United fires FA's for refusing to fly

Mike Wise said:
Tell ya what, now that I've seen it, I'd prob take the day off too. Not much any safety or corporate or what ever team would be able to tell me besides giving me a new airplane...

View attachment 29957
Click to expand...
Yeah, call me a weenie, but I don't like that either.

Not to mention, if we're gonna claim to be a bunch of pro-labor airline pilots, why on earth would we not stand behind these FAs? I hope they get their jobs back.
 
mshunter said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yup. FA'S voice an issue...issue is found not to exist, they still don't want to go. Fire them.

There is no room in this idustry, especially when it comes to security, for emotion.

Give your opinion. But of the facts say otherwise, you have nothing to stand on.
 
Screaming_Emu said:
Yup. FA'S voice an issue...issue is found not to exist, they still don't want to go. Fire them.
Click to expand...
I mean this in the best possible way, but what happens when you voice a safety concern, the chief pilot orders you to go anyway, and you feel strongly enough to continue to stand your ground?
 
Screaming_Emu said:
Yup. FA'S voice an issue...issue is found not to exist, they still don't want to go. Fire them.

There is no room in this idustry, especially when it comes to security, for emotion.

Give your opinion. But of the facts say otherwise, you have nothing to stand on.
Click to expand...
Was the airplane inspected by "Our [United] flight operations, safety and maintenance teams appropriately investigated and determined there was no credible security threat," BEFORE the FAs walked or after?
Your statement indicates that the FAs walked after the aircraft was found to be safe by ALL of these entities.
 
Inspecting after the fact (a.) was probably insisted on by the lawyers, and (b.) moved this from 'I thought' - 'No, I thought,' to a 'fact.'

United's action, heavy handed though it was, will discourage irrational repetition. Sometimes you just have to listen to management. It's their plane.
 
FloridaLarry said:
Inspecting after the fact (a.) was probably insisted on by the lawyers, and (b.) moved this from 'I thought' - 'No, I thought,' to a 'fact.'

United's action, heavy handed though it was, will discourage irrational repetition. Sometimes you just have to listen to management. It's their plane.
Click to expand...
Yeah, no.

If I have a safety concern about an airplane I'm about to fly, we ain't pulling the chocks. If may be their plane, but it's my life, my certificate, and my responsibility.
 
Mike Wise said:
I don't know about this one. "its my life". I'm assuming the FA's were genuinely spooked by this, considering how many airplanes have disappeared in the past year over asia/rusia/thatgeneralhalfofearth.
Click to expand...

To company, I'm just an appliance, just like the airplane. To think any different at a company that size, you are fooling yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top