bmi diamond club - Crucifixes banned on Riyadh route.

Article in today's Telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/09/nbmi09.xml

If BMI are to be equal to all then remove all religous symbols and references. I noticed on a recent MAN-ORD flight that directions for Mecca are given on the IFE. I thought that this was a noble and sensitive gesture that was there for those who needed it, and not invasive for those who don't.

Surely BMI should show a tolerance to all and allow expression of ones faith. Afterall JC is recognised as a prophet within Islam.

I'm sure I've opened up the proverbial hornets nest by commenting on Religous matters.

For clarification, the story is about cabin crew not wearing crucifixes - it doesn't apply to passengers.

ETA: Re the hornets' nest, can we please keep discussion about this (a) on topic, and (b) restrained. ajamieson and myself are very fortunate in that we hardly need to moderate (in the getting involved with threads and posts sense) at all here. It would be lovely if this thread maintained the measured manners of the forum as a whole.

If BMI are to be equal to all then remove all religous symbols and references. I noticed on a recent MAN-ORD flight that directions for Mecca are given on the IFE. I thought that this was a noble and sensitive gesture that was there for those who needed it, and not invasive for those who don't.

Surely BMI should show a tolerance to all and allow expression of ones faith. Afterall JC is recognised as a prophet within Islam.

I'm sure I've opened up the proverbial hornets nest by commenting on Religous matters.

Well, I agree with the principle of what you say. Indeed, the vast majority of Muslims have no objection to someone wearing a crucifix. However, the icon you describe indicating the direction of the Qibla is a target market based convenience for passengers, as are Halal meals and less risque IFE offerings. The article focusses on dress requirements for BMI staff. It's a bit different.

A better meter of how tolerant BMI's dress policy might be, would be to determine whether or not a Muslim FA is allowed to wear a Hijab/Headscarf while serving passengers on board an aircraft. If the answer is yes, then banning staff from wearing crucifixes and St. Christophers' while serving passengers is indeed discriminatory.

Well, I agree with the principle of what you say. Indeed, the vast majority of Muslims have no objection to someone wearing a crucifix. However, the icon you describe indicating the direction of the Qibla is a target market based convenience for passengers, as are Halal meals and less risque IFE offerings. The article focusses on dress requirements for BMI staff. It's a bit different.

A better meter of how tolerant BMI's dress policy might be, would be to determine whether or not a Muslim FA is allowed to wear a Hijab/Headscarf while serving passengers on board an aircraft. If the answer is yes, then banning staff from wearing crucifixes and St. Christophers' while serving passengers is indeed discriminatory.

^

A better meter of how tolerant BMI's dress policy might be, would be to determine whether or not a Muslim FA is allowed to wear a Hijab/Headscarf while serving passengers on board an aircraft. If the answer is yes, then banning staff from wearing crucifixes and St. Christophers' while serving passengers is indeed discriminatory.

I think this argument might be a little simplistic.

This policy is clearly based on the sensitivies of the airport / destination city. London is a multicultural city, all cultures are welcomed, and hurrah for that. Riyadh is not a multicultural city. We shouldn't judge ourselves by the standards of others.

While I'm not personally entirely easy with bmi's decision here, they are stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea. If the choice was between this policy and withdrawing the route (and I'm not saying that's what the choice is) which should they do? Because by serving the route and thus encouraging cultural exchange they might do a little to help change attitudes...

Now I'll go back and sit on my fence and read my Guardian.

Just wondering if this happens only on flights to Saudi Arabia, or to other Arab countries as well. I know that these days is the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca, as I've seen some of it on CNN, would that have anything to do with the ban of flight crew wearing a crucifxes? Seems like I heard somewhere that in the UAE, it's ok to wear them anytime.

It's a Saudi thing - if you front up at RUH immigration with a crucifix you will be made to take it off. Similarly, if the mutawwa (religieous police) see you wearing a Christian symbol it will have to go. I assume the onboard rule is designed to prevent any risk of some being dobbed in when they get there.

For bmi the choice is run the route and deal with the implications or pull out. I guess they can't offer crew the choice not to run that route. As it is hardly 2 days in SYD I doubt anyone would volunteer.

It's a Saudi thing - if you front up at RUH immigration with a crucifix you will be made to take it off. Similarly, if the mutawwa (religieous police) see you wearing a Christian symbol it will have to go. I assume the onboard rule is designed to prevent any risk of some being dobbed in when they get there.

Trying to remain on topic, but it's not easy...

As a Muslim, I am dismayed with some of the rules and regulations that Saudi Arabia imposes on people, foreign as well as nationals, falsely in the name of my religion. Thankfully, Saudi Arabia is usually out there on it's own in imposing silly rules. This crucifix thing is a classic example of what I am talking about. :mad:

Trying to remain on topic, but it's not easy...

