Originally Posted by
G550Guy
If a company is given the legal right to control alcohol consumption while on a layover to protect their best interests... what’s to stop them from denying a crew member the ability to:
-take a paragliding lesson.
-hike a mountain top with steep cliffs
-rent a Porsche 911 and go 185MPH on the autobahn
-rent Harley’s and drive through downtown Detroit with no helmets on.
-go for a submarine underwater water excursion trip in Hawaii.
-ride mules down the Grand Canyon
-go white water rafting
-run with the Bulls in Spain
All of these activities could be extremely dangerous and could easily impact flights if a crew member got hurt.
All true...and as you know the military could do those things. Different situations of course; I'm just drawing a parallel between a person being a valuable asset to the company and what being unavailable (to fly in this case) might mean/cost the **company**.
As for hotels... we are under no obligation to use the provided room. We can hope a train, bus, plane or scooter and go wherever we like, you just better be back at showtime.
Will you have to pay for a different room if you aren't staying at the airline contracted location (or provided space?) What if the hotel van takes the crew to one hotel, bot the crew member wants to stay at another hotel and gets some sort of transportation that costs; will the company pick up that *extra* transportation cost? We sometimes find situations like that.
When anyone in life makes a bad decision and the consequences are catastrophic... it stinks. His family, friends and coworkers all suffer a sadness from seeing someone jeopardize their career. But just because one person takes a huge poo in their pants, doesn’t mean everyone they work with has to wear diapers.
Agreed....but it is becoming the new norm along with many other mind boggling things
