Pensioner forced to sit in wet clothes for 13 hours after BA crew refused to let her use toile

Syl wrote:
I know airline staff have strict instruction to ensure people remain seated during take off and landing etc....but this flight was delayed for 90 minutes, the lady should have been allowed to use the toilet.

How humiliating for her ...I felt so sad for her when I saw this in the paper.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:
I know airline staff have strict instruction to ensure people remain seated during take off and landing etc....but this flight was delayed for 90 minutes, the lady should have been allowed to use the toilet.

How humiliating for her ...I felt so sad for her when I saw this in the paper.

This is the problem these days Syl, that people are not allowed to use any common sense.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

This is the problem these days Syl, that people are not allowed to use any common sense.

Yep....and as cabin crew orders have to be obeyed by law, its hard to argue with a Cruella De Vil in a British Airways uniform.

Raggamuffin wrote:It's a bit OTT to call an air steward "Cruella De Vil" when she's just adhering to the rules.

It's an unfortunate incident, and although space is limited on planes, it's a shame they didn't have a way to dry her off (not to mention the seat). Perhaps they should have a stock of paper pants and some kind of emergency clothing.

eddie wrote:Wasn't she allowed to use the bathroom afterwards? And why didn't she have a change of clothes anyway?

It's a horrid story and a real shame for the elderly lady but cabin staff had to stick to the rules, I guess?
Not sure I would've done though. I'm that person who breaks the rules to do the right thing and ends up sacked for it.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It's a bit OTT to call an air steward "Cruella De Vil" when she's just adhering to the rules.

It's an unfortunate incident, and although space is limited on planes, it's a shame they didn't have a way to dry her off (not to mention the seat). Perhaps they should have a stock of paper pants and some kind of emergency clothing.

Cabin crew get plenty notice when the plane is about to leave, the lady was asking for a long time if she could use the toilet. The plane was grounded for 90 mintes....The stewardess could have allowed her to leave her seat and escort her there and back to the loo.
Having the poor lady wait so long she wet herself was humiliating for her and embarrassing  for other passengers.

So I think Cruella De Vil is a pretty fair description.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:Wasn't she allowed to use the bathroom afterwards? And why didn't she have a change of clothes anyway?

It's a horrid story and a real shame for the elderly lady but cabin staff had to stick to the rules, I guess?
Not sure I would've done though. I'm that person who breaks the rules to do the right thing and ends up sacked for it.

Well me too. Eddie..initiative is sometimes more sensible than blindly following rules and orders.

magica wrote:I feel sorry for the lady, but Fen is right. Once on the run way no one is allowed to stand up or move. Maybe if she asked as soon as she got on the story would be different.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Well me too. Eddie..initiative is sometimes more sensible than blindly following rules and orders.

Not if you get sacked for it.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Not if you get sacked for it.

Well I have been sacked from a job (2 actually) for sticking to my principles rather than blindly following ridiculous orders, and never regretted it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Well I have been sacked from a job (2 actually) for sticking to my principles rather than blindly following ridiculous orders, and never regretted it.

Maybe you could afford it, or had someone to pay your bills for you.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Maybe you could afford it, or had someone to pay your bills for you.

I paid my own bills...It was long ago when you could walk out of one job, apply for another and chances are you would get it.
Still, I think principles are important....I take your point though.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I paid my own bills...It was long ago when you could walk out of one job, apply for another and chances are you would get it.
Still, I think principles are important....I take your point though.

Air stewards usually love their jobs though. I doubt they'd risk being sacked for breaking the rules.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Air stewards usually love their jobs though. I doubt they'd risk being sacked for breaking the rules.

The thing is, had the stewardess explained the position to her superior, and the plane was not going anywhere for 90 minutes, permission could have been given, so the stewardess would not have been risking her job.
The lady made it clear she needed the toilet shortly after boarding.
Rules can be bent in extreme circumstances....all it needs is a bit of common sense and understanding.