As a Muslim, I am dismayed with some of the rules and regulations that Saudi Arabia imposes on people, foreign as well as nationals, falsely in the name of my religion. Thankfully, Saudi Arabia is usually out there on it's own in imposing silly rules. This crucifix thing is a classic example of what I am talking about. :mad:

Me too. Quite shameful. :td:

Sadly most of Saudi Arabia's laws are completely un-Islamic (eg not allowing women to drive) but are seen by people as Islamic Laws.

I think this argument might be a little simplistic.

This policy is clearly based on the sensitivies of the airport / destination city. London is a multicultural city, all cultures are welcomed, and hurrah for that. Riyadh is not a multicultural city. We shouldn't judge ourselves by the standards of others.

While I'm not personally entirely easy with bmi's decision here, they are stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea. If the choice was between this policy and withdrawing the route (and I'm not saying that's what the choice is) which should they do? Because by serving the route and thus encouraging cultural exchange they might do a little to help change attitudes...

Now I'll go back and sit on my fence and read my Guardian.

"go back" and sit on the fence? lol by the look of your post I cant imagine that you ever left - and as for your choice of paper, surely a true pinko leftie would advocate that all religion was nonsense :)

but back to the point - while I am of the opinion that all religion is nonsense, I do believe you have hit the nail on the head - we should not judge ourselves by the standards of others.

The fact that there are issues with religious symbols in Saudi is an example of lack of cultural diversity and a certain amount of narrow mindedness/religious fanaticism - in situations like this as with many others in life, as my dad used to say, its better to keep your head down and your arse clean.

If the decision was taken in the UK however - all BD FA's banned from wearing crucifixes - then I would have a serious problem with it

Interesting fact: Saudi Arabian Airlines changed its insignia font in the 1980s because the space between the letters 'S' and 'A' could be seen to form the shape of the cross.

BEFORE (http://www.williamdemarest.com/images/Saudia/saudia_737_3.jpg)

AFTER (http://airlines.afriqonline.com/images/sarah050.jpg)

Interesting fact: Saudi Arabian Airlines changed its insignia font in the 1980s because the space between the letters 'S' and 'A' could be seen to form the shape of the cross.

BEFORE (http://www.williamdemarest.com/images/Saudia/saudia_737_3.jpg)

AFTER (http://airlines.afriqonline.com/images/sarah050.jpg)

Well after a few minutes of staring at the old livery, I could see the shape of a cross. But did the airlines really change the livery just because of this?? I know you said it was a fact, but I just find it kind of difficult to believe. I mean, it took me 3 or 4 minutes before I could see the cross. Was the livery change mandated by the mutawwa religious police or some religious fanatics? This is kind of scary if either one is the case. I guess they never allowed Swiss Air to fly to the Kingdom. :eek:

According to:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48269

British Midland International also has told female flight attendants they must walk two paces behind male colleagues and cover themselves from head to foot in a headscarf and robe known as an abaya, the Mirror newspaper of London reported.

It was given to me as a fact. I doubt that anyone from Saudia or their image consultants would confirm it as a fact - they wouldn't want to offend infidels in such a crass way, I'm sure ;)

I would imagine that the majority of ex-pats who have ever lived in Saudi wouldn't be particularly surprised by it.

Swissair flights were only allowed to land in Saudi at night, with their tailplane lights switched off so the cross was not visible. (This is a fact which can be verified on the BBC News website.)

FYI, WorldNet Daily is hardly a reliable source for anything. http://www.sadlyno.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=2&search=worldnet

I guess they never allowed Swiss Air to fly to the Kingdom. :eek:
IIRC, Swiss Air were asked to have their tail lights turned off on approach and landing so as not to highlight the cross and "cause offence".


It would seem that although I could see that Cross between the S and the A, I couldn't see all of sc_uk's post the first time i read it ...I'm going to leave mine here anyway.

Agree with alanw, in that WorldNet Daily has hardly any credibility whatsoever.

Now I'll go back and sit on my fence and read my Guardian.Hope that fence is still in Zone 1 dear. ;)

P.S.: Non BA board readers will have no clue about the context of this remark.

The Saudis are obviously terrified of what will happen if their people discover that some of earth's population have other religeons. They appear to have no faith.

ON TOPIC please...

I trust the cabin crew member responsible for b1tching about this is now rostered to INV and BHD for the forseeable future...

Wonder what the prospects of a thru check-in from Knock to Riyadh would be like.... :D ;)

I went to school with a girl from Ryadh, and it seems things haven't changed so very much since then (she also told me about cases where things like paper money was withdrawn and redesigned as it inadvertantly featured a cross). But she also told me about other things

(- And let me stress here that she loved Saudi Arabia, and was very proud of the transport infrastructure as well as the hospitals and lots of other facilities enjoyed by Saudi citizens.)

