Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Why did the captain do this?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jul 25, 2018 | 8:00 pm
  #31  
5 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Programs: DL, Marriott & IHG Platty; HH Diamonte
Posts: 863
Originally Posted by Proudelitist
He was probably just having a bad acid trip or was simply drunk and belligerent
I was thinking meth...
pharmawalk is offline  
Old Jul 25, 2018 | 8:19 pm
  #32  
10 Countries Visited5 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: LAN
Programs: DL Skymiles, AF/KL Flying Blue
Posts: 304
Originally Posted by DCP2016
No it's the mindset of "I'm the Captain, I'm a God, I listen to no one, my decision is final and mine alone". Also during labor negotiations nitpicky things are using magnified by the pilots.
I see we're moving on to the straw man as well.

Obviously there's something missing to this whole story. Like I said before, the captain is not going to deboard the aircraft without a darn good reason. He still has the company to report to. If that plane doesn't depart on time, people are going to ask/examine why.

As for the cabin crew member challenging the captain, I'll be the first one to say that almost all authority should be challenged; however, to do so publicly in the way that OP suggested they did? Entirely unprofessional. If they really behaved in the way they did (which, to be fair, I'm not convinced is 100% accurate either considering we obviously have an incomplete story here that is being told from a sole perspective - OP's), they should be reprimanded for their behavior, regardless of whether the captain was ultimately in the right or not.

The number of people in this thread that feel the cabin crew member's behavior was appropriate and who feel the captain was out of line is shocking... especially because, again, we are missing the most important details in this story that would explain and/or justify the actions of the captain.
gooselee likes this.
eastindywalrus is offline  
Old Jul 25, 2018 | 8:19 pm
  #33  
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: PHL
Programs: AA EXP, HH Diamond, Owner of 2,000 TWA shares
Posts: 812
Originally Posted by LARobinson
I think the reason the FA was bold enough to "over rule"(her words) the captain was because what is was doing was so absurd and unreasonable and she probably thought she could reason with him.
I thanked her for trying to intercede, and I gave her one of this "exceptional service" slips. I also told Delta when I talked to them on the phone about it that everyone involved, except the captain, acted professionally and did everything they could to make a bad situation better.

Why would a FA try to overrule a captain for doing something absurd or unreasonable? Would we want to be passengers on a plane that is being piloted by a captain who had to be convinced or coerced into flying his/her craft?
Uncle Nonny is offline  
Old Jul 25, 2018 | 8:24 pm
  #34  
All eyes on you!
10 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: LAS - where you can get married and divorced in the same 24 hour period. Perfect for the woman who's saving herself for marriage and the man who wants a one night stand.
Programs: DL DM, Hilton Diamond, IHG Diamond, Marriott Platinum, UA, AA, AS, WN kettle, Hertz PC
Posts: 1,613
Originally Posted by enviroian
What flight attendant has rank over a pilot?

His wife?
This one does - Virgin's Sir Richard Branson turns stewardess after losing bet
puddinhead is offline  
Old Jul 26, 2018 | 3:56 am
  #35  
All eyes on you!
5 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 591
Maybe El Capitan and FA were having an item and had a tiff earlier in the day. The captain wanted to show who's the boss, the FA wasn't having any of it and passengers were just collateral.
JamesKidd is offline  
Old Jul 26, 2018 | 7:01 am
  #36  
30 Countries Visited
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: RDU
Programs: DL DM+(segs)/MM, UA Ag, Hilton DM, Marriott Ti (life Pt), TSA Opt-out Platinum
Posts: 3,366
Originally Posted by glob99
So your sense of justice was to punish the passengers?
I hate to state the obvious, but I suppose many aren't familiar with hub ops. The vast majority of pax at a hub are making connections, so arrival gate is pretty much irrelevant...especially since almost every gate is used in a bank, and many are used overnight. It's a zero sum game for pax. I can give them a close gate (to the terminal/employee shuttle), or I can give them a far away gate and give another plane the close gate.
HDQDD is offline  
Old Jul 26, 2018 | 7:59 am
  #37  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Inland Empire, semi-regularly going between LAX/ONT/SNA and IND/STL
Programs: Rapid Rewards, SkyMiles, AAdvantage
Posts: 668
Originally Posted by LARobinson
what [the captain] was doing was so absurd and unreasonable
How do you know this?
BerenErchamion is offline  
Old Jul 26, 2018 | 8:49 am
  #38  
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minneapolis
Programs: AA EXP, Hyatt Diamond, SPG Gold, GlobalEntry, Admirals Club, United Club
Posts: 2,095
Originally Posted by formeraa
Yes, you are right about the hierarchy. But it goes both ways. Unless it is an emergency using the slides, the captain should confer with the cabin crew (or at least the lead FA) first before "yelling at passengers to leave the aircraft". What the captain did was totally unprofessional IMHO. Actually, unless it is an emergency, the lead FA or GA should make the announcement to deplane with instructions on what to do next (i.e please wait in the immediate gate area for announcement, line up at the podium for reassignment, etc.)
How do you know this wasn't an emergency? How do you know the captain didn't confer with the crew?