Raggamuffin wrote:According to some reports, the air steward's "manager" was called, and said the same thing.

I wonder if the old lady told anyone she'd wet herself - or didn't the person next to her notice?

What I don't get is why this is all over the papers. The lady was apparently very embarrassed about it, and now her picture and story is splashed all over the press. Strange.

Raggamuffin wrote:According to some reports, the air steward's "manager" was called, and said the same thing.

I wonder if the old lady told anyone she'd wet herself - or didn't the person next to her notice?

What I don't get is why this is all over the papers. The lady was apparently very embarrassed about it, and now her picture and story is splashed all over the press. Strange.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:According to some reports, the air steward's "manager" was called, and said the same thing.

I wonder if the old lady told anyone she'd wet herself - or didn't the person next to her notice?

What I don't get is why this is all over the papers. The lady was apparently very embarrassed about it, and now her picture and story is splashed all over the press. Strange.

The manager or head steward answers to the captain, he/she should have been the one to ask, he would have known the plane was not about to move, so would have known that the lady had plenty of time to use the toilet then get back safely to her seat.
I'm a bit surprised that no other passengers spoke up for this lady, who was probably intimidated by the harridan blocking her in.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:
The manager or head steward answers to the captain, he/she should have been the one to ask, he would have known the plane was not about to move, so would have known that the lady had plenty of time to use the toilet then get back safely to her seat.
I'm a bit surprised that no other passengers spoke up for this lady, who was probably intimidated by the harridan blocking her in.

I think you're being quite sexist toward that particular steward actually. If the manager was called and also wouldn't let the lady use the toilet, it shows that the steward was following the rules and doing her job - there's no need to insult her.

The rules on planes seem to me to be very much more strict than on other forms of transport, but there's probably a good reason for that.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think you're being quite sexist toward that particular steward actually. If the manager was called and also wouldn't let the lady use the toilet, it shows that the steward was following the rules and doing her job - there's no need to insult her.

The rules on planes seem to me to be very much more strict than on other forms of transport, but there's probably a good reason for that.

Why is it sexist?
It was a female steward who refused the lady permission...it was the same female steward who blocked her in.
I haven't read anywhere that a manager was called...if one was they could have been male or female.

If a male cabin crew member had acted in the same way as the air hostess did, I think I could have come up with a few insults for him too....sexism doesn't come into it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Why is it sexist?
It was a female steward who refused the lady permission...it was the same female steward who blocked her in.
I haven't read anywhere that a manager was called...if one was they could have been male or female.

If a male cabin crew member had acted in the same way as the air hostess did, I think I could have come up with a few insults for him too....sexism doesn't come into it.

You're using very gender-specific insults towards her. Is it relevant that she's female?

Thorin wrote:Okay people are not using common sense here.
If the flight is delayed on the runway and this is a toilet emergency. She explained shortly after boarding of the emergency. What was stopping the staff speaking to the pilot and requesting the plane be delayed by a further few minutes?

The plane is cannot take off anyway, until they have given the all clear to the pilots that all passengers and seated with their seat belts are on. So the claim on health and safety is farcical as the plane would not have taken off anyway and the fact of this is clear by one of the air hostess blocking her path. The Pilot already delayed on the runway, could have radioed the controllers to explain the situation and to then have allowed the toilet emergency.

A complete lack of common sense by the crew.

Thorin wrote:

Thorin wrote:Okay people are not using common sense here.
If the flight is delayed on the runway and this is a toilet emergency. She explained shortly after boarding of the emergency. What was stopping the staff speaking to the pilot and requesting the plane be delayed by a further few minutes?

The plane is cannot take off anyway, until they have given the all clear to the pilots that all passengers and seated with their seat belts are on. So the claim on health and safety is farcical as the plane would not have taken off anyway and the fact of this is clear by one of the air hostess blocking her path. The Pilot already delayed on the runway, could have radioed the controllers to explain the situation and to then have allowed the toilet emergency.