One of these was about certain fanatics who would attack (mainly Saudi) women contravening the rules and regulations. Some of these would beat females' ankles with sticks if they wore their garments short enough to let them be seen. Others (usually women in this case) would swoop on ladies to wipe off their lipstick with cotton wool peppered with glass or razor sharp metal.

We get crackpots of all kinds in the UK willing to attack you for the smallest slight (did you spill my pint?) I personally think it is very probably a GOOD idea to protect employees from inadvertantly enraging customers with very different sensibilities.

(- And let me stress here that she loved Saudi Arabia, and was very proud of the transport infrastructure as well as the hospitals and lots of other facilities enjoyed by Saudi citizens.)

I have to say, while Saudi undoubtedly has its plus points, I think personally I'll take the NHS and Network Rail...

Seriously, though, an interesting point that this could be about employee protection as much as the sensibilities of customers.

How long is the BD turnaround in Riyadh, and is an overnight involved?

Didn't BA use to fly their crew to Kuwait or DXB maybe for the rest-stop?

The crew must be overnighting - they wouldn't have enough hours to do the return, and it wouldn't make sense to deadhead crews out and back.

hmmm, if this is true, then I am quite surprised as to how BD are justfying this to crew based on the FCO travel guidelines for Saudi Arabia and the past precedent that BA set in shipping crew to rest in "safer" spots in the Middle East.

I suppose they could transfer them out to somewhere close and friendlier once they've arrived, and then transfer them back in to do the return leg? But I have no idea. Pure speculation...

Any insiders or those with access to insiders or resident journalists who attend bmi shindigs ( ;) ) able to shed some light on this...

I dont agree with the Laws in Saudia Arabia, but they still should be adhered to. TWA had the same problem when they flew the route JFK-CAI-RUH.

But I dont think that BMI should make it Company policy Either, but rather it should have had a sheet that reminds its Crew of what they can and can not do while in RUH and what measures to take to make sure they dont run afoul of Saudia Law or the Religious Police(sic) over there.

If thats not good enough, then BMI cease flying the route and at the same time if that must happen in order for the safety of its Crew, then the UK should NOT allow Saudia to fly into the UK at ALL either.

Now if BMI will hold its Crew to that they I say BA should be doing the same with its Crew into Israel, India, or any other country where the Dominat Religion is not Christianity. Id rather see BMI pull the route and the UK prevent Saudi from flying the route then as well.

Relevant pprune thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=186231).

I have no idea what the nightstopping arrangements are (never thought to ask, since I wouldn't repeat the information in any case...) but it would appear the cabin crew member who publicly raised the issue was hoping to achieve a quiet life on the Caribbean routes. In light of the embarassment caused, I hope she (or he) is now contemplating a roster littered with repeated rotations to BHD. Nightstops in India or Saudia aren't fun but I'd suggest they are more enjoyable that no nightstops at all (short-haul). As FlapsForty says on PPRuNe, these stops are what you only make of them.

The crew stay for a few nights on a compound in Riyadh. They get escorted by the Police sirens blazing direct from the Airport. I know the compound where they stay but will not name it on here as I don't think it's appropriate. It is a decent place to be honest, I know a few people who use it's golf facilities regularly.

The crew stay for a few nights on a compound in Riyadh. They get escorted by the Police sirens blazing direct from the Airport. I know the compound where they stay but will not name it on here as I don't think it's appropriate. It is a decent place to be honest, I know a few people who use it's golf facilities regularly.
I agree 100% about not naming the compound.

So presumably the crew are not obliged to (involuntarily) interact in any way with the locals or use any of the public facilites then....

And do they get any additional reimbursement for being rostered on this route, as opposed to say ORD or BOM? I can quite sympathise if a crew member did not want to voluntarily choose to operate this sector, ceteris paribus.

Well after a few minutes of staring at the old livery, I could see the shape of a cross.


Have you spotted the arrow in the FedEx logo yet? Took me a couple of minutes!

It's a Saudi thing - if you front up at RUH immigration with a crucifix you will be made to take it off. Similarly, if the mutawwa (religieous police) see you wearing a Christian symbol it will have to go. I assume the onboard rule is designed to prevent any risk of some being dobbed in when they get there.

For bmi the choice is run the route and deal with the implications or pull out. I guess they can't offer crew the choice not to run that route. As it is hardly 2 days in SYD I doubt anyone would volunteer.

^ ^

A number of years ago i almost ended up working in Saudi. I was sent a list of do's and dont's and it reaaly put me off. Things like crucifixs and bibles were strictly banned. Other things on the list were quite bizzarre - Christmas trees for example.

In short, anything that could be liked to christianity was banned.

