Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BA And 'the Cross'........  
User currently offlineBAStew From Australia, joined Sep 2006, 1024 posts, RR: 2
Posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6660 times:

Well it seems common sense has prevailed.

Willie Walsh has backed down and a new Uniform Policy is to be introduced.

From the BA intranet:

Uniform policy to be reviewed

British Airways has announced that it is to start a review of its uniform policy with immediate effect.

In a message to staff, chief executive Willie Walsh said: “The recent debate about our uniform policy has unfairly accused British Airways of being anti-Christian.

“We’re proud of our uniform and proud of the diversity of our people. One of the fundamental aims of our uniform policy is to be fair and non-discriminatory. Our current policy has served us well and has been supported by our staff.

“Though our policy is consistent with that of many other airlines, it has become clear that the policy will need to change in the light of the public debate.

“I do not believe that policy should be dictated by the desires of one individual. However, we have to recognise the damage to our business that the current situation could inflict if it is not resolved. Therefore I am initiating a review of the policy to begin immediately.”

The airline said the review will examine ways in which its uniform policy will be adapted to allow symbols of faith to be worn openly, while remaining consistent with the British Airways brand and compliant with employment legislation.

Willie Walsh added: “For example, our staff have suggested that we allow the wearing of religious symbols as small lapel badges. This will be considered as part of the review.

“In the meantime, staff will be expected to adhere to the existing uniform policy until the review is completed and a date is set for changes to be implemented.

“The criticism of British Airways has been misplaced and unjustified. I am proud to lead an airline that has a track record on diversity and inclusion which is second to none.”

75 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLHR777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 6584 times:

What annoyed me most about this whole deal is the hypocritical MP's that are 'boycotting' BA due to this. Boycotting BA that is, until they're offered a government-sponsored jolly to somewhere overseas for 'bilateral talks' that just happen to incorporate the exclusive use of a chartered BA 777!

I'd put money on their boycot being rapidly forgotten about in that instance.....


User currently offlineBAStew From Australia, joined Sep 2006, 1024 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 6560 times:

The pain for me, is that nearly every other airline in the country has exactly the same guide lines as BA. Do you not think it ODD Virgins silence on the issue in the press for example (which is rare when BA are being criticized)?? Because their crew have the same rules to follow!

It is really unfair that as soon as it is something that involves BA it sells newspapers. Why don't the reporters go into BMI or Virgin crew report centres and ask them about their uniform standards?


User currently offlineLHR777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 6543 times:

Quoting BAStew (Reply 2):
The pain for me, is that nearly every other airline in the country has exactly the same guide lines as BA. Do you not think it ODD Virgins silence on the issue in the press for example (which is rare when BA are being criticized)?? Because their crew have the same rules to follow!

Exactly. Almost every airline has these rules, not just BA. I wear a small cross, but it goes under my uniform. Seriously, what is wrong with that? More importantly, what's up with this Nadia woman??!


User currently offlineBCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 16
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6474 times:

Quoting BAStew (Reply 2):

Well said. My thoughts exactly.

The incident was blown completely out of proportion by the media and the employee. All airlines, not just BA, have rules regarding dress and appearance of their employees, who should accept them or find another job if you ask me.

As to the MPs who boycotted BA. Good riddance I say. They mainly fly with the taxpayers footing the bill, and with their MP status they usually expect to be upgraded and treated like royalty. You would also think MPs have more pressing things to be concerned with, rather than a BA employee at odds with her employer. The MPs should be addressing issues like immigration that has spiralled out of control, the Iraqi situation, increasing crime, etc. Of course, if they speak up on the BA cross situation, they distract attention from what they are elected and paid to do.



MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
User currently offlineGBOAC From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 221 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6419 times:

That is a lovely bit of spin there from WW/Corporate Comms/Whoever. Very nice. Here's to hoping BA does this to limit the PR damage the stupid woman has caused, gets praised for being inclusive and listening to its staff and the public by holding the 'consultation'...and that the consultation concludes overwhelmingly that there's absolutely no need to change the rules and this was a lot of noise - most of which totally misses the point - over nothing and a nobody...