A complete lack of common sense by the crew.

The points still stand.
There is no excuse and if people have waited, then there is no reason they can wait an extra few minutes whilst this lady went to the toilet in the facilities provided

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


The points still stand.
There is no excuse and if people have waited, then there is no reason they can wait an extra few minutes whilst this lady went to the toilet in the facilities provided

I agree with the sympathetic stance you are taking Thor, not about the extra few minutes they could have waited though.

A plane is given a specific time slot....once on the runway once that time is given they cant wait, if they do they could be stranded there for hours.

But the pilot and most probablt the crew would have known very well how long the delay would be.
Often once on the runway, when a delay is happening, they will let the passengers know......so the simple fact is the crew KNEW there was going to be a long delay, the lady asked to use the toilet well in advance of the plane actually taking off.

It was ridiculous not to let her go, which resulted in humiliation for her, embarrassment for others, and possibly the plane having to be delayed once it landed so the seating area could be cleaned properly.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I agree with the sympathetic stance you are taking Thor, not about the extra few minutes they could have waited though.

A plane is given a specific time slot....once on the runway once that time is given they cant wait, if they do they could be stranded there for hours.

But the pilot and most probablt the crew would have known very well how long the delay would be.
Often once on the runway, when a delay is happening, they will let the passengers know......so the simple fact is the crew KNEW there was going to be a long delay, the lady asked to use the toilet well in advance of the plane actually taking off.

It was ridiculous not to let her go, which resulted in humiliation for her, embarrassment for others, and possibly the plane having to be delayed once it landed so the seating area could be cleaned properly.

Air companies and staff are meant to look after the well being of their customers. All through the customer service process to the actual use of flights.
This airways failed looking after the well being of this lady, as she had an emergency toilet requirement.
Hence you are right, that the Pilot would have know there was delays.
The fact that the manager was involved and did nothing, is a massive failing on the crew.

I mean if they boarded and the plane was late and were rushing to get airborne, then they again failed the passenger. They placed time over that of her needs here, when its evident the plane was already late. Another few minutes would have made zero difference. The fact that the airways have defended the staff is even worse in my opinion Syl.

So if the plane loses it slot, it can wait for another, as this happens all the time, when there is delays. The emergency needs of a customer must come first. I mean what if someone was having a heart attack and one of the passengers was a doctor and told them they must remain in their seat?

Its absurd and of course they would not, but a toilet emergency and they act like idiots the staff

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Air companies and staff are meant to look after the well being of their customers. All through the customer service process to the actual use of flights.
This airways failed looking after the well being of this lady, as she had an emergency toilet requirement.
Hence you are right, that the Pilot would have know there was delays.
The fact that the manager was involved and did nothing, is a massive failing on the crew.

I mean if they boarded and the plane was late and were rushing to get airborne, then they again failed the passenger. They placed time over that of her needs here, when its evident the plane was already late. Another few minutes would have made zero difference. The fact that the airways have defended the staff is even worse in my opinion Syl.

So if the plane loses it slot, it can wait for another, as this happens all the time, when there is delays. The emergency needs of a customer must come first. I mean what if someone was having a heart attack and one of the passengers was a doctor and told them they must remain in their seat?

Its absurd and of course they would not, but a toilet emergency and they act like idiots the staff

I was going to use the heart attack scenario earlier on in the thread. Of course they would consider that an emergency, but  an elderly lady needing desperately to pass urine should also be treated as an emergency ...just not a life or death situation.
Like we said at the beginning, common sense should be used in situations like this.

If the plane was taxying up the runway taking off obviously everyone including crew should be seated and belted....if the plane is still with no chance of moving for an hour and a half....there is NO REASON why the toilet cannot be used in an emergency.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You're using very gender-specific insults towards her. Is it relevant that she's female?

