| Table of Contents Being Cabin Crew | The Ugly Truth Part 6 Page 1 – A Royal Commendation Page 1 – Lana’s Investigation Continued Page 2 – More from Lana’s Investigation Page 3 – Yet More from Lana’s Investigation Page 4 – Almost Finished but not Quite Page 5 – That’s It for This Chapter Being Cabin Crew | The Ugly Truth Part 8 |
Almost Finished but Not Quite
This is the final section of Lana’s initial investigation. As I mentioned in an earlier chapter, it was made up of 156 pages.
You will have now realised the anti harassment and bullying policy excludes anything that’s been written by Bart in his complaint. It also excludes anything written by Anna, Ven and others in their witness statement.
At the meeting with Lana I was asked whether I felt I was better at delivering feedback in writing than verbally. I said I can express myself well in writing but always address performance issues with crew at the earliest opportunity or at the time of delivering an appraisal. Most issues in Bart’s report were addressed with him during the flight as soon as I became aware of them.
My comment regarding employing people with great personalities is fact not my opinion. The following comes from an interview given by the company’s Chief People Officer;
The type of cabin crew recruited for this airline has always set the company apart from other airlines. This characteristic was for many years referred to as “flair”.
In mandatory performance reviews that were completed on cabin crew by onboard managers, “flair” was a competency they were marked on.
Bart had been aloof and unfriendly from the second we met although I didn’t know why. Here’s what I wrote in his performance review;
Being the narcissist that he is my comment was very difficult for Bart to take in. I felt this point was valid and needed to be mentioned.
Admittedly I should have spoken to him about it at the time. I may not even have remembered the incident had we not received feedback in a Voice of Customer survey that said “the stewardess was professional but not very engaging”.
The customer was sitting in Economy so could only have been referring to Anna, Mia or a third crew member who didn’t return her witness statement.
During my pre-flight briefing I asked the crew to engage with customers whilst serving them. A copy of my briefing was submitted as evidence.
Whilst I accept I should have spoken to Bart having noticed his lack of engagement, I chose not to. That is most certainly a failing on my behalf.
Following his performance on the inbound sector which was well below average and having decided to write a review, I included other performance related issues that I had noticed.
Lana asked me whether I felt my review would jeopardise Bart’s twelve month review. This was someone who had no idea what he was doing despite telling me he had worked in First including the galley position many times before.
Let me recap some of his failings;
- Took drinks/meal orders prior to take-off during a short delay on the ground which is not how the service should be done. Didn’t advise anyone of what he was about to do and didn’t advise anyone after having done it
- Copied customers’ first and last name from his iPad onto his order sheet. Irrespective of what he says, I’m certain this is what he did.
- Having seen both names on his order sheet I explained only surnames need to be written down. At the time he offered no response and did not tell me he had asked everyone for their name and asked how they would like to be addressed. In Lottie’s witness statement she says Bart told her ONE customer asked to be addressed by his first name
- In his complaint Bart states all customers asked to be addressed by their first name which is why both names were written on the sheet
- Bart did not secure his cabin to company or UK Civil Aviation standards prior to landing into Heathrow. Having addressed this in his review he responded with; “derogatory comments regarding my performance”.
- In his complaint Bart refers to a conversation that took place between him and customers Mark and Jason in First Class and Mark and Iris in the same cabin. Customer Relations confirmed there were no customers with these names sitting anywhere in the cabin
- Having asked Bart to clear rubbish from the right side Premium he ignored me. In his complaint regarding this incident he told more lies. The story he made up made no sense at all.
- Bart asked me to reset a customer’s entertainment screen “for him” because he said he didn’t know how to do it. In his complaint he says when Katrina showed him he remembered he did know how to do it. He claims I told Katrina to show him how to do the reset. I didn’t ask Katrina, she offered because she was standing next to me at the time
- Bart struggled to keep up during all services
- States in his complaint he told Katrina he would need help with the breakfast service because everyone on his side was eating
- Bart did not deliver the breakfast service as it should be done. This led to a customer being missed out who subsequently complained. In his complaint Bart lied about what took place and said Katrina told him to do the service that way
- Removed his uniform tie before walking through the passenger cabin to the rest area. Stated he came back ten minutes early to ensure he was back on time. The cabin crew are always woken up ten before they’re due back in the cabin
- Didn’t check on the pilots once during either sector despite it being a safety requirement. Claimed he served them their food but it was completely impossible for him to have done that. Neither pilot had any recollection of Bart
- Having said goodbye to Bart and Anna as they left the aircraft and subsequently as they left the bus in the car park at Heathrow, both ignored me
I did not tell Bart off or even speak to him about addressing a customer by their first name because I wasn’t aware he had done that. Within minutes of the crew standing up after takeoff from London I asked Bart to go and work in Premium because I didn’t need so many crew in First Class.