User currently offlineSpeedmarque From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 684 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6384 times:

Pinning various badges to our uniform?.................................how very TGI Fridays!

Altogether now.... I,m a feiry red head with the moon in uranus....CAREFUL I'LL DO THE JOKES! a one potato-two potato-three potato-four...........


User currently offlineConcorde001 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1230 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6302 times:

Quoting BAStew (Reply 2):
Do you not think it ODD Virgins silence on the issue in the press for example (which is rare when BA are being criticized)?? Because their crew have the same rules to follow!

Richard Branson appeared on the BBC's 'This Week' programme on BBC One last night in which he said Virgin Atlantic does allow its staff to display religious symbols whilst at work.


User currently offlineSpeedbird2155 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 871 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6262 times:

Quoting Speedmarque (Reply 6):
Pinning various badges to our uniform?.................................how very TGI Fridays!

I totally agree with you here. Let's hope that the company realises that the vast majority of staff have no problem with the current uniform rules and wear the uniform proudly. We all agreed to accept the conditions outlined in the uniform book and it clearly states no jewelry.

Unfotunately this individual has been allowed to do as she pleases for too long. Many of us would have been fired for much of what she has been allowed to do during her time with the airline and now, not only does she break the uniform rules, but then goes to the media, which is again is against company policy. I wonder if I went public in the media supporting the current uniform policy and the company's position, just how long I'd survive in my job.

Once again, those in the wrong are always right. Pity that the politicans and others demanding that BA respects her 'right' don't feel the same when it comes to protecting us from crime, poor transportion services, poor health services and many other issues that need to be addressed.


User currently offlineHelvknight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6193 times:

Quoting Speedbird2155 (Reply 8):
Unfotunately this individual has been allowed to do as she pleases for too long. Many of us would have been fired for much of what she has been allowed to do during her time with the airline and now, not only does she break the uniform rules, but then goes to the media, which is again is against company policy. I wonder if I went public in the media supporting the current uniform policy and the company's position, just how long I'd survive in my job.

 checkmark 


User currently offlineAirbus340 From Spain, joined Dec 2000, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6165 times:

In British Airways the Indian people are ALLOWED to wear their TURBANS, the Muslems are allowed to wear their covers...I find that very good and respectful. But oh no! A Christian that shows a Cross, THAT IS PROHIBITED. OOOOOH, I see how respectful are these BA high executives are. I wouldn't put one myself but this shows the (pityful) standards of BA. They should be ashamed of themselves! I've flown to Heathrow and Gatwick myself and I know what I am talking about. Many of you have seen it for yourselves. Or haven't you?

User currently offlineSpeedbird2155 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 871 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days ago) and read 6063 times:

Quoting Airbus340 (Reply 10):
In British Airways the Indian people are ALLOWED to wear their TURBANS, the Muslems are allowed to wear their covers...I find that very good and respectful. But oh no! A Christian that shows a Cross, THAT IS PROHIBITED. OOOOOH, I see how respectful are these BA high executives are. I wouldn't put one myself but this shows the (pityful) standards of BA. They should be ashamed of themselves! I've flown to Heathrow and Gatwick myself and I know what I am talking about. Many of you have seen it for yourselves. Or haven't you?

You simply have no idea what you are talking about and have bought into the media hype. BA has a restriction on jewelry, which is what this individual wore. The fact that it was a cross is irrelevant. The uniform rules have been in place for many years and have been followed by all of us, including this individual until she opted to make an issue, which we can only guess was for political reasons.

