Are Flight Attendants a Layer of Security or Not? Airlines Like United Need to Make Up Their Minds
Sarah Steegar January 13, 2015
As many passengers who have been detained, questioned, arrested and/or booted from flights can tell you, airlines have a reputation when it comes to “kidding” about security threats. Arguments like “It was just a joke!” and “You took it out of context!” mean nothing to industry personnel.
Thirteen flight attendants for United Airlines have had a different experience with security concerns resulting from a “joke,” however, having been fired after refusing to fly on the aircraft it pertained to. In the predictable aftermath of security quips, there are always accusations of someone over-reacting. In this case, it’s the crew vs. the airline, with the flight attendants suing United for reinstatement, back pay and damages.
The entire 26-page filing can be read here, and I highly recommend doing so for full details, but here’s a summary for those not already heeding my recommendation: On a flight bound for Hong Kong out of San Francisco, the First Officer discovered a finger-drawn graffiti in the oil smears on the aircraft’s tail depicting a creepy “BYE BYE” message and picture. It was considered a potential security threat (read that report!) and, in summation, the cabin crew did not feel sufficiently safe in light of how it was handled. Consequently, they refused to work the flight and were fired.
People can debate whether the particular threat was “credible” or not. However, my feelings come down to this:
Are flight attendants a layer of security or not?
Airlines tell us we are all the time and frame our training as such. They cannot consistently set us up in this manner, and then pooh-pooh our concerns if they are seen to be inconvenient. If it were one or two dissenting attendants, sure, that’s one thing — I’ve had colleagues “read into” random things — but an entire seasoned crew? That should grab one’s attention.
Things I want to note from this story:
The Flight Attendants Did Not Refuse to Fly
The crew refused to fly without a full security search. There is a difference. It’s been said that the crews would have timed-out by the completion of a security search, but I haven’t seen any talk of whether it was possible to change aircraft, delay until the next morning or, in the time it would take to fully search the aircraft, call on reserve crews.
The Flight Attendants’ Disagreement Does Not Mean They Felt They “Knew Better” Than the Pilots
My confidence in the cockpit is thick. It’s demonstrated every day when I confidently board aircraft, thousands of times over. I never doubt for one moment the pilots are up there handling whatever situation arises with skill. That said, however, we also know pilots get pressured by their employers just like everybody else.
I suspect the initial concern of the cockpit carries a lot of weight in this story. When that is coupled with deliberate withholding of information from the flight attendants, and then the cockpit’s esteemed opinion reverses, is “lack of time” (page 13 of the report) an answer you would accept to your questions about why the expected precautions haven’t been taken? It does not inspire confidence.
Since the incident, I’ve seen some (including United, allegedly) say: “These flight attendants just didn’t want to work.” This is so silly that it’s almost fun to respond to.
Is it really more believable that 13 acquaintance-colleagues (who could have probably given away that trip in a heartbeat if they didn’t feel like working) — all with 18 to 28 years of experience and with only one lone service reprimand across their combined 299 years of service — would all put on their uniforms, commute to work, sign in, get onboard, load 300 passengers, and then stand around unpaid for another couple of hours, collectively rubbing their hands together at how, after all that effort, they see a bright, shining opportunity to drive/ride/fly back home and figure out how to replace the 35 percent of their average pay (Hong Kong is a valuable trip) which they just forfeited?
Sure. That sounds likely.
Did the flight attendants over-react to the graffiti? Some seem to think so. It definitely looks as though someone over-reacted, but I feel like it’s United.
Although they’re rare, group refusals do happen. I’ve been a part of one, and no crew would do that sort of thing for the fun of it. We knew we were risking disciplinary action, but I had no qualms about the right to feel safe in my job. That much should be respected, and that’s where United made a bad call, in my opinion. If the airline felt compelled to show their displeasure with the group refusal, there were other options besides firing 13 employees with glowing records.
I can’t count how many times I’ve said to nervous passengers: “If I didn’t feel safe, do you think I’d be here?”
It’s one assumption that public confidence rests on, especially with terror threats making the news regularly. That’s why I think it’s important that these 13 flight attendants are reinstated, because it’s not just about them. After all, where is the long-term gain in publicly allowing airlines to pressure entire crews into flying, rather than conscientiously addressing concerns that arise?
If you’re inclined to disagree, or if you think this crew simply over-reacted, let’s at least both applaud them for being fair! Passengers can’t get away with “joking” about security, and we hold employees to that standard too.
You’re Reading
747FC and DrunkCargo are spot on - it's completely unreasonable to interpret the obviously playful graffiti as a "threat" - much less a *specific and credible threat*! The smileys looks like common cartoon style smileys and "bye bye" is as threatening as a wet blanket. The rate of over-reaction to things by flight crews is getting ridiculous at times. The FAs opinions were taken into account by the Captain. The fact he eventually disagreed doesn't mean otherwise. The pilot in command is ultimately responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft. As noted above, a vague "feeling" of being unsafe isn't enough - it needs to be a reasonably interpreted specific and credible threat. What's next? An FA thinks that a certain repair job was done "too quickly compared to previous times that component needed replaced" and protests that s/he "doesn't feel comfortable" that the repair was done properly? There is a balance between taking the entire crew's inputs into account and letting the most anxious person or an unreasonable interpretation cause unnecessary delays and cancelations.
A few points: - The article begins with an assumption that the graffiti IS a "threat". - The conclusion that flight attendants are only part of security if their opinion is taken as unchallengeable is illogical. - The group think noted does not necessarily reflect experience and collective wisdom, it could just as easily reflect a very common problem in antagonistic workplace environments where us vs them mentalities thrive and going against the group is suppressed. - Feelings about safety are an extremely poor measure of actual safety.
Just skimmed the filing. Seems to me that everyone wants to play armchair security analyst. A credible security threat would be one without overt warning such as graffiti on a limited-access part of the plane. I'm pretty certain a lot of other security checks were done. Management isn't stupid. Just as it's laughable that FAs would put in the effort to make it to work to be compensated, it is laughable that management would risk the PR cost of an incident to preserve the timely capture of revenue from a single flight. It was clearly just bored ground crew member drawing a "wash me" graffiti... I would say it's not menacing, but perhaps a tad racist. (totally different lawsuit) See the short hair and cigarette on the slant eyed dude? The long hair on the round eyed dude who looks kinda drunk and happy? Bye bye is a cute way of saying "Safe travels! I checked everything here and you're all set to go!!" You know, SFO, HKG, plane links the two... both are happy, one with a grand smile, the other with cigarette... You'd think "culturally sensitive" FAs (see report) would be able to spot this quickly. We all see what we want... ultimately it's risk vs reward, and clearly management in this case felt risk (latent security threat being made overtly obvious by perp) was lower than reward (minor revenue compared to overall operations). The FAs overstepped their role and authority, although if I was management I would have just called in new crew or swapped equipment. Having edgy FAs on a flight would have been a horrible experience for passenger comfort. Lots of mistakes made, not just the FAs: hindsight. Question is, should a publicly traded company grow a heart in cases like this?
In my extensive experience flying UA long-haul over the years, most of their flight attendants behave as if they are 'over-entitled' and demonstrate disdain, if not contempt, for their customers. I can very well imagine the FAs on this flight using the graffiti which they had not even seen as an excuse to shirk work, believing their union would protect them. Post 9/11 they have become even more high handed under the guise of 'safety' and 'security', with most of their concerns being entirely bogus. UA's changes to the MileagePlus program provided just the nudge I needed to stop flying UA after 1 March 2015
"Creepy" artwork? Give me a break. While I respect crew, I do not perceive them as qualified to determine when a high school -level prank is a security threat. There are an alarming number of reports of crew members overreacting to their own perceived concerns and escalating their own hysteria to offload passengers who are not security threats, but merely idiots. Perhaps UA management has had enough of this hysteria and is clamping down. Good for them and passengers. Real security threats will be actionable.