nk15

We don't know about how low level that person was, and in any case it is indicative of the culture...Any employee who feels empowered to trap the cabin crew in, it says a lot about the culture...

nk15

There are no indications of that, the FAs said they were literally about to walk out. And the trap was both literal and psychological, coming from outside. There was no full autonomy.

FlyBitcoin

Quoting from the article in italics...

Ground control had the impression that they were not going to accept the voluntary overtime at 10:19pm because they would time out at 11pm. It perhaps was an assumption that they would not accept overtime since we have no indication from the conversation at at any point the FA's indicated they were actually going to walk at exactly 11pm. If that conversation occurred via the app, we would have it here as evidence...
The message above went out at 10:19 p.m. About a half-hour later, the operations center sent an even more urgent note: “Ok… if door is not closed by [11 p.m.] Flt attendants walking. We will most likely have to delay flight until morning if this happens.”

The first message from the crew indicated that they were willing to stay. There is no evidence from the article that they were coerced to change their minds by anyone on that messaging app. The use of the word "trap" by the FA was in the context of trying to negotiate a better outcome for them willing to accept the overtime assignment. Namely a "deadhead" back.
An attendant listed as “flight leader” said they knew the operations team was trying to “trap” them on the plane, although the attendants were staying to work voluntarily.
“Since we are deciding to stay although y’all are trying to trap us on the plane, and now our layover has been shortened and we will be past our duty day, hungry and tired. It would be nice to have a deadhead at some point tomorrow.”

That's all. At any point, they could have changed their minds about staying for overtime (as a unit). The door can always be opened from the inside while the plane was on the jetway from 11:00 until the time it left the gate.

nk15

I don't think you are reading the article properly. The lead FA said "We are ready to walk literally". This means they were ready to leave, and they wanted to leave. There were no indications of a debate or ambivalence among them.

However, after reading the planned entrapment in the app, and likely out of fear for their jobs, they decided to stay.

FlyBitcoin

“We are ready to walk literally,” the attendant followed up in another message. “Doing the operation a huge favor.”

That statement is one of volunteering to do the overtime and wanting a favor in return for their trip back from YYZ. The second part of the above quote is more important than the first. It expresses a voluntary decision described as a "favor".

The word "literal" means that you are going to do exactly that. Perhaps they were all huddled at the door ready to walk off and enforce their federally guaranteed right to not accept the overtime. Regardless, they wanted to convey that feeling to operations. But the second part of that statement proves that they as a team decided to work for overtime pay.

People in any job get pushed to the limits. And in this job, the limits are statutory with the right of refusal going to the FA's. They can choose to work for overtime pay per the statute. Not all overtime shifts are created equal and this FA wanted to make it very clear that this one was a tough decision for the crew to make, and hoped that their dedication might be rewarded on the back end with a little extra non-monetary compensation as well. Sure there is tons of pressure in that job. First from other FA's with seniority, then operations and management too. And your own conscience when you see a gate or plane full of people wanting to go home late at night. Tons of pressure on these professionals.

Still, it reads a lot more like a negotiation than a hostage taking.

steve64

Geeez folks ... ummmm .... this is standard operating procedure. It's taken way out of context for sensationalism, but is SOP.
Well , at least from my days (20 years ago) at AA DFW which included stints as bothe Gate AAgent and Operations working in the (AA) "tower".

Yes, Gate Agents get orders from ops that the "door must be closed" by x time or the crew goes "illegal" and the flight most likely cancels.
"Illegal" is a poor term that simply means a timeout. Crews will timeout on company limits (most likely per union contract) before they timeout on FAA limits.
They are physically "illegal" only when exceeding FAA limits. However, the term "illegal" is used for any timeout.
When the timeout is company based, the crew may elect to continue with the flight. One thing about this (at least at the "old" AA) is that the company (Operations) can NOT ask the crew to exceed the limit, they must volunteer.

The door closing per se is irrelevant.
The FAA requires airlines to track the progress of all flights, to include recording the flight's "out", "off", "on" and "in" times.
Most FAA regulations (thus company/union) concerning crew duty time limits concentrate on the "out" time.
Most airlines use automated systems to track the FAA mandated "events". At AA, the ACARS system on the plane would record the flight as "out" once all doors (cabin & cargo) had been closed and the parking brake released.
Thus any mention of a critical "out" time was communicated as a "door close" time.

On several occasions, I have had Flight Crew (Pilots) help me (Gate Agt) with getting an out time recorded, when it was clear that I only needed an extra minute or 2.
I've had them help me when I looked as if I'd be taking a delay past scheduled departure and also when I've been close to a critical door close time.
We stop boarding while the First Officer is at the door. I close the door, FO confirms parking break released and gives me the thumbs up to re-open the door. I can open the door once the ACARS circuit breaker has been pulled (otherwise, the open door would be recorded as "returned").

I've seen many variations of the above. Including maint delays that look as if they'll exceed a critical door close time a just a few minutes. Finish the repairs (or more likely placard the offending item as inoperative) and take the logbook off the plane to record the repair/deferral. Close the door as the mechanic walks off (to get a "good" out time) and pass the completed logbook back thru the cockpit window (no ACARS sensors on the windows).

So the door can get closed. But it's to fudge the out time, not to entrap crew members I'd be very surprised to hear of a case where the fudge time exceeds 5 minutes.