There are many christians within BA and I work with them all the time. I consider myself to be christian, but I don't make an issue of it. I accepted the terms and conditions of the job and as such know that there are restrictions on jewelry, be it a cross or otherwise. I also know that I can be rostered to work on christian holidays and I accepted this, along with anyone working in many sections of the airline industry. I'm just waiting for this particular individual to make this the next issue. She already has a history in this regard.


User currently offlineTrekster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days ago) and read 6038 times:

Someone please tell me where in the bible (i live with avid church goers and they agree here) where it says the cross NEEDS to or HAS to be worn to show her love for god.

IT DOES NOT. She has jumped on the media bandwagon of the veil thing to get her own way. She agreed to a contract, it even showed her last night reading the damm uniform code book on BBC news, just after they said she was suspended SHES NOT SUSPENDED


User currently offlineBritPilot777 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1075 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5943 times:

Quoting Airbus340 (Reply 10):
In British Airways the Indian people are ALLOWED to wear their TURBANS, the Muslems are allowed to wear their covers...I find that very good and respectful. But oh no! A Christian that shows a Cross, THAT IS PROHIBITED. OOOOOH, I see how respectful are these BA high executives are. I wouldn't put one myself but this shows the (pityful) standards of BA. They should be ashamed of themselves! I've flown to Heathrow and Gatwick myself and I know what I am talking about. Many of you have seen it for yourselves. Or haven't you?

No buddy, your a dumb ass and obviously have no idea what your talking about. The "Indian" people you talk of are Sikh, so you know for future reference, that's a religion. Those of the Islamic faith are allowed to wear hijab's, not covers as you disrespectfully refer to them.

Look, I've kept quiet till now, but this is stupid. There are people getting involved in this, who have nothing to do with British Airways, nor the airline industry. At the end of the day, this argument has NOTHING to do with religion! British Airways have one of the most diverse numbers of employees of any business in the world, from all faiths and religions and is damn proud of that.

The lady in question breached a contract which she signed when joining BA, and thus promised to adhere to it while in employment at British Airways, just as all British Airways employees have done. She has now broken the contract, and that’s it, she is in breach of contract. What exactly is so hard to understand here? British Airways allows Sikh's to wear turbans, and Muslims to wear Hijabs because it is impractical for them to hide these, during everyday work.
Sikh's also wear what is know as a "Kara", which is a gold or silver bangle worn on their right arm, it is stated in the British Airways uniform standard, that if they wish to wear this, a long sleeved shirt must be worn to cover it and guess what, it's adhered to! Why? BECAUSE IT'S PART OF THE CONTRACT WE HAVE ALL SIGNED.

If the person in question was Hindu, Jew, Muslim or Sikh and was in breach of the contract, we would have the same outcome!

People need to take a step back, take their head out of their arses, and see what the exact issue here is, not the fact she's Christian, but the fact she is in breach of contract!

I am sure all other British Airways employees on this site, will agree with what I have just said!

BritPilot777



Forever Flight
User currently offlineBAStew From Australia, joined Sep 2006, 1024 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5924 times:

Quoting BritPilot777 (Reply 13):
Sikh's also wear what is know as a "Kara", which is a gold or silver bangle worn on their right arm, it is stated in the British Airways uniform standard, that if they wish to wear this, a long sleeved shirt must be worn to cover it and guess what, it's adhered to! Why? BECAUSE IT'S PART OF THE CONTRACT WE HAVE ALL SIGNED.

Hey Brit, this rule was actually changed. Not sure for the ground staff, but cabin crew wearing the kara are now able to wear a short sleeve shirt.

The difference however, is how they went about instigating the change. A number of the sikh guys got together, and penned a joint letter to the management asking them to review the policy. They outlined the impractability of wearing a long sleeve shirt on board a hot aircraft in the middle of summer etc etc.

They continued wearing the uniform to standard (ie a long sleeve shirt) until management had completed their review which was in their favour.

Perhaps this Nadia lady should have tried a similar trail of thought......


User currently offlineGDC2006 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 93 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5911 times:

Is the BA Intranet designed for copying and pasting onto a public website? Just a thought..........