I think he must have otherwise there's no question that the FA was out of line. Picture the scenario where a captain, out of the blue comes out and says "we're stopping boarding, everyone that's on the plane needs to get off right now." If the captain did not discuss with the FA, the FA would have no idea why the captain was doing this. For the FA to then overrule the captain, without any insight into the reasoning is very scary.
gooselee likes this.
jetsfan92588 is offline  
Old Jul 26, 2018 | 8:56 am
  #39  
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minneapolis
Programs: AA EXP, Hyatt Diamond, SPG Gold, GlobalEntry, Admirals Club, United Club
Posts: 2,095
Originally Posted by readywhenyouare


The captain is not in full command of the aircraft until it has left the gate. He/she can refuse to fly for X reason but the gate agent and dispatch are also in control as long as it now attached to the jetway. Years ago I witnessed a CVG gate agent put a captain in his place. He kept whining about wanting to depart early and the gate agent told him the plane wasn't going anywhere until she said so. ��
The GA, and presumably dispatch, sided with the captain, as people were kicked off the plane.

Just because the captain doesn't have full command, doesn't mean the FA can overrule the captain. You're saying the GA can overrule the captain. Assuming that's true (I'm not disputing), the FAs recourse is to talk to the GA, not overrule the captain directly to the pax. The FA still does not have authority to overrule the captain, even if other people have authority to overrule.
emrdoc and gooselee like this.
jetsfan92588 is offline  
Old Jul 26, 2018 | 10:06 am
  #40  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Programs: Plat
Posts: 12
There was no indication that this was an emergency, the captain implied that it was a comfort issue. I'm not positive on this but I think he even used the word comfort.
LARobinson is offline  
Old Jul 26, 2018 | 10:42 am
  #41  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Inland Empire, semi-regularly going between LAX/ONT/SNA and IND/STL
Programs: Rapid Rewards, SkyMiles, AAdvantage
Posts: 668
Originally Posted by LARobinson
There was no indication that this was an emergency
To whom?

Are you suggesting that you possess more information than the person who's in the cockpit with all the displays and dials and readouts and other instrumentation and is trained to read and interpret them and how all the systems on the aircraft interact?

the captain implied that it was a comfort issue. I'm not positive on this but I think he even used the word comfort.
Assuming your memory is correct, and you didn't just lead you to read into his words something that wasn't there just to make you feel justified, it's still possible that he said that just to avoid a panic. It may have been something that was merely a comfort issue on the ground, but had the potential to turn into something worse in-flight.
emrdoc and gooselee like this.
BerenErchamion is offline  
Old Jul 26, 2018 | 12:25 pm
  #42  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
All eyes on you!
10 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: ATL
Programs: DL Scattered Smothered Covered Medallion, Some hotel & car stuff, Kroger Plus Card
Posts: 10,805
At the very least, can we agree that two airline employees openly disagreeing with each other in front of customers and in fact directly telling customer they are going to "overrule" one another is generally not a good reason to give them a JWD?