Conversely : an airline may have a flight ready to go, but closing the door would result in an FAA violation.
Have you ever had (for example) a 6:00am flight that was delayed to 6:03am due to "crew" ??
This is a situation where the crew arrived yesterday late enough that their inbound flight's "in" time plus FAA required crew rest time, goes 3 minutes past this morning's sked departure time.
When it comes to FAA limits, there is no fudge time. The limit is to the minute and common sense is irrelevant. Trust me, the crew members did not set their alarm clocks to 3 minutes later than they normally would have done.
They show up at the airport as normal. I fat 5:58am the flight is ready to depart, everyone sits around until 6:03. The recorded out time can not be prior to 6:03, this translates that the door can not be closed until then. Period.

As an ex Gate AAgent, this is news to me. It's usually Operations (working with Dispatch) who control when the flight will leave. As a Gate Agent, I will go down to close the door as close to the dictated departure time as I can. Before closing, I will poke my head into the cockpit to say hi and confirm maintenance isn't onboard. This is generally my 1st (and only) contact with the Captain.

This post and your other replies in this thread in no way comes even close to reflecting how an airline operates.

nk15

If you think that this was about fudging the out time for 5 minutes, versus forcing the timed out cabin crew to work the flight, let me put the exact messages exchanged between the professionals below, verbatim, for your convenience. The concern is clearly with the FAs exceeding company time limits and operations pressuring them to stay.

“Do not open door,” the message read. “flt attendants out of time and none available.”
“Ok… if door is not closed by [11 p.m.] Flt attendants walking. We will most likely have to delay flight until morning if this happens.” (bolding mine)
“Since we are deciding to stay although y’all are trying to trap us on the plane,..."
“We are ready to walk literally,” the attendant followed up in another message. “Doing the operation a huge favor.”
Delta acknowledged the Flight 1990 incident in a statement to HuffPost, saying it was a breakdown of company protocol.
“Operating an airline is a team effort and the guidance shared in this exchange does not reflect the respect and collaboration we expect of our employees when making operational decisions,” the company said. “Delta’s unique culture is built on supporting one another and that didn’t happen in this case. We have followed up directly with the team members involved to address this situation.”

tkey75

But yet you don't bolden the most important quote in that exchange.

“Doing the operation a huge favor.”

So they were ready to walk, literally, but they didn't because they chose stay, as a favor to DL. Favors are not given out by force. It was a negotiating tactic to get a favor in return, namely a dead-head the next day. A little give, a little take.

Do we know if they were successful in their plight?

HDQDD

Not at all. Being ready to leave and wanting to leave are not the same thing. From every quote I've seen the FA team seemed willing to work the flight. They had at least two chances to "walk" and didn't.

Having worked in local ops and system ops for one of DL's competitors, I can tell you this stuff happens almost daily during IROPS. If a crew is about to time out (when reserve crews are already depleted), everything possible is done to get that flight pushed before that happens. In this case DL sent a poorly thought out message to it's local ops that was not in line with company expectations.

jeet

No doubt the FAs on this flight 'took one for the team'. I bet they provided 'normal' service which by my definition is excellent! They each deserve half a dozen JWDs.
BUT it also speaks of culture in the company where someone felt empowered to do an unethical thing. Which, kudos to delta, they acknowledged as against the protocol.

What I don't know is what is the protocol in these situations . Is it -

• Never to take such a decision?
• Take, but do not announce it in such an open way?
• Not take it at that level but someone else higher up the chain can take it?

HDQDD

It's a tricky scenario at any airline. If the crew really wants to be arses about it (even if it's just one of the crew), they can drag their feet until they're legally not able to continue. The airline is not going to violate an FAR to operate the flight. It's hard to put percentages to it, but I'd say better than half of crews will do what they can to try to help get the flight out. There were certain flights we had where just a one hour delay would cause a late night Int'l flight to be delayed overnight (until they could re-crew). This probably happened once or twice a month. Yes, other airlines have 12+ hour delays too...

Running an airline is a complex beast. Only takes one thing to delay/cancel a flight. Kudos to those who work hard to try to minimize the impact for customers.

FlyBitcoin

You cannot really assess communication among professionals within an organization as an outsider. The lingo may sound harsh and alarming.
This was NOT a hostage situation. It was normal workplace environment give and take.
The word "trap" was used in a negotiation. Plain and simple.

I would imagine that this ground operations person assumes that every crew is going to "walk" at their timeout unless they hear otherwise. He went on that assumption until the FA's corrected him and said they are working. FA did not like that anyone assumed what they were going to do and wanted to get a better deal for the FA crew for operating the flight in addition to the mandated overtime pay. So they made it clear they were "taking one for the team".

Trust me, if you heard the banter that goes on pre-op, intra-op, and post-op for many surgeries, you would not want that published either. Nor would it be great if the doctors lounge and nurses lounge could hear everything said in the other room. BUT, when the team is together, things work pretty well.

nk15

This is not a cabin crew that happily volunteered for this. They clearly felt that they had to, not happy about it, and felt pressured to do it. As in there will be professional repercussions if they did not volunteer. If they were unionized, they will be less scared for their jobs. And maybe Delta would have more replacement crews available, in ATL from all places, their stupid hub.

HDQDD

FlyBitcoin

Looking forward to you elaborating more on which hubs are "stupid" and which ones are "smart".