Run-in at LAX

[kkiwi]

I was an ordinary passenger, with my family at LAX waiting to re-board our Air New Zealand flight. I could see our aircraft through the terminal windows and noticed what appeared to be a crack in the nose-cone. I mentioned it to a member of our flight crew (captain or 1st officer) who was passing at that moment, he seemed rather haughty and wasn't interested in having a look. I persevered as I thought it could be important and I owed it to my children to be thorough about a potential safety issue. I chased after him and asked him again to have a look; this involved retracing his steps about 15 metres and looking at the aircraft through the terminal window. He reluctantly followed me back and had a very quick look at the possible damage to the nose cone. He turned away and started striding back down the hall calling out that there wasn't a crack or damage & that I must be imagining it. His off-hand attitude amazed and offended me, that he could be so dismissive of a customer’s concerns. As he retreated I called out that I wasn't imagining things, I am an ex-pilot and told him so. He called back that I was entitled to my opinion, I replied that in that case I thought that he must be an idiot (yes I know, I shouldn't have said it but it just came out). It got very ugly at that stage, he came towards me looking very angry and I thought he would probably hit me. He said "what did you say?” I didn't reply but he started to make a very big deal about it, saying he was going to call security and get me booted off the plane. This was all taking place in front of the plane load of passengers, including my wife and my two children. I have to admit I was embarrassed, humiliated, and upset. My wife was pleading with me to apologize, my children were cowering, and the other passengers looked shocked. The "idiot" then called the airport security who came over to have "a word" with me. After I explained what had happened they seemed rather surprised at the reaction of the pilot and I could tell they sympathised with my predicament. The pilot stormed off saying he wouldn't allow me to re-board the plane for the next leg to London, one of the security officials (there were 3 of them!) suggested that I apologise to the pilot even though she agreed he was over reacting. In the end I apologised to the pilot (via one of the security officials) and we were allowed to continue the flight. I apologised not because I thought I was wrong about him being an idiot, but because I really hadn't meant to say so out loud, and because my wife and children were very upset and I didn't want to ruin our holiday. If I had been travelling on my own I would have stuck to my guns. Imagine if he had gone through with his threat to throw me off the flight, they would have had to delay the flight in order to locate and off-load my luggage, and then back at base he would have had to explain it all to his bosses. "The passenger tried to point out a potential safety issue to me, but I was too busy/important to pay attention so he called me an idiot". Would he have been justified in throwing me off? Am I the idiot? Maybe, but I had paid approx $6000 for our airfares, and he was just an airline employee – I was indirectly paying his wages. I suspect that most firms having just sold an item for $6000 would make sure their employees treat the customer with the utmost courtesy and respect, and perhaps even overlook it if they get called an idiot.

[7mile]

So, was the "nose-cone' cracked and replaced or did the flight depart on turnround.

Just as you were in no position to accurately determine the serviceability of the nose cone, neither was the passing flight crew member. It would obviously need to be refered to engineering for such a determination to be made. A closer inspection from other than the terminal would also be most appropriate.

Just because you perceive to be "paying our wages" confers no right what so ever to be so rude and offensive. Nowhere in my job description does it say I am to accept personal abuse or rebuff from anybody.:=

[Final 3 Greens]

Just because you perceive to be "paying our wages" confers no right what so ever to be so rude and offensive.

I agree with that, being called an 'idiot' is't pleasant and the OP makes a point of saying he shouldn't have done that.

However, two wrongs do not make a right.

I work in a public facing job (working with middle and senior corporate managers) and before Christmas had some feedback from a customer that I thought was unfair, derogatory and uninformed, a judgment I can make as I am a professional in my field of work and the customer was not (i.e. similar position to a pilot interacting with a passenger.)

Best course of action is to thank them for their input, say you'll check it out (whatever 'it'is) and then either check it out (if they have a point) or ignore it. In my case I chose the latter course of (in)action.

If the pilot had done that, the OP would have been reassured and probably telling his friends what a good airline he flew on. In my case, I got a message from the company I was working with thanking me for the good job I had done and offering me a couple more engagements.

Sh*t happens, we have to get on with it, especially in a recession, where customers are thin on the ground.

Obviously, if someone is threatening, then that is a different matter.

Also, it sounds as if the LAX security people did a pretty good job of mediation.

[trimotor]

The fare-paying pax has every right to share his or her concerns with the operating crew. There are countless times where this has averted disaster, or been ignored and disaster followed. Would you ignore a passenger who said there was ice on the wings and they weren't happy?