According to:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48269

British Midland International also has told female flight attendants they must walk two paces behind male colleagues and cover themselves from head to foot in a headscarf and robe known as an abaya, the Mirror newspaper of London reported.

Didn't see the point in starting a new thread. A stewardess sacked for refusing to fly to Riyadh, took bmi to tribunal and lost.

Sunday Times, April 26 2009, BMI told stewardess to wear Muslim robe (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6169989.ece)

A BRITISH air stewardess was sacked for refusing to fly to Saudi Arabia after she was ordered to wear a traditional Islamic robe and walk behind male colleagues.

Lisa Ashton, a £15,000-a-year stewardess with BMI, was told that in public areas in Saudi Arabia she was required to wear a black robe, known as an abaya. This covers everything but the face, feet and hands. She was told to follow her male colleagues, irrespective of rank.

Ashton, 37, who was worried about security in the country, refused to fly there, claiming the instructions were discriminatory. She was sacked last April.

“It’s not the law that you have to walk behind men in Saudi Arabia, or that you have to wear an abaya, and I’m not going to be treated as a second-class citizen,” Ashton said last week.

“It’s outrageous. I’m a proud Englishwoman and I don’t want these restrictions placed on myself.”

Saudi experts and companies that recruit women to work in the country say it is a “myth” that western women are required to walk behind men. There is no requirement for them to wear the abaya in public, though many do.

Earlier this year an employment tribunal in Manchester ruled that BMI was justified in imposing “rules of a different culture” on staff and cleared it of sexual discrimination. Ashton has consulted Liberty, the human rights organisation, and may seek a judicial review of the decision.

Ashton joined BMI in March 1996, flying to the Caribbean, the United States and India. Based in Manchester, she was told in the summer of 2005 that BMI was starting a service to Saudi Arabia and she might be required to work on it.

The Foreign Office was then advising visitors of a “threat of terrorism” in the country. Ashton did not want to travel there because of the security risks, and was offended by the rules for staff travelling to the region.

A BMI document circulated to staff who might travel to Saudi Arabia stated: “It is expected that female crew members will walk behind their male counterparts in public areas such as airports no matter what rank.”

Staff were also given abayas and were required to put them on when leaving the aircraft. Ashton, a practising Christian, was advised by union officials that it was considered a part of the uniform and she could face disciplinary action if she did not wear it.

Ashton said she did not want to fly to Saudi Arabia, but wished to continue flying long-haul routes. The firm said she could transfer to short-haul flights but that would have meant a pay cut of about 20%. She declined to switch to short-haul flights.

On June 13, 2007, she was told she was rostered for a flight from London to Saudi Arabia and refused to go. She was dismissed for refusing to fly and for making it clear she would not travel to Saudi Arabia.

Her letter of dismissal said it was “proportionate” to ask female employees to walk behind men out of respect for Saudi culture. BMI has also defended its decision to require female staff to wear abayas.

The Foreign Office advises women to dress “conservatively” but does not specifically advise wearing an abaya in public places. It also does not refer to any rule or convention that western women should walk behind men.

In a legal case in 2002 Colonel Martha McSally launched a legal action over American military orders that female servicewomen should wear an abaya in public places in Saudi Arabia when American women diplomats and the wives of servicemen were not expected to wear the garment. The Senate subsequently passed legislation that prohibited defence officials from requiring female personnel to wear abayas.

In the employment tribunal decision over Ashton’s case it was ruled there was no evidence that women would regard BMI’s requirements on wearing the abaya, or walking behind men, as “placing them under any disadvantage”. Ashton’s case was dismissed.

The firm said last week the tribunal ruling was “self-explanatory” and would not comment.

Since leaving BMI, Ashton has embarked on a musical career. She said one of her first songs, Shame, Shame, Shame, performed by the band Looby, was inspired by the airline

Two things bother me about this thread:

1. That the news should be surprising to anyone (FFS, it's Saudi, there's nothing to see here so move on).
2. The amount of debate it has generated.

There may be a human rights issue if a devoutly Christian crew member is expected to stop over in Saudi but other than this, I don't see a problem (it's their country, their rules etc).

Try going through immigration at DFW with an F-C-U-K t-shirt on, if you're feeling lucky.......

Edit: And just to show how prudish American forum owners are, I had to put dashes between the letters F, C, U and K!

Hehe.. I wonder if my Richard Dawkins book is allowed in Riyadh?

I'm absolutely surprised at BMI for the Lisa Ashton affair. Perhaps there is more to it but I really don't get it.
The rules they are asking their female flight attendants to follow are not merely to comply with Saudi law but to go beyond it. Western women in Saudi do not have to cover themselves to that extent and certainly do not walk behind men. The airline is rightly responsible for ensuring its crew adhere to local laws, however strange they may seem, but to over egg the pudding in this way just seems really bizarre and slightly disturbing.
Any ideas anyone??