B767
Well-Known Member
Just don't take them off the plane...
United fires FA's for refusing to fly
- Thread starter saxman
- Start date
Just don't take them off the plane...
juxtapilot
Snowflake
I think it's disgusting United fired these FA's. They were scared for their lives, and whether or not it was a credible threat, sometimes emotion gets in the way of reality.
juxtapilot
Snowflake
Just had to explain the different between bringing home biscotti cookies and a cookie from an extra first class meal I was served.
Big difference.
Hmm.
I wonder how many terrorist events have happened with a pre-declarance of "Goodbye!"
I think zero.
Cptnchia
Dissatisfied Customer
Like the FA we had who claimed the Hasidic Jew who was praying by the galley was saying, "Allah Akbar" and making aggressive verbal threats. Yet when pressed, admitted to not speaking either Arabic or Yiddish. She saw an individual who did not meet her "acceptable non threat" make up, (westernized,) and made hasty bad judgement calls.
BEEF SUPREME
Well-Known Member
Beep
Well-Known Member
Cptnchia
Dissatisfied Customer
Inside SJA joke. We had a series of training modules on cultural sensitivity where you asked the question, "But for (fill in the blank)" to get an answer of whether it was a legitimate concern or not.What's a BUT FOR?
Case in point. Several years ago, an Australian tourist on a domestic US flight was told by the FA he couldn't do something. Had to do with a bag, I believe. He complied with her, but said, "Fair Dinkum." She had him removed for verbally abusing her. No one ever asked him what that meant. It roughly means "no problem" or "OK."
So, to apply the concept, you would ask the question, "But for the fact I have no clue what this phrase means, I should find out before I proceed."
Beep
Well-Known Member
Thanks!
dustoff17
Still trying to reach the Top Shelf
I SERIOUSLY doubt that all of this occurred during the very short time that the FA's were making their decision to walk. I'm sure AFTER the flight was cancelled operations, MX, Corporate Security, etc went over the plane with a fine-toothed comb but there's no way it happened before.
Not that we know of but I can state for an absolute fact that we wrote notes on the rockets that were used in Iraq! I'm positive that the recipients of these never saw the note either....
Cptnchia
Dissatisfied Customer
I
Not that we know of but I can state for an absolute fact that we wrote notes on the rockets that were used in Iraq! I'm positive that the recipients of these never saw the note either....
Apparently, Israeli children like to get in the act.
Agreed in principle.
But had you told me on 9/10/2001 what was going to happen the next day, play by play, I'd have thought you nuts too.
While we can't be scared of our shadows I agree, we also can't discount that sometimes terrorists will actually think and act outside the box of what we believe their playbook should be. 9/11 should've taught us to at least consider that possibility exists.
It's a crappy pickle to be in.
juxtapilot
Snowflake
Yes, but as goofy as it is, should they really have been fired?
dustoff17
Still trying to reach the Top Shelf
The company spokesman stated, "Our flight operations, safety and maintenance teams appropriately investigated and determined there was no credible security threat." This is worded to make one think that all of this occurred at the time of the incident and yet the FAs still refused to fly. This is a pant-load; no way was the result of this inspection a part of the FAs' consideration before deciding to walk!
Here's a question for the masses: If the FAs feelings (that the aircraft was unsafe) were unfounded, why did United feel the need to inspect it? From the position of United, either the plane was safe, no inspection is necessary or required, and the FAs just wanted a day off so we fire them; OR the FAs concerns were justified we had better spend the time and money to inspect that aircraft as soon as possible just to make sure. Can't have it both ways. I suspect all the FAs will get their jobs back with back pay (and maybe a little more).
Let's play it out....the FAs get upset about a perceived threat and walk (just as they did in this case), later in the day MX finds a bomb. The FA's are praised as heroes that are responsible for saving hundreds of lives. The pilots are questioned and maybe even fired for their lack of proper decision making because they were willing to fly despite the fact that one of their own (the discovering FO) found the graphics disturbing...so much so that they had the engines inspected....yet, they decided to fly anyway.
OR...Everyone blows it off, hops aboard and takes off. The plane explodes reaching 25,000' and the entire discussion about the graphics, it's potential as a threat to safety, the requested engine inspection, and the "drama queen FAs" is all caught on the CVR.
OR...The inspections find nothing but Untied takes into consideration that some idiot MX person is responsible for the graphics. The idiot is fired for using one of their airplanes like a dry erase board.
I agree with @MikeD that we need to take into account the events of the past and not take too much lightly. In this case, I believe the plane should have been emptied and thoroughly inspected prior to it's departure and everyone goes on with their day. This is no different than someone stating a crew member looks like they've been drinking. One has to assess the risk of continuing the flight and act accordingly.
Here's a question for the masses: If the FAs feelings (that the aircraft was unsafe) were unfounded, why did United feel the need to inspect it? From the position of United, either the plane was safe, no inspection is necessary or required, and the FAs just wanted a day off so we fire them; OR the FAs concerns were justified we had better spend the time and money to inspect that aircraft as soon as possible just to make sure. Can't have it both ways. I suspect all the FAs will get their jobs back with back pay (and maybe a little more).
Let's play it out....the FAs get upset about a perceived threat and walk (just as they did in this case), later in the day MX finds a bomb. The FA's are praised as heroes that are responsible for saving hundreds of lives. The pilots are questioned and maybe even fired for their lack of proper decision making because they were willing to fly despite the fact that one of their own (the discovering FO) found the graphics disturbing...so much so that they had the engines inspected....yet, they decided to fly anyway.
OR...Everyone blows it off, hops aboard and takes off. The plane explodes reaching 25,000' and the entire discussion about the graphics, it's potential as a threat to safety, the requested engine inspection, and the "drama queen FAs" is all caught on the CVR.
OR...The inspections find nothing but Untied takes into consideration that some idiot MX person is responsible for the graphics. The idiot is fired for using one of their airplanes like a dry erase board.
I agree with @MikeD that we need to take into account the events of the past and not take too much lightly. In this case, I believe the plane should have been emptied and thoroughly inspected prior to it's departure and everyone goes on with their day. This is no different than someone stating a crew member looks like they've been drinking. One has to assess the risk of continuing the flight and act accordingly.
Scenario three seems like the least damaging to everyone involved, and proper way to go if ya ask me. They saw something that raised an eyebrow, United found it reasonable enough to have additional security sweeps done, yet still decided to take action against the flight attendants. This is one of those scenarios where a union would have been a huge asset.
