blues deville Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Had this been a few days after 9/11, there would be no discussion about working the flight.http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/United-Airlines-plane-s-disturbing-image-6000368.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Had this been a few days after 9/11, there would be no discussion about working the flight.Yes but lots of people were acting irrationally in those days - like calling out the Anthrax Squad for a spilled packet of sugar or the hotel maid who called the police to report that she found aviation maps in a guest room wastebasket without taking the time to find that it had been an airline pilot who had simply done his Jepp amendments. I find stuff written inside the wheel wells or on the gear doors all the time - never called anyone about it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 The location of the graffiti is odd, don’t you think? Being what, 20+ feet above the ground means just reaching the location would require an out-of-place ‘special’ effort and when the nature of the message is considered, I don’t know that a little concern wasn’t warranted. Once a reasonable inspection had been made though, I think it begins to push the envelope when FA’s feel empowered to make go, no-go technical decisions based on their fears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boney Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 If the Capt had kept his feelings to himself and just indicated that maintanance was just checking it out, the flight would have been just delayed. The F/A's would not have refused to work even though they all saw the graffiti. They refused because the Capt indicated that it wasn't safe, even though he was still willing to go after checking the area. I assume that the flight did go late and arrived safely. Didn't it?Gotta watch what we say at times. Hmmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonymous Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 To quote Forest Gump"Stupid is as stupid does..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsplat Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 WRT the comment that the Captain should have kept his feelings to himself - That approach was rendered obsolete with the introduction of criminal negligence proceedings and CRM. We live in an age of transparency - within walls to be sure - when it comes to security. The whole "see something say something" philosophy is based on reporting your observations and letting the process decide. Failing to disclose a concern, regardless of good intention, is simply no longer tolerated.WRT the in-flight staff response, once again, they are not children. Letting onboard staff know there is a concern, how it will be handled and the outcome of the process not only are part of any healthy safety process, but a fundamental statement of professional courtesy and respect for fellow crew members. If any crew member, regardless of occupied seat during takeoff, does not wish to be aboard for departure, then in my books they should not be there. Yes it is inconvenient and costly, and there will be consequences. But employees are not slaves. Keeping one or more crew members in the dark so they will do as you wish is not an option. At least not any more.FWIWVs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boney Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 If an investigation hadn't happen, then your comments are correct. But, an investigation did occur. The Capt could just state that the plane is grounded until cleared. The crew was not kept in the dark. His "feelings" may have influenced the crew, justified or not. Maybe by joining the rest of his crew and not fly, the result would be different. As Captains and Pilots, we are more influential than we realize. I'm not discounting the feelings of his back end crew, but we must show leadership, even if it means watching what we say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mo32a Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 They refused because the Capt indicated that it wasn't safe, even though he was still willing to go after checking the area. I assume that the flight did go late and arrived safely. Didn't it?No, the flight was cancelled, the plane grounded for two days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boney Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 The article didn't indicate it was cancelled. Aw well, what do I know. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted January 10, 2015 Author Share Posted January 10, 2015 The article didn't indicate it was cancelled. Aw well, what do I know. Cheers......"Sometime after 3:30 p.m., a United customer service agent came aboard and announced that the flight was canceled because of crew availability, the complaint says.Flight attendants were told the plane was then grounded for two days, the complaint says, adding that United told them that time was needed for the aircraft to resume its rotational schedule."....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.