gengar

Good read. Here are some key points for those who don't want to go through 26 pages (although I'd still recommend it):

• the writing/images were first discovered by a First Officer conducting pre-flight, who described them as a "disturbing image" in passing to an FA;
• the FO's report on the incident states his concerns were initially dismissed by an SFO maintenance supervisor, and that the FO was "appalled" by this reaction;
• UA's SFO Chief Pilot and Assistant Chief Pilot were notified of the writing/images, and they along with the FO were concerned enough that they requested an inspection of the APU compartment and removal of the writing/images;
• an FA told the Captain he was uncomfortable with flying and felt it was not safe - the Captain agreed with the FA, saying "I'm with you" and that he was also "uncomfortable", but that he had to get a decision from "those guys", presumably meaning UA management;
• after the flight crew decided to fly, the FAs requested a more thorough inspection, but it was denied by the Captain for the reason that there was not enough time.

At first when I read the OP, I thought the whole thing was pretty silly - but the facts presented here are quite curious.

First off, we see that speculation here that the flight crew was not concerned by the security threat is at least in part wrong, as the concerns actually originated with the flight crew. The facts as presented also raise the question of whether the flight crew only agreed to fly because they were put under pressure to do so by UA management (note that several FAs actually initially agreed to work the flight as well because they understood that they would likely be terminated if they refused).

Of further concern is, if the flight crew felt that there was a sufficient security threat to demand an inspection, why was that inspection limited to only the APU compartment? That a more thorough inspection was denied on the basis of insufficient time only points more towards the possibility that UA management pressured the flight crew to take the flight.

It is also curious that the plane was out of service for 2 days after the incident, as atword noted. This is mentioned in the filing.

I stated before that I could already understand why some people who saw the writing/images might be hesitant to fly. Coupled with the facts as presented, especially relating to how the circumstances led the FAs to believe that UA was withholding information from them, I can really understand their anxiety - and I don't like at all how UA handled this.

bmwe92fan

I understand your points - but please try to remember that you are reading the plaintiff's lawyers interpretation / view of the facts - and we all know that there is your story, my story, and the truth.... It's easy to convict UA on this one given that the only side of the story we have is from terminated employee's lol

gengar

I don't have to "try to remember" anything. In fact, in the bullet points portion of my post, I mentioned only facts as presented (and I did so purposefully, as I indicated it was a summary). Two of those bullet points (the second and third) are even in writing (the FO's report and the FO/CP/ACP request for APU inspection). Unless you or anyone else has information that those facts are actually being disputed by any of the involved parties, I will consider them facts as presented and draw my conclusions based on that - no different than testimony.

We are, of course, most certainly allowed to draw differing conclusions even if the facts as presented aren't disputed.

bmwe92fan

LOL any first year law student could destroy your "facts" in less than five seconds - again - let's just wait for the full story to come out before we pass judgment...

To head off the inevitable attacking of my opinion let's just say that for your points 1) "appalled" is a personal observation / opinion and not a fact, and 2) an inspection by management was completed and the FAA mandated system deemed the plane as safe...

gengar

I must have missed where my contribution to this thread in providing a brief summary of a 26-page filing, coupled with what is clearly my opinion and speculation based on some of the facts as presented, warrants your personal attacks. I would appreciate an explanation as to why what I have done has personally affronted you so much.

Furthermore, did you even read the filing? Obviously the state of being "appalled" is subject to interpretation; however, as I clearly noted, this was the FO's written description in the FO's own report of his own reaction. This is not someone else's observation or opinion of the FO's reaction.

Always Flyin

An inspection of just the APU area is insufficient and fails to comport with the inspection requirements set forth in the FARs.

bmwe92fan

Yes I did read it and I apologize - I honestly didn't mean to make it personal - all I am saying is that any decent attorney could simply say to the FO during discovery that yes - you may have thought it "appalling" (remember we don't know the other side yet) and although yes, in your opinion it was initially - "dismissed" - but then Mr. FO - an actual inspection was actually completed, as requested - so your request was taken seriously, and the plane was deemed safe to fly...

I'm not taking UA's side - I just have way too much experience with cases such as this being tried in the press...

Always Flyin

Let's be clear here. The FARs require that the entire aircraft be inspected. It was not. Only the area of the APU was inspected.

The factual assertion that "an actual inspection was actually completed" is simply incorrect.

bmwe92fan

But that was what was requested by the FO / flight crew, in order to feel safe / better, right? I'll just shut up now and let the courts handle it...

cmdinnyc

I've read the complaint and don't see a slippery slope at all. Recognizing it is written from the plantiff's perspective and has bias accordingly, there was something that could be construed as a credible, direct threat to a flight. It was investigated, though perhaps not to the standards required by FAA regulation. Since there was a belief on the part of the crew that FAA safety and security regulations were not being followed appropriately, they were "uncomfortable" working a flight that was not deemed "safe" (quotes refer to the specific meaning given those terms in the aviation world). Given no one could say when the drawings were made and the access required to make those drawings, this is not just your run of the mill joke.

cmdinnyc

Does it matter what was requested? I would think the FAR has to take precedence, not just what was requested.

fly18725

I believe {this is an} incorrect understanding of the FAR. it may be helpful to actually cite something.

TENYKS

In a strange twist of events, Delta Airlines, Inc., is now considering hiring those 13 flight attendants and matching their full pay and seniority at United Airlines. If I'm not mistaken, those flight attendants all had worked at UA almost 20 years(if not more)... how will the flight attendants at DL react to this?

BearX220

Sure, but in a work culture where FAs have thrown passengers off planes for taking innocent photos and had aircraft diverted because an (admittedly obnoxious) family was complaining about the movie, I'm not sure why suddenly a bunch of them get fired for this. Their concern here was a shade more substantial. Such inconsistency makes no sense. The company should either back its FAs no matter how irrational their actions, as UA usually does, or penalize them for crazy acts of operational sabotage, as it is now. But come up with a policy and stick to it.

LaserSailor

News flash to those under 40 years of age.

The workplace is not a democracy. FAs were out of line, if they indeed refused to work when ordered. End of story.

If you want to work in a place where you want your opinion heard on every aspect of operations, plan on starting your own company now.