Katrina and Claire were present at this time. When Bart handed his aisle order to Claire who would be serving his customers, I saw the sheet was completely filled out. Not only only with customers’ first and last name but also with their after takeoff drink and what they wanted to eat for lunch.
Having told him that’s not the way we do the service I then also said it’s not necessary to write customers’ first and last names.
Although he told me people had started giving him their orders so he wrote them down, he didn’t say he had asked everyone for their name and then asked how they would like to be addressed. He didn’t say that because he knows customer names are on his iPad and they need to be copied onto his order sheet before he introduces himself. That’s the standard way of doing the service, always has been and it’s the way all cabin crew are trained.
The following comes from Claire’s witness statement. She was serving customers sitting in the middle seats so worked in both the left and right aisle. She worked alongside Bart and I on two long sectors.
You may recall during the pre-flight briefing when I said Bart was looking at the floor he said he was reading his iPad checking for any special meal requests or frequent flyers. He would therefore have been looking at each customer’s name because that’s where this information is stored.
We only had twenty customers in the cabin although Bart states we had nine and makes a point saying “we had nine customers in total”. Yet when he started taking orders during the short delay on the ground, he claims he asked each customer for their name.
When you tell so many lies it’s easy to catch yourself out.
Having addressed several issues with Bart verbally during the flight and subsequently documenting them in my own time in an assessment that was sent to him and his manager, I was now being asked whether I felt it would jeopardise his twelve month review.
After almost twelve months with the company he had no idea how to deliver any aspect of the service correctly in the First Class cabin and didn’t take kindly to guidance.
Bart says he felt I was being patronising by giving him a cheat sheet which I believed he would find useful. The only reason he felt that was because it bruised his ego.
Most people in a new job want to learn and are happy to be mentored by someone more experienced. Being the narcissist that he is, Bart believes nobody could be any better than him.
During the first investigative meeting I did concede my cheat sheet could be seen as patronising. I was up against Crew Manager Lana and Employee Relations Consultant Pedro. Standing my ground was really very difficult. I didn’t ask a Union rep’ to accompany me to this meeting because I was naive and believed the company would see through Bart’s lies.
I’m someone who’s always loved to learn new skills and am always happy to be coached. I learnt many new skills during my time as a Flight Manager and most came from people in lower ranks than me. In many cases they were much younger and far less experienced.
I was trying to mentor Bart and assumed albeit incorrectly that it may be appreciated.
Like the Head of Department, Lana says she would expect me to deliver feedback verbally which I did for most issues that were addressed. She also expected me to discuss his performance with someone who was the same rank as him but for one flight only was working up in a supervisory role.
I should also have told him I would be emailing his manager despite it being company policy that managers are copied in on all written feedback.
At no point throughout this entire “investigation” was I given one iota of credit for what was an extremely challenging flight. I know of a Flight Manager who a few months after my Atlanta refused to take a flight because he was the only onboard manager.
That person who had been in the company for a similar time to me was removed from the flight and served with a disciplinary. As far as I am aware he fought it and won.
Not only was I the only onboard manager but I had an extremely junior crew. Most were still in or just out of their twelve month probation period.
Lana closes this section of her investigation by saying “I am of the view Laurence’s choice of words was poor when he delivered his feedback to Bart. Bart felt ridiculed, intimidated and uncomfortable when reading Laurence’s feedback.”
He felt ridiculed, intimidated and uncomfortable because it’s not easy for a narcissist to be hear criticism about his performance.
Had the company crewed the flight correctly with two Pursers the service may have been led very differently. A trained Purser would also have completed Bart’s performance monitoring after discussing it with me because that’s what we’re trained to do.
I would also not have been as tired because I would have taken a break. Being stupid and far too loyal I didn’t feel comfortable leaving the cabin.
The problem on this flight was Bart had no idea what he was doing and had no sense of urgency. I don’t have a problem with someone never having worked in the cabin before, there’s always a first time.
Had he been open and honest instead of saying he had worked there many times before including the galley we could all have given him the support he clearly needed.
And this is someone who took a dislike to me before we had even spoken because he wasn’t given the opportunity to work up in a supervisory role.
So I basically hurt Bart’s feelings.
I’m being accused of being condescending yet despite discussing many of Bart’s failings with him and writing a performance assessment that could not have been any more courteous and professional, I’m being told my manager will offer me support on how to write and deliver effective feedback.
My manager who pressured me into dealing with a second grievance whilst I was on long term sick with anxiety and depression.
Being Cabin Crew | The Ugly Truth 