Anyway with regard to the bint and her cross, she's a dickhead, the pratts who decided to boycott BA (don't Christians waffle on about forgiveness?) are just morons and the media has shown itself to be as unitelligent as most intelligent persons thought it was.

Right so now some dick who works in LHR has had her unreasonable and unarguable demands met and invoked a change in policy within BA can we get back to business?? Those of us who aren't looking for 15 minutes of fame are attemtping to ensure we continue flying people around the world and support our airline every way we can.

Thank you

GC  Yeah sure



Trust a woman? How can you trust something that bleeds for five days and doesn't die?
User currently offlineBritPilot777 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1075 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5908 times:

Quoting BAStew (Reply 14):
this rule was actually changed.

Yup your right, for cabin crew it's slightly different in regards to the Kara. For ground staff, I believe it still is the requirement to wear long sleeved shirts.

The thing which had bugged me most about all of this is. 99% of BA employees work their hardest, so that BA is one of the best airlines in the world, we offer the best service we can, and to portray BA as a world airline, which it is. Now this women has managed to tarnish BA's reputation which will take months if not years to rectify.

BritPilot777



Forever Flight
User currently offlineExpress1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5899 times:

OH HAPPY DAYS!!!!

never mind xmas is only round the corner,peace and good will to ("all men")  bigthumbsup   bigthumbsup 

dave


User currently offlineTrekster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5899 times:

Quoting GDC2006 (Reply 15):

Wow gordon.

And i thought i went into a rant to my mum the other nite lol


User currently offlineExpress1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5889 times:

Quoting BritPilot777 (Reply 16):

 white   white   white   white   white 

is this a safe area to come back to?


dave


User currently offlineLHR777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5883 times:

Quoting BritPilot777 (Reply 13):
I am sure all other British Airways employees on this site, will agree with what I have just said!

I agree, I agree!!

Also, no mention is made of the 'lady in question' pushing her religious beliefs onto our customers. Apparently, she's even handed-out bibles to customers and colleagues alike. (I work with two of her ex-colleagues). If I were a customer of BA rather than an employee, I'd be a little taken aback by an employee pushing her religious beliefs upon me, be it a bible or the koran or any other religious books or articles.

This did happen to me once in T4, a colleague insisting I visit 'her' church to 'declare my sins' and receive my 'redemption', but I basically told her that I was there to provide a service to our fare-paying customers and not be inducted into 'her' church or 'her' religion. I considered her actions to be innappropriate in the workplace.

Miss Eweida must also consider her actions again. She's brought BA into disrepute, and that's a situation that needs to be remedied. Any other company would have dealt with this in a different way, so she's really getting-off lightly, considering the circumstances.

Quote:
From injurywatch.co.uk:
Nadia Eweida, 55, has been refusing to return to work since bosses told her last month she could not wear the necklace to work. She lost her appeal against the decision when she met BA today although the airline said she had the right to a second appeal.

BA said Miss Eweida had until next week to decide if she wanted to take up the option of a second appeal. The airline said she had been offered a non-uniformed job where she could wear a cross, but she had turned this down. The firm continued to insist that if she wanted to carry on working in the check-in area of Heathrow Airport, she would not be allowed to wear a cross above her cravat. BA has said there is no ban on wearing religious jewellery, but it has to be hidden from view.

Miss Eweida, from Twickenham, south west London, claimed she had worn the cross throughout her seven years with BA and accused the firm of religious discrimination. She said she did not want to hide the cross because “Jesus has to be glorified”. She added: “I am not politically motivated or minded, I just follow the Biblical truth.”

Miss Eweida was flown to the United States by a TV company after her case became known last month, where she said she received “overwhelming support”.

So, how much is Miss Eweida financially gaining, in her quest to 'follow the biblical truth' ?  Yeah sure


User currently offlineLHR777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5874 times:

Quoting GDC2006 (Reply 15):
Is the BA Intranet designed for copying and pasting onto a public website? Just a thought..........