If the crew member concerned had acknowledged the pax concerns, as suggested, and dealt with it as he saw fit, instead of belittling the pax safety concerns, in front of potentially hundreds of other pax, the problem would have gone away. As it was, the unbelievably arrogant attitude of the holier-than-thou Air New Zealand pilot demonstrated nothing other than his lack of interpersonal skills, ignorance of the effect of his actions as they relate to his company's (currently) parlous profitability and demeaned his own professionalism (demonstrating a lack of same in the process).

Unfortuately, the pilot's actions demostrate, all to well, the midset of many Air New Zealand pilots - big fish/small pond, and they've reached the pinacle. Almost as bad as QANTAS. I have had the opportunity to observe Air NZ crews briefing numerous times in London, and the attitude and manner many have displayed defies belief.

If the 'idiot' (for he surely is) had acknowledged the pax concerns, he wouldn't have had to display his personality - he must be a treat to fly with. He need not accept abuse, no, but he must be pretty thin-skinned (read 'precious') to react the way he did.

I'd be straight onto his company now, and I'd have, at the time, asked to see the ANZ station manager to share both my concerns and draw attention to the pilot's manner.

[Avman]

It would have been so much easier for the pilot to say, "thank you for your concern. I'll check it out, and don't worry we won't depart with an unsafe aircraft". It would have cost 8 seconds of his time and satisfied the passenger. This is not an issue about whether or not non professionals can assess what is and what isn't a potential safety problem. It's an issue about good PR with the customer. What disturbs me the most these days is how quickly ground and air crew resort to "I'll call security" even when challenged in a respectful and civil way. Had that experience myself a few years ago.

[Conan The Barber]

kkiwi's description of events is of course true and unbiased. He would surely not have made himself look like the reasonable part and the Captain the unreasonable one. Surely not.

In any case the Captain was 'just an airline employee' and kkiwi the big spender, so it is clear who, and who doesn't, deserve the utmost respect and courtesey. Is it not.

[boardingpass]

What disturbs me the most these days is how quickly ground and air crew resort to "I'll call security" even when challenged in a respectful and civil way. Had that experience myself a few years ago.

And just what planet are you on Avman?

The only time I've ever been challenged in a respectful way is when a nervous passenger asks me if the turbulence is normal. Every other time it's at least passive aggressive or just plain aggressive. No-one should have to put up with insults and the crew member was right to call security. Sounds like security did a pretty good job too.

[Desert Diner]

Imagine if he had gone through with his threat to throw me off the flight, they would have had to delay the flight in order to locate and off-load my luggage, and then back at base he would have had to explain it all to his bosses.

Actually he would have looked like a right idiot if he had gone through with his threat.

Not wanting to waste any time to address your concern yet deny your family boarding for being called an idiot by you for not taking a few minutes to address a safety concern.

I'm sure the press and a few LA Lawyers would have had a field day.

Still, I must assume it turned out not to be a safety concern after all as you completed your trip.

[forget]

I could see our aircraft through the terminal windows and noticed what appeared to be a crack in the nose-cone. :bored:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/radome.jpg

[GwynM]

whereabouts are we meant to be looking for the crack - e.g. what angle round the cone and how far from the middle to outside

[Avman]

Congratulations boardingpass, you've just displayed the very attitude which invites confrontation rather than difuse it. Perhaps you work for ANZ too? :}:E

[L337]

You called the pilot an "idiot".

Your "wife was pleading with me to apologize, and my children were cowering".

Gosh. :D

[EGAC_Ramper]

Certainly it was wrong of the pilot to "blatantly" dismiss your obvious well intentioned observations. Any observation by passengers with regards to the aircraft is more than welcome. The thing is though that despite your obvious concerns you still travelled......even though you felt adamant there was a crack. Again do not be dismayed in forwarding your concerns as I truely belive most flightcrew will listen and respond to such queries regarding the aircraft with a positive frame of mind.


Regards:ok:

[kkiwi]

The "crack" was on the starboard lower part of of nosecone. It started about halfway back and continued to the outside edge in a zig-zag pattern. Since we arrived safely at LHR I was obviously wrong about the crack but it would have been nice if the crewmember had taken a good look and not dismissed my concerns so lightly. Thinking about it afterwards I suspect he may have thought I was looking at the nosecone "strakes" and thinking they were cracks (I wasn't, what I saw was separate & different).

[Flight Detent]

The most effective approach would have been to the Flight Engineer, to get both a reasonable response and an explanation of what you saw, to offset your obvious concerns, and then indirectly his concern!

OOpppps....damnit