phxrsng

Which is amazing to me, since the advent of Crew Resource Management methodologies in the aviation system (primarily in the cockpit) has been responsible for improving aircraft safety where once FO's were scared to question a Capt's decisions due to his seniority and their careers.

mre5765

Every employee has a bad day. Considering they were long term employees, a month or two suspension without pay to give them time to reflect on their illogic would have sufficed. If pilots are willing to fly, then logically, everyone else should be, including cabin crew.

If it's been a couple months or more already, then UA should settle, if the workers will settle for zero comp, and let them come back to work.

Xyzzy

I was wondering what one should do when an FA tells passengers 'Bye bye" as they exit the aircraft. Is that a credible and specific threat? What if the FA is wearing a pin with a smiley face n it at the time?

BB2220

And what "inside knowledge" do you claim to have?

FiveMileFinal

Hear, hear!!!

As a pax I would have at least wanted the plane swept front to back before I flew on it. It's not even like a 2 (or 8) hour delay isn't par for the course for United anyway.

sleuth

Fact - United's first priority is safety (as is every other airline - supposedly). Let's be perfectly honest here. United leadership should have taken seriously the concerns of the flight attendants. Fact - they didn't.

I've walked off one flight after multiple deicings in RIC after getting a really weird feeling. I can assure you if I had been a passenger on this United flight and knew what was going on, I would have walked off. No business meeting or family event is worth my life. Some in this thread are placing those over safety. In my business if someone calls a timeout for a safety concern, time stops until it's resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

BF263533

I personally think a lot of the diversions and closings are stupid, but I keep that opinion to myself. There will be the one situation where it turns out to cost many lives, so I avoid expressing my stupidity rantings.

The last time I flew CO out of HKG was 2001. There was a lot of commotion. A family member who is a medical professional said that baby is blue, don't you think you should take the baby to the hospital? The FA's ignored the advice and closed the door so we could push back. I said you can't stop the plane without facing criminal charges in my legal opinion.

So we pushed back from the HKG gate and it takes 45 minutes to get a stairway and an ambulance.

That should be compared to our Asiana trip from ICN-JFK in Nov. 2014. It appeared a passenger was having a heart attack. Asiana offered to land at ANC then SEA if my family member said it was necessary. She took vitals every 15 minutes and we were able to fly nonstop to JFK. If she gave the word Asiana was ready to land that plane. Asiana certainly put the safety of one passenger ahead of profits. Monitoring the patient wore us out, but it was comforting to know my family member could divert the aircraft without any objection. The burden of the decision was stressful, but Asiana's utmost concern for the health and safety of one passenger was comforting.

Spiff

I couldn't care less if the "Wash Me" prank happened on every flight. I'd still fly. I'd be grateful for the extra room should anyone care to deplane.

That's correct.

UA leadership did take safety seriously. They disregarded the bogus "security" concerns of the FAs and then fired them when they chose not to do their job.

False. That's not a fact. That's your opinion.

And how many of those planes fell out of the sky? Zero? None? An integer between -1 and 1?

More space for people who were not driven to hysteria by the "Wash Me" prank. I would hope that those who would have deplaned would be treated as no-shows or at least standbys if UA had to offload their luggage.


Neither your life nor the passengers' lives on this flight were at risk due to "Wash Me".

That is a bogus statement. There was no safety concern from "Wash Me".

What an incredible waste of time - kowtowing to bogus hysteria. There were no legitimate safety concerns and the FAs who acted foolishly and hysterically deserve to be fired and sued for damages. While the latter might not happen, I'm pleased they are no longer able to infect others with their sickness or cause passengers further unnecessary harassment.

HkCaGu

The message is not "Wash me". It is "Bye bye". "Wash me" cannot be interpreted as a threat. "Bye bye" is not the same, period.

Spiff

There is no period. Your assertion is not correct and not the end of the discussion. So sorry.

"Bye Bye" is just a variant of "Wash Me". A harmless prank. Anything can be interpreted as a "threat" if one chooses to interpret such writing foolishly.

The only difference in this case is the foolish overreaction by FAs who were rightfully fired for refusing to work.

mjm

So as I read through this thread I see a lot of comment describing as "bogus threats" (and similar descriptions) the words "bye bye" and the faces being written in the oil on the casing.

I am not understanding something, unless this is simply an exercise in seeing how far people will believe you are serious when you are surely having a chuckle and playing devil's advocate.

What concrete proof do you or anybody else have that this was not something worthy of a security sweep? Here you are as a non-professional in this airline, with absolutely no fiduciary responsibility for the lives of anyone but yourself, proclaiming the writing to not be worthy of a security sweep. You simply have no proof of that. Erring on the sid of caution is hat puts many flyers at ease. A cavalier attitude does not have he same effect..

On the other hand there were a group of people not only responsible for their own skins, but by extension as employees of the airline, who had a massive responsibility for a few hundred people. They had more information that in their long experience and knowledge of recent events gave them enough pause to seek more peace of mind.

In many instances you have made it plain you do care for what you view as interference with your freedom to travel as you might like with fairly strong opinions voiced against the TSA and others.

I cannot help but think this is a projection of that feeling of having lost freedoms in America (as your signature alludes to).

It is an entirely unreasonable position to take when in a group or when holding responsibility for a group, to decide how things should happen based on the feelings of a single member of that group. I would suggest that is rather unAmerican in fact.

To support the position that the FAs should be fired and if possible fined beyond that is in fact a reasonable opinion as are all opinions. But to characterize it as any more than just an opinion is to characterize it incorrectly.

Just stop for a minute and see if in addition to how you feel about it if another apt description of the events is not:

"Several FAs stood up for the passengers' safety and requested a security screening at the peril of losing their own jobs as this was something they felt enough concern to take to that extreme and which they felt was incumbent upon them as members of a very small group of people aware of the writing.

Defining excessive caution becomes a very personal thing and personal stances have precious little place in a group. The best course for a group is always the classic approach. Take the action that has the most accompanying good with the least accompanying evil.

Spiff

What proof is there this was worthy of harassing the passengers? Something written in the grime on the plane is somehow a threat? Not in my book.

I'd get on that plane in a heartbeat. And I'm not a security amateur by any stretch of the imagination. If flyers need to be put at ease, I suggest valium or marijuana rather than an unnecessary flight cancellation or delay.

Everyone wants peace of mind. However, making up "threats" to secure that peace of mind is untenable, especially when one wants to harass passengers for no good reason.

I've not mentioned TSA in this discourse. I believe they are irrelevant here as this was not a flight from/to the USA.

Au contraire; this is an American (USA) airline. It's not a veto event. When the FAs decided to walk, they did so contrary to management and pilots' decisions to fly.

Sure, opinions are like... well you know. But in this case, those FAs decided they didn't like what they saw and decided that the passengers must be punished (further). That's unacceptable. Who's to say "Wash Me" wasn't an FA joke? There was no reason for anyone to be (further) harassed.

FAs did not stand up for passenger safety. They wanted passengers to be harassed even more than they already had been and for no good reason ("Wash Me") . For a joke. No way, no how. They should be terminated with prejudice.

Always Flyin

Advocating having the flight attendants killed. That's great.

There is a deep and serious issue being manifested in this post.

Spiff

Easy there, sport.

Terminated = fired.

Not: Terminated = Logan's Run "retired".

Always Flyin

No, sport. What you said was terminated WITH PREJUDICE.