I wouldn't worry about it in this instance, as the same text is available on the BBC News website!

Quote:
From news.bbc.co.uk:
Mr Walsh said: "The recent debate about our uniform policy has unfairly accused British Airways of being anti-Christian.

"British Airways is proud of its uniform and proud of the diversity of its staff.

"One of the fundamental aims of our uniform policy is to be fair and non-discriminatory.

"The criticism of British Airways has been misplaced and unjustified. I am proud to lead an airline that has a track record on diversity and inclusion which is second to none."

Pretty much the same as was quoted on the intranet. However, I agree that copy/pasting directly from the BA intranet or any other companys' intranet should generally not happen, as it surely must be in direct contravention of the intranet usage policy.


User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13033 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5850 times:

Sounds like this woman spent too much time in the USA around some of our fundalmentist Christians and their lawyers. If she was promoting her Christian faith on the job and to customers, that is wrong as to a range of employee and company rules for good reasons. It insults and offends many people to have religion shoved upon them in a business place. In some cases, wearing a cross may make them a target of extremist of other faiths, some non-Christians passengers/Customers will not treat such cross wearing staff fairly and questions if the staff member is being fair to those of other faiths but their own.
BA probably will make some balancing adjustments to keep everybody happy, including active Christians, recognising that Sikh men, Muslim women wear head coverings including on the job per the instructions of their faith. This also saves them from considerable legal costs for something that probably would lose anyway in a high court.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 23, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5826 times:

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 22):
Sounds like this woman spent too much time in the USA around some of our fundalmentist Christians and their lawyers. If she was promoting her Christian faith on the job and to customers, that is wrong as to a range of employee and company rules for good reasons. It insults and offends many people to have religion shoved upon them in a business place. In some cases, wearing a cross may make them a target of extremist of other faiths, some non-Christians passengers/Customers will not treat such cross wearing staff fairly and questions if the staff member is being fair to those of other faiths but their own.

I wasn't aware that there was any active promotion going on. If that was the case she should be disciplined for that if that is against BA's rules. But as far as I have heard this case was about religious ornamentation.

And your argument doesn't fly given the policies of BA with regards to Muslim women wearing the hijab and Sikh men wearing turbans.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineTymnBalewne From Bermuda, joined Mar 2005, 944 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5767 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 23):
Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 22):
Sounds like this woman spent too much time in the USA around some of our fundalmentist Christians and their lawyers. If she was promoting her Christian faith on the job and to customers, that is wrong as to a range of employee and company rules for good reasons. It insults and offends many people to have religion shoved upon them in a business place. In some cases, wearing a cross may make them a target of extremist of other faiths, some non-Christians passengers/Customers will not treat such cross wearing staff fairly and questions if the staff member is being fair to those of other faiths but their own.

I wasn't aware that there was any active promotion going on. If that was the case she should be disciplined for that if that is against BA's rules. But as far as I have heard this case was about religious ornamentation.

And your argument doesn't fly given the policies of BA with regards to Muslim women wearing the hijab and Sikh men wearing turbans.

As I understand it...it is a tenet of the Muslim religion that females wear the hijab, and a tenet of the Sikh religion that men wear the turban. As such, BA and any company should accomodate that requirement. I'm sure that if these articles could be hidden by the uniform they would be, but they cannot.

I'm not aware of any tenet of any of the Christian faiths that requires a believer of that faith to wear a cross that is visible.

Ms Eweida is free to wear her cross. Just not in a visible fashion. She agreed to that as part of her hiring contract and either should abide by it or leave.

It's an embarassment that various people, including CoE bishops are seeing this as anti-Christian.

C.