Yes its relevant, being female she should have had empathy towards a much older lady and the problems an aged bladder can have being denied a toilet for a length of time.
I'm sure if the stewardess is in the habit of acting like this she will have been called far worse.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Yes its relevant, being female she should have had empathy towards a much older lady and the problems an aged bladder can have being denied a toilet for a length of time.
I'm sure if the stewardess is in the habit of acting like this she will have been called far worse.

So if it had been an old man, you wouldn't expect her to have empathy?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So if it had been an old man, you wouldn't expect her to have empathy?

I am sure Syl would think an old person would have empathy.

Her point on empathy or more to the point emphatic intelligence.

Is woman to woman.

With an older man.

Older person to older person

Making it easier to place yourself into these positions from each perspective

The point here, is the British Airways staff showed zero empathy.

So it would not matter, if they were old, female, or male. They lacked any empathy to the customer.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I am sure Syl would think an old person would have empathy.

Her point on empathy or more to the point emphatic intelligence.

Is woman to woman.

With an older man.

Older person to older person

Making it easier to place yourself into these positions from each perspective

The point here, is the British Airways staff showed zero empathy.

So it would not matter, if they were old, female, or male. They lacked any empathy to the customer.

So you disagree with Syl's point then?

If the old woman had been a man, and the steward had been male, would anyone expect the steward to have more empathy than a female steward?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you disagree with Syl's point then?

If the old woman had been a man, and the steward had been male, would anyone expect the steward to have more empathy than a female steward?

Eh?

Where did she make any such claim?

Yes its relevant, being female she should have had empathy towards a much older lady

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Eh?

Where did she make any such claim?

She said this:

Yes its relevant, being female she should have had empathy towards a much older lady

So her view is that the steward should have had empathy towards the old lady because they're the same gender.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

She said this:

Yes its relevant, being female she should have had empathy towards a much older lady

So her view is that the steward should have had empathy towards the old lady because they're the same gender.

Yes that is what she said.

She did not say whether someone would have more empathy based off a different situation.

That is your insinuation.

She stated, a female should have empathy towards another woman, clearly based off an understanding of what its like for when a woman needs the toilet.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Yes that is what she said.

She did not say whether someone would have more empathy based off a different situation.

That is your insinuation.

She stated, a female should have empathy towards another woman, clearly based off an understanding of what its like for when a woman needs the toilet.

That is why I asked if she would expect a male steward to have more empathy towards an old man than a female steward would - on the grounds that they're the same gender.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That is why I asked if she would expect a male steward to have more empathy towards an old man than a female steward would - on the grounds that they're the same gender.

I doubt she would think one would have more empathy over the other, based on her reasoning.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I doubt she would think one would have more empathy over the other, based on her reasoning.

So you don't think the steward would have empathy for the old lady just because she's female then.

Thorin wrote:British Airways staff have been criticised for stopping an 87-year-old woman from using the toilet on a flight, leaving her sitting in soaking clothes.  Kocharik Tsamouzian was bound for London from Los Angeles but realised she needed to use the bathroom shortly after boarding the plane. As the flight was delayed on the runway she was repeatedly told she was not allowed to the use the bathroom, with a cabin crew member even reportedly blocking her access in the aisle at one point. The flight, on December 22 last year, ended up waiting on the runway for 90 minutes, resulting in Mrs Tsamouzian wetting herself.

She then spent the rest of the 13-hour flight distressed and in tears as she did not have a change of clothes with her in the cabin. Mrs Tsamouzian’s daughter Aida Behroozi, who lives in West London, told the Mail Online: "I went to pick my mother up from Heathrow Airport and she arrived in tears. "I was shaking with anger. She asked the air hostess over and over again if she could go to the loo but they kept telling her no because of health and safety reasons.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/ba-staff-refused-to-let-pensioner-use-the-toilet/


And what was their excuse?
Health and safety.
Absolute madness, as surely this constituted an emergency, with the need to go toilet?

Raggamuffin wrote:One can be repeatedly told something in the space of a few minutes. It's still not clear when she first said she needed the toilet. I wouldn't have expected it to be as soon as she got on the plane.