There are ways to challenge authority and have disagreements. What OP described, in the situation he/she described, is...not that.
jetsfan92588, wrp96 and flatdawgs like this.
gooselee is offline  
Old Jul 26, 2018 | 12:36 pm
  #43  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
30 Countries Visited
1M
Community Builder
10 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Back in Reds Country (DAY/CVG). Previously: SEA & SAT.
Posts: 11,996
Originally Posted by readywhenyouare
I'll side with the NTSB and FAA. They were livid with the LGA incident. The captain kept everyone in a very dangerous situation by keeping them onboard a plane that had just crashed. They should have evacuated immediately. That is a very dark stain on Delta and their crews. Not questioning the captain has led to thousands of deaths and that attitude is very dangerous. Air crews are supposed to work as a team. You are supposed to speak up if you think something is wrong.
And yet here we are debating a case where the Captain DID decide to evacuate, albeit, at the gate.

Originally Posted by DCP2016
Yup, and this "mindset" is what led to many bad disasters, including Tenerife, Korean Air Cargo 8509, and Air France 447.
Originally Posted by eastindywalrus
Non sequitur. A flight attendant not challenging a captain's decision to deboard an aircraft parked at the gate is not going to result in a catastrophe of any sort whatsoever.
On top of that, I think it's silly to compare this case - a case where the Captain made a MORE CAUTIOUS and MORE CONSERVATIVE decision for passenger safety - to cases like Korean Air Cargo 8509 or the Tenerife disaster where it was the junior crew member in the cockpit who recognized something about the situation and their input would have been a more cautious or more conservative approach for safety.

Originally Posted by LARobinson
There was no indication that this was an emergency, the captain implied that it was a comfort issue. I'm not positive on this but I think he even used the word comfort.
Which CAN become a safety issue. Maybe not for the aircraft while it's on the ground at the gate but it can for the passengers. Passengers could become dehydrated, overheat, etc.
ATOBTTR is offline  
Old Jul 26, 2018 | 12:45 pm
  #44  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Programs: Plat
Posts: 12
Originally Posted by gooselee
At the very least, can we agree that two airline employees openly disagreeing with each other in front of customers and in fact directly telling customer they are going to "overrule" one another is generally not a good reason to give them a JWD?

There are ways to challenge authority and have disagreements. What OP described, in the situation he/she described, is...not that.
Other than using the word "overrule" I didn't think she was out of line to question the captain, and I'm sure she regretted doing that.
I gave he a JWD because I appreciated the fact that she was willing to try to avoid a situation that caused my family and many others on that flight to miss connections, IMO for no good reason. I also gave her the JWD in case there was some action taken against her for questioning the captain, thinking it might at least give evidence of a different perspective, and someone for Delta to contact if they chose to.
LARobinson is offline  
Old Jul 26, 2018 | 1:00 pm
  #45  
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minneapolis
Programs: AA EXP, Hyatt Diamond, SPG Gold, GlobalEntry, Admirals Club, United Club
Posts: 2,095
Originally Posted by LARobinson
Other than using the word "overrule" I didn't think she was out of line to question the captain, and I'm sure she regretted doing that.
I gave he a JWD because I appreciated the fact that she was willing to try to avoid a situation that caused my family and many others on that flight to miss connections, IMO for no good reason. I also gave her the JWD in case there was some action taken against her for questioning the captain, thinking it might at least give evidence of a different perspective, and someone for Delta to contact if they chose to.
Your actions are admirable. However, if I'm a supervisor reviewing what happened (speaking generally, not about flight procedures since I'm not enough aware of them), this is a case of insubordination by an FA. To me, it wouldn't matter at all whether a passenger thought the FAs actions were acceptable. Presumably, someone reviewing the case knows that there are passengers on the plane that want to get to their destination. And Delta already knows it's bad business to cancel or delay the flight. So that's already taken into consideration in whatever the determination is.

There is a reason the captain has the authority that he/she has. It's not appropriate for the FA to overrule the captain's instructions to passengers, especially when the FA is doing it just to get the flight out, as opposed to, for safety reasons.

I'm surprised by how many people think what the FA did was right. Even if what the captain did was wholly improper, the FAs actions were still inappropriate.
wrp96 and gooselee like this.
jetsfan92588 is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.