FWAAA

IMO, if the pilots were ready, willing and able to fly the plane to HKG, then the FAs needed to get onboard. Failing that, I would have fired them (as UA did).

Had the pilots exercised their legal right to determine the airplane not fit to fly, then this would have had a much different outcome.

LASUA1K

Sorry UA should not have fired them. Especially after the disappearance of MH, I cant blame them.

venk

This isn't the military where there is a clear chain of command, insubordination clearly defined and the job description explicitly includes high potential of death.

Aviation does have some rules on actions by personnel that may jeopardize crew or passenger safety and the Captain gets a say for such situations but only after the flight has commenced and the aircraft in his control. Without the required staff, Captain wouldn't have the authority to commence the flight.

The action by the FAs did not jeopardize the safety of the passengers or the crew. It created a business loss and inconvenience for the passengers. And the plane wasn't in flight to give Captain the right to issue a command to the crew.

This is a personnel matter between UA and the FAs based on employment contract terms. UA might take Captain's assessment for its decision but there is nothing sacrosant about the Captain's words in this situation nor does the Captain have the authority to command the FAs to fly in such situation. FA's insubordination if it is decided as such comes from employment terms, not because of refusal to follow Captain's orders to get on board.

kluau88

Here is the court filing.

http://savvystews.com/wp-content/upl...ted-Filing.pdf

Local coverage.

http://www.sfgate.com/business/netwo...ge-6000368.php

mduell

Title needs an update... they were fired for insubordination, not security concerns.

venk

i wonder what the actual passengers' reactions were after the flight got cancelled and they heard the whole story. Except for the Type A FFers fuming at every crevice demanding compensation, I suspect most would think better be safe than dead.

However, it all hinges on what constituted clearing the flight as OK to fly. Clearly, identifying the person who did this and ensuring that this was just a prank would be sufficient for most. But if this could not be done in time for the flight to take off and the perpetrator was still unknown, I am not sure the airline and the pilots can decide to clear the plane on their own without consulting several authorities. "Followed all FAA regulations" means nothing. It can be trivially satisfied if the FAA didn't have any regulations to handle such a case!

It will be interesting to know what procedures were followed to clear the plane. The action taken on the FAs depends on that and the courts will have to decide if the FAs had sufficient reasons to refuse to fly and have the protrctions based on what exactly was done.

The problematic thing about cases like this is that it sets a precedent where FAs will now have to worry whether their jobs are in jeopardy to take a stand in some other circumstance where they think passenger lives are in danger.

In this class-conscious society (despite assertions to the contrary), FAs are assumed to be less trained in decision making than Pilots. But that is not justified. If it was, we would have a lot more drunk FAs reporting for duty than pilots. :-)

zerolife

If one of the engine is on fire and the pilots insists that it's safe to fly, you'll stay on board right?

The captain lost my respect right there:

"Bowman allegedly told the more than 300 passengers the delay was due to a maintenance issue." ... "Bowman announced to passengers that the delay caused by mechanical issues was resolved and the flight would be under way soon."

If you think it's not an issue why not announce to the passenger the truth?

cerealmarketer

I had no idea a flight attendant is authorized to walk on the ramp. Or at least a purser, which happened in this case.

Had the purser not gone on the ramp to take a picture the game of 'telephone' wouldn't have happened.

Irony being the purser was not among those dismissed.

LASUA1K

The purser was US based.

This is a bad move by UA. If I saw that, I would hesitate also.

mahasamatman

The title is appropriate if you parse it correctly. The security concerns describe the fight, not the firing.

JBord

Me too. Is it such an unreasonable request to delay the flight to search the plane in this case? "Bye bye" could be a little unnerving. All it takes is one nut case in the ground crew.

exwannabe

I would have assumed it was some Asian ground crew (from the previous departure) that was just wishing the plane (and perhaps some friends/family) a nice journey. It really would be their style.

The concept that some bomber is writing notes is simply cartoon-ish.

JVPhoto

I feel a latent sense of sexism on the "oh the pilots said it was okay so everyone else was in the wrong."
This had 0 to do with weather or the condition of the aircraft: things I would defer to the person flying the plane.
FAs are in flight just as much as the pilots are and in this case it was their emotions/feelings/concerns/gut instincts. There's nothing in a pilot's skill set that makes them in the right and trumping the other crew members.

venk

I am always amazed at what people think is a safety clearance like many of the nonsensical TSA procedures.

How could anyone assume that if there was some tampering or other terrorist act, that it would only be in the immediate vicinity of the message? Boggles the mind.

Perhaps, if there was a terrorist, he/she drew a picture in the tail cone because one of:

1. That was the only place with an oil slick
2. Assumed least likely to be detected for his/her private joke
3. Was smart enough to know that any inspection would focus only in that area.

The SFGate report seems to suggest that the Pilots weren't happy with it either but unlike FAs decided to go aling with "company" determination and the visual inspection of just that part. That could have been a tragic mistake if this was related to terrorism.

I suspect many passengers would have elected to disembark if told the truth of what had happened.

In my opinion, the only people who should have suffered in this case is the person who drew that and the management chain of that person, not the FAs.

The underlying cultural problem is that FAs just don't get respect in this industry that every human being deserves, especially if their lives are at stake. This is the core problem and probably led to this stand-off. May have been better handled by including the FAs in the loop from the beginning and trusting their judgments when they have the complete information.

When employees feel that information is hidden from them and they are not involved in the decision making and yet they have to risk their lives based on an order, sorry, it is a bit too much to ask from a non-military personnel. There are better ways to handle this than what appears to have occurred.

Easier to say

1. In retrospect
2. When one isn't in a position of having to risk his/her life on that opinion.

It is also true... until a lunatic bomber does that in the future.

Are we saying we know how exactly a terrorist's or an insane person's mind works? :-)

transportprof

+1
Reminds me of the saying:
There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots. But there are no old bold pilots.