Dewmanair...begins with Dew
25 Antonovman : Hey BritPilot777 thats the most intelligent post i have read on here
26 BAStew : I think the media in the UK have jumped the gun a little by saying this woman will be able to wear her precious chain after-all. There is no way Willi
27 CirrusDriver : I am not here to be disrespectful, be insulting, offend anyone, nor "shove" my faith upon anyone. I ask this to anyone on this forum. What is religio
28 Yyz717 : The Church of England is now reviewing its investments in BA, along with consideration of a boycott of BA, reported today in Canada's national newspap
29 Speedbird2155 : Yes, BA has somehow managed to keep the actions of this individual within the workplace quiet, which is perhaps unfortunate. She does have a reputati
30 Post contains images LHStarAlliance : Hasn´t BA bigger problems ...
31 LHR777 : What investments would they be?
32 Yyz717 : The article did not say. The biggest threat would be a well-publicized boycott. With over 90% of Brits being Christian and the BA customer base being
33 474218 : The Church of England holds 6.6 million pounds of BA stock. They threatened to sell it over the cross incident.
34 CirrusDriver : Sorry folks, I realize that most of my earlier reply to the posting by LTBEWR is better located on another forum perhaps on another web-sight. I volun
35 Post contains images Jacobin777 : It doesn't matter what religion it is..at the end of the day, money talks, I want to see the Church unload their shares...actually, given how BA has
36 BritPilot777 : Care to elaborate? You mean the pension defecit? Yes, it's a problem, but one that's being worked at, and this cross business is simply getting in th
37 BAStew : Wonder what percentage of those 90% are practicing christians....or christians that are 'up in arms' about this issue.....or christians that would sh
38 LHR777 : Yes, let's get on with sorting the pension deficit instead. All this other malarkey is making me cross! (pun intended...)
39 TCXDegsy : I think this episode is more evidence of the PC Brigage (aka, the lunatics), taking over the asylum. It's probably been mentioned already, but didn't
40 Trekster : Not true at all I live with 2 guys that go to chuch every sunday, do chuch groups and meetings during the week and lots of other stuff. They all agre
41 Kellmark : Boy, I can't believe all of the vitriol on here against this woman at BA. Using profanity against her and calling her names. She lost her job over a p
42 Trekster : Did u not read anything above SHE IS NOT SACKED. She took unpaid leave and for some reason the company want her back at work. I saw the BBC say she h
43 Kellmark : She was suspended without pay. She didn't take the leave voluntarily. She was sent home pending her appeals for some two months now and lost both appe
44 Madairdrie : Although I think this topic should probably be in Non Aviation, I will answer here since that is where it is. This has been a complete and absolute to
45 Trekster : NO, she is on Voluntary leave. They want her to come back as long as she stick's to the contract she signed, when she started with the company nigh o
46 Kellmark : Yes I know about the back office job offer. And I know about the agreement. Why doesn't that apply to Sikhs and Muslims who agree to it as well? They
47 Post contains images OzGlobal : Even if she has forced the issue, the ruling made by BA management is policitically motivated and not a sustainable position.......
48 Mariner : And include me - an atheist - in that number. I have no problem with people who need to display some symbol of religious or societal belief or adhere
49 LHR777 : Our (current) uniform regulations state that jewellery should be worn under the uniform. The cross on a chain is a piece of jewellery and thus should
50 BA787 : Mind If I ask how big the cross actually was Its good that WW has moved a bit on this, but I do agree with BA on this If it was a circumstance where s
51 Jouy31 : Well, the "simple" reality is that the general public, BA's customer target audience, simply sees that larger signs of non-Christian religious are al
52 ThirtyEcho : So, this PR piece adds up to, what? Study the problem? The present policy remains in place? This adds up to "blah-de-blah-de-blah, choke, spit, get ba
