Spoiler alert: they already do.

My EuroFlyer LGW-FAO last Friday was a case in point. The crew did technically nothing wrong but were really only going through the motions. Zero empathy, missing personality and to be frank quite lazy. Meals were delivered, drinks were handed out and that was it. Call bells went unanswered and I got "a look" when peeking behind the curtain to ask for some more wine.

The only real surprise for me is how tolerant some companies remain towards their clearly identifiable employees posting on Instagram/TikTok about their work.

Notwithstanding concerns about safety, a wrong move on social media and the employer is in the midst of a whole lot of nonsense.

I will go one step further than this - FlyerTalk Rule 7 states:

Linking To Content On Other Websites

FlyerTalk is here for the purpose of sharing meaningful information. Don't simply post a link by itself to another source, such as an article or blog. (See also, Rule 9 — Posting Copyrighted Material.)

Posts containing such links should contain enough information so as to be contributive to FlyerTalk itself.

Posts that do not conform to these rules may be deleted and repetitive offenses may subject the poster to discipline.

aks120
Moderator: BAC Forum

I'm betraying my years again, but I really do not understand the need to broadcast everything I'm doing, where I am, who I'm with and what I'm thinking. On the contrary, I value my privacy and wish others to do the same. I also hate the video or loudspeaker calls that so many people these days carry out in public places.

On the other hand, I don't think it's for an employer to restrict staff from doing anything specific, as long as they're off duty and not wearing uniforms, but I simply do not understand the need.

I�m very sympathetic to those BA crew who want to use social media to show their lives, and maybe even earn something.

From a personal perspective, I�m inherently laissez-faire and dislike restrictions. However; IMO, Companies do have the responsibility to ensure staff don�t compromise security and corporate reputation.

Many who work in finance will be aware of pre-clearance and other more restrictive trading restrictions. Risk of illegality is usually small, it�s all about reputation.

I completely disagree, when you are being paid from the moment you check to the 45 minutes after you land you follow BA rules which have been set to protect their crews and the security of their customers and equipment.

Wondering if this is such a concern, why does the airline allow or require employees to travel to/from accommodations while uniformed? I know the answer, but it's somewhat hypocritical.

I don�t disagree, and didn't state otherwise in my OP. Of course employees must follow their company policies.

However, I think people should be able to live their lives through social media as they wish. (I say this as someone who views Facebook as a mausoleum of 15+ year old memories!).

Absolute bans rarely work. I think about the Armed Forces, where, bless �em, Jack and Jenny are always snapping themselves in uniform. When operational? Very different picture, and I hope BA are able to apply a nuanced approach.

The fact is that there have been cases where scumbags - and I don't use the term lightly - used AI tools with the precise purpose of finding where crews stayed downroute. They went to those hotels and were prevented from accosting crew members by some alert personnel over there. Preventing a robbery, or a rape, is more important than a post on Instagram. Besides, I haven't seen a crew contract, but mine especially prohibits me from sharing specific information related to BA on social media.

We live in an age where creeps and weirdos have been released from their basements to the whole world thanks to the 'tech-bros'. My partner disappeared off any social media apps after she was messaged by the usual fetishist after crew shoes and about a dozen Saudis/Emiratis looking to make her their 'preferred wife'. And this was before they knew where she might be staying downroute. Now add that specific tidbit...

Rules like this usually come about because a few idiots cannot exercise a little self control and push the boundaries. Sadly this affects the majority and the rules can seem a little draconian, but you have to legislate for the morons not the geniuses.

Of course it's all about reputation management. These rules are in place to protect the company, not the employee. If an employee does something stratospherically dumb on social media then the company can say "we told them not to" and completely distance themselves from it.

I don't see an issue with a ban. These people's social media accounts are only interesting because of their job, and the status of their job is intrinsically linked to the status of their employer. Nobody would follow these people if they weren't BA cabin crew.

Were there not enough camels on offer?

Whilst hotels have public spaces and they still be recognised by people whilst checking in and out in uniform. I suspect the sudden the social media policy change is due the mysterious circumstances of CC member found dead in his SFO hotel back in April and as a result BA are doing their best to maximise the safety and security of their staff.

Mystery surrounding death of British Airways flight attendant, 45, found dead in San Francisco hotel room | Daily Mail Online

The Telegraph are running a story saying the BA IFE has changed the name of Port Stanley in the Falklands to the Argentinian Puerto Argentino.




This is paywalled. Disable JS or subscribe to read.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...entinian-name/

Objectively false.