Cabin Crew also said in the outcome to my appeal she “could find no evidence of collusion”.

I accuse Anna of being a prolific liar throughout my blog because I have more than enough evidence to support that. Lying clearly comes naturally to her. The following screenshots which I included as part of my evidence come from her Facebook page.

I have changed her name and Bart’s.

copy of a facebook post

I wonder whether she lied when she applied for her new job?

copy of text from a facebook post
From the FB page of Anna. Further proof that she really is a sociopath.

The following comes from Ven’s witness statement. It has always been the airline’s policy that cabin crew working positions be allocated by the Flight Manager. With that said, most allow the crew to choose where they want to work.

Ven seems to be oblivious to company policy, not only with regards to this matter but also with several others. I’ll publish his witness statement in full in a later chapter.

copy of written correspondence
From Ven’s witness statement

Ironically I was also accused of being in breach of the Our Standards policy. The following screenshot comes from that policy;

copy of written correspondence
Our Standards Policy

I want to repeat something that has already been said elsewhere in my blog. The two crew line managers who dealt with this grievance and Head of Cabin Crew who dealt with my appeal at no time criticised anything that was written by Bart, Anna or Ven in their statements.

They clearly believe the paragraph just above which comes from Ven’s statement and the one higher up the page which comes from Anna’s, is respectful and not offensive.

When Bart’s complaint and witness statements written by Ven and Anna are published in full, you’ll see what a joke this investigation was.

In Bart’s complaint he refers to me as “inflexible, robotic and only wanting things to be done his way or face the wrath of a long-winded email.” That wasn’t considered to be disrespectful or offensive either. It shouldn’t be forgotten he was still in his probation.

Bart’s complaint and witness statements from Anna and Ven were downright rude and highly offensive from start to finish. I still struggle to read them more than three years on.

My use of the words “quite why” in the performance review I wrote on Bart were deemed to be offensive. You’ll read more about that on the next page.

During the first grievance meeting with crew manager Lana and the second disciplinary meeting with crew manager Hayley, minutes were taken by the same Employee Relations Consultant. His purpose for being present was to take minutes and ensure procedures were followed.

During the first meeting he was vocal throughout. I was questioned by him and cabin crew manager Lana. That made an already stressful situation even more stressful.

In the second meeting he took the lead and continuously guided crew manager Hayley. It was her first disciplinary meeting since joining the airline and she didn’t have a clue what she was doing.

In all other meetings I attended the Employee Relations Consultant spoke very little. The minutes they took were clear and concise. The minutes taken by Pedro (not his real name) were anything but.

Had he spent more time taking minutes and less time trying to take the meeting things may well have been different. According to his LinkedIn profile he’s a qualified solicitor in employment law. He no longer works for the company.

After being sent his minutes for approval I struggled to understand them. Numerous corrections had to be made.

copy of minutes taken during a meeting
Minutes taken by the Employee Relations Consultant with my corrections. CSS = Purser. OBM = Onboard manager. J is the First Class cabin.

%d bloggers like this: