Cathay serve wine to 3yr old.

[elanshin]

no one saying let FA off the hook. More effective is to recognise what happened, why it happened and what were the contributing factors

But losing one's job over this just means it's only ever the employees fault. Crew fatigue, crew /passenger ratio on flight in that case never comes into play.

I agree personally, but as a big brand business, this sort of thing is probably on the levels of instant dismissals.

As i said there are some mistakes that can be made and an internal review of the cause is enough, there are others that just flat out can't be made regardless of circumstances.

 

[Quickstatus]

thing is probably on the levels of instant dismissals.

Then it's only going to happen again in other ways.
Accountability is a much deeper activity than simply firing someone.

 

[elanshin]

Then it's only going to happen again in other ways.
Accountability is a much deeper activity than simply firing someone.

Of course, I'm not suggesting they wash their hands of this incident by just firing the people involved. But unfortunately in my books this crossed the line as well and theres even less recourse once the parents went public.

 

[Quickstatus]

But unfortunately in my books this crossed the line as well and theres even less recourse once the parents went public.

In my books accountability is personal, professional, organisational, regulatory. Can't just fire one and not fire everyone else because the workplace is affected by all of the above and often the policies procedures and demands of the higher levels are more impactful in the workplace that the actions of the individual.

Unfortunately the optics of firing a employee that made a mistake means the organisation in my eyes is less safe than ones which does the hard yards on correcting the organisational factors

Suggest reading 2 interesting books called
Drift into Failure and The Second Victim

 

[elanshin]

In my books accountability is personal, professional, organisational, regulatory. Can't just fire one and not fire everyone else because the workplace is affected by all of the above and often the policies procedures and demands of the higher levels are more impactful in the workplace that the actions of the individual.

I agree as a general, but in this specific case, (and I'm not limiting it to just one person) the reality is a unlawful action was performed. Whether a case is going to be filed for both Cathay and the FA is probably a thing forthcoming. As I understand, under HK law both the business/employer and employee(s) in question is liable for persecution.

Unfortunately the optics of firing a employee that made a mistake means the organisation in my eyes is less safe than ones which does the hard yards on correcting the organisational factors

The question here is, is it an organisational (lack of training) problem or a personal mistake which will now bring a potential lawsuit onto the company. 2 very different scenarios.

Also the flipside can also be true for organisations. If you don't take an adequate reaction to an issue, it can also cause future problems.

Again as i mentioned earlier, a lot of the times once it's a clear legal problem, its usually a lot harder not to fire the employees involved. If its mistake against a company policies that are breeched, thats a whole different scenario.


The mistake itself can be the same as for an adult and potentially just as likely and it would have just been a bad review at worst, but the legal ramifications here with a child are vastly different.

 

[CaptJCool]

Persecution v prosecution

A conservative view would say punish by terminating employment

A progressive view would say punish by a harsh telling off and and a very clear “don’t do it again”

There’s actually no minimum drinking age in China

Legal drinking age - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Quickstatus]

A conservative view would say punish by terminating employment

A progressive view would say punish by a harsh telling off and and a very clear “don’t do it again”

Whereas the correct way is to
1) Discover the root cause
2) Analyse the contributing factors - individual, organisational, regulatory
3) Propose a solution
4) Implement the solution
5) Measure the outcome

This is actually how it should be done in any quality assurance process.

 

[Quickstatus]

As I understand, under HK law both the business/employer and employee(s) in question is liable for persecution.

So why fire only the FA?
Are we saying that the FA's workplace is not affected by policies and procedures from higher up

The question here is

And you dont answer the question by terminating the FA
Why? Because in the future all FA will be hesitant to speak up about near misses or failures in the future for fear they lose their job.
You actually want a culture where all employees feel able to safely report near misses without risking their employment.
Accountability and safety is vastly improved when people can come forward and say "I made a mistake"
And when an employee can come forward like that, that employee is Gold because that employee has just helped to make your organisation a better and safer workplace.

If you don't take an adequate reaction to an issue, it can also cause future problems.

Again, I say that the worst reaction is to fire the FA. - doing this will guarantee future problems as per above.
Unless an organisation is prepared to really consider all the contributing factors , it is doomed to repeat the mistake again.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Whereas the correct way is to
1) Discover the root cause
2) Analyse the contributing factors - individual, organisational, regulatory
3) Propose a solution
4) Implement the solution
5) Measure the outcome

This is actually how it should be done in any quality assurance process.

One FA, on one flight accidentally picked up the wrong drink to give a passenger. There was no harm to the passenger. Only reputational harm to the company.,

The only thing that needs to come out of this is a reminder for FAs to double check drinks before giving them to a minor.

It would be interesting to hear the FA’s side of the story.

 

[Quickstatus]

The only thing that needs to come out of this is a reminder for FAs to double check drinks before giving them to a minor.

It would be interesting to hear the FA’s side of the story.

On the surface it may be an isolated incident
But is it? were there near misses in the past?
Eg FA about to give a 3yr old wine but realises before it occured?

Near misses are an important indicator of latent safety issues.

The company might want to delve a little deeper
Maybe something lke Crew fatigue?, Crew workload?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

On the surface it may be an isolated incident
But is it? were there near misses in the past?
Eg FA about to give a 3yr old wine but realises before it occured?

Near misses are an important indicator of latent safety issues.

The company might want to delve a little deeper
Maybe something lke Crew fatigue?, Crew workload?

I agree with all the theory. And it’s best practice for safety issues.

I just don’t see this as a safety issue.

This doesn’t appear to be anything more than the FA picking up the wrong drink for the wrong passenger. It probably has happened before, but the impact seems low so i’m not sure of the problem.

 

[Quickstatus]

I just don’t see this as a safety issue.

Prima facie I would agree. Hence my comment about the storm in a teacup.

But sometimes this may benefit from a deeper analysis

 

[anat0l]

This incident happened about two weeks ago now. The article doesn't really say that the FA got fired, so it's likely safe to assume they're still employed, maybe with a mark on their record now. If the FA did get fired, then the company clearly viewed them as expendable for the sake of image.

It doesn't really say in the article whether the complainant wanted the FA to be fired. It just says that they thought they were being dealt with in a way that portrayed CX and/or the FA as:

• Not acknowledging the incident was an "incident" (yes, a sip of alcohol is not likely to kill or harm a child, but it's difficult to argue that this was not an unwanted event)
• Dismissing the passenger and any concerns as quickly as possible (i.e. "here, take this, now go away")

Mr Tsui told The Standard that the couple shared the incident on social media to raise fellow parents’ awareness of child safety during flights.

He said: “If a flagship Asian carrier can miss such basic safeguards in business class, every travelling family is at risk.”

Very odd. Those two sentences together doesn't imply that CX may have been negligent and possibly a risk to families, but rather parents who fly share an equal (if not greater) responsibility in being aware of their children. In other words, one might be asking why the parents themselves didn't check that the drink given to the child was what was stated (let alone "safe") before the child drank it.

 

[clifford]

Prima facie I would agree. Hence my comment about the storm in a teacup.

Hurricane in a thimble.

But a good story, especially if you intend to claim big bucks from the airline.

If it were me, with my children at a similar age, I'd just laugh it off.

 

[Bengingerflea]

Maybe the flight attendants were just distracted or it was a mix-up in the serving process. Still, I can’t see how you’d mistake wine for water

 

[justinbrett]

Hurricane in a thimble.

Typhoon in a wine glass?

 

[Franky]

Typhoon in a wine glass?

OTT as they say in the classics…

 

[Quickstatus]

OTT

CX's new in house Wine brand (zero alcohol)