53 Madairdrie : Some would argue this is not the case - some would say this is a religious symbol and not a piece of jewellery. Ultimately it is a question of when d
54 Speedbird2155 : Please note, that she has worn it for 7 years, under her uniform, in compliance with the uniform rules. Only recently has she insisted on having it o
55 Madairdrie : Thanks for clearing that one up I had managed to miss that one Kenneth
56 Kellmark : And what is a Sikh "bracelet" if not a piece of jewely? Those are allowed. Again a double standard. No matter how you want to argue it, BA allows cer
57 TymnBalewne : Is there any religious tenet or requirement that a cross be worn visibly by Christians? If so, as a Christian I must've missed this in Sunday School.
58 LTBEWR : On religion and airlines, there are many policies. Sometimes leadership or ownership at an airline, the variety of national laws, the fears of offendi
59 Kellmark : One could also say that that the hijab is optional. Not all Muslim women wear them. This is their choice. But when they choose to wear them, they are
60 TymnBalewne : Because it (a hijab) cannot be hidden by the uniform. No one is stopping Ms Eweida from wearing a cross. She can wear it close to her heart where it
61 Jacobin777 : One of my physics professor was a priest (Professor Father J. Milton)...he wore the priest's clothing, as it was his requirement. No one had a proble
62 Kellmark : And the Sikh bracelet? Those are allowed and they do show. Why are those not required to be hidden?
63 Jacobin777 : Actually it isn't optional..just because women don't wear them doesn't mean its Islamically correct....
64 LHR777 : There is no double standard - they have to be covered by long sleeved shirts for ground staff. Flying staff have had this exemption lifted, by going
65 Jouy31 : Well, it is definitely optional in Morocco, where the King is also the supreme religious leader. There are variations in Islam as in any religion.
66 LHR777 : No, it would be banned because we're not permitted to wear ANY lapel badges, apart from approved lapel badges - First Aid, Sommelier, Hard of Hearing
67 Madairdrie : As I stated above I think the woman was probably wrong, in the way she handled the situation, she should have gone through the proper channels. Howeve
68 Kellmark : LHR777, I appreciate your comments and your professionalism. But even you admit that an exemption is allowed for the Sikhs, however discreet it must b
69 TymnBalewne : Kellmark...if you replace "bangle" with "cross" would you have an issue? THis is what Ms Eweida was asked to do and chose not to. The cross can be co
70 Trekster : Yea. And i belive check in staff wear a scarf. How can she wear the scarf AND that small necklace. Thats what i have ben asking all along
71 LHR777 : The ladies cravat can be worn in two different ways - high-up on the neck, like a normal gents cravat, tucked into the uniform shirt, or alternativel
72 Yyz717 : Good point. If turbans are allowed by Sikh employees, then crosses should be allowed.
73 Speedbird2155 : Yes they are 2 ways to wear the cravat. The lady in question opted to wear it tucked in, but with the chain and cross on top of the cravat when she w
74 Ikramerica : So what. If BA is going to be "sensitive" to how people choose to express their faith, then they can't decide who is doing it right and who is doing
75 Jacobin777 : That's the exception rather than the rule....which is quite consistent between shia's, sunnis, hafafis, shafis, etc. As LHR777 state below... This la
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
BA And The DC-10 posted Sun Jul 9 2006 17:27:49 by Scalebuilder
BA And The 737NG posted Tue Feb 14 2006 21:46:41 by LY777
BA And The A380 For The 2012 Olympics posted Thu Jul 7 2005 08:19:01 by Megatop
BA And The 787? posted Thu May 19 2005 07:28:55 by VirginFSM
BA And The A380 posted Tue Dec 30 2003 02:08:54 by QANTASpower
BA And The A380 posted Sun Jun 8 2003 20:32:24 by Monarch
BA And The British posted Sun Mar 10 2002 14:29:45 by Cyprus-Turkish
LHR T5, BA And The A380 posted Sun Dec 9 2001 15:54:43 by Scorpio
BA And The A321 posted Fri Oct 26 2001 12:59:35 by Speedbird744
BA And The Queen @ CIA posted Tue Oct 17 2000 08:35:57 by Steman