asphaltman

I saw this today in USA Today, and hadn't seen it here, so I thought I would post. Interesting read.




http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...kong/21380813/

villox

Like many things, I'm sure there are multiple sides to this. It looks like some ground crew thought they were being cute (the face does not look 'devilish' to me - I'd say vaguely ethnic). Will definitely be interesting to hear more of the story.

nuspieds

Indeed.

The article included a statement by United that they followed its and the FAA's procedures for such an incident and the plane was deemed safe. If it's as simple as that, then I'd think that the FAs are on the losing end.

mherdeg

None of these stories say whether UA found and considered disciplining the person who drew on the 747.

If "no", then arguably the part of this story that might scare a civilian is that people can randomly draw on 747s and it's impossible to figure out where or when it happened. Of course, someone with a little more expertise wouldn't be worried, because UA and FAA procedures include safety protocols that allow for safe operation of an aircraft even if an unidentifiable person has somehow managed to draw random stuff on the exterior undetected.

MSPeconomist

Are these FAs based somewhere in Asia? That could affect their legal rights to fight the firings.

asphaltman

The other thing, there is no comment from or about the pilots. I would assume that the Captain, if his whole crew was sketchy, he would have legitimate concern or reason to not fly the plane. Also looking at the tail, how would have FA's seen that, maybe it was the FO on his walk around... Who knows.

GoAmtrak

The whole story is very bizarre. Leave it to UA to one-up a group of its tenured FAs as appearing unsympathetic.

garykung

Yes. They are HKG/SIN based FA (if SIN still has its own FA base).

The rights are not impacted as all non-U.S. based FAs have the same CBA (union contract) as their U.S. counterpart.

None of the FAs is subject to local law protection.

channa

The question is how much differently this would have been handled had they been CO FAs.

The company wanting all the UA FAs out most certainly was a contributor to the response.

weirdlyndon

Are HKG FAs covered by AFA? I'd have thought the union would've been involved long before this hit the media.

jetaway96

Yes they are. All these FAs are HKG base with a few of them carry US citizen.

PropClear

I do have to say that message would likely have given me some pause as well. If that same message were scrawled on a piece of paper that was found onboard, I have a feeling a thorough search would have been conducted.

airzim

1) Slippery slope issue here. If anyone can arbitrarily decide that they don't want to work because of how they feel, any company is opening themselves up for huge potential losses.

2) The pilots, ground crew, and maintenance all evaluated the situation and decided things were fine to fly. So do your job and get on the plane and work the flight.

3) Their action likely cost the company 100s of thousands of dollars.

They blew it.

gengar

As I recall, there were a few flights diverted after notes were found in the lavatory - although I believe the notes had direct threats. This was a pretty vague message, but I understand why some people might have found it alarming.

garykung

Just for the sake of proof, Section 4J3(c) of the CBA:

In term of the union, this case is more about sending a message than resolving the issue.

Remember - without a finding of guilt, any defendants always look guilty (even they are eventually cleared of liabilities). In other words, this lawsuit, even failed, can still generate enough bad press for UA, especially they can't comment, right or wrong.

This case is all about judgment calls.

1. Why do the FAs aware of that? It was located at the APU exhaust, which normally, only ground crews and pilots will discover that. In other word, someone else made the FAs to be aware of that.

2. In what basis the captain accepted the plane as fit to fly?

3. Why didn't TSA or SFPD get involved? An airline is in no position to determine threats.