Originally Posted by
spainflyer
The updated Washington Post story based on interviews with several passengers strongly indicates that, from UA’s standpoint, this plane, this flight, and this pilot were good to go even after the ranting started. If passengers had not started to bail out, nothing would have been done.
Even after passengers began to bail – many of them in tears -- a flight attendant insisted: “She’s been cleared to fly…” If UA has a policy for these kinds of cases, I hope it was NOT being followed. But it looks more like the crew were making it up as they went.
As others have said here, a good thing the plane was still at the gate. What would have been UA’s “policy” if it were already on the runway? In the air?
I found that comment by the flight attendant -- admittedly as reported by a passenger, but still very believable -- especially unfortunate. Just as flight attendants have been trained to stand up to potentially disruptive passengers (and sometimes go overboard doing so), FAs need to keep in mind that they have an obligation to intervene when a colleague, especially in a security-sensitive position, behaves inappropriately.
I think most of this is a feeling of powerlessness -- "company" says she's good to fly; she's the boss of the flight; FAs don't have much pull; etc. From an FA's perspective, attempting to challenge a captain could seem deeply risky or even mutinous. I'm sure some would, but a less confident or experienced FA might think it wasn't his/her place to speak up. I hope, in the wake of this incident, the airline or union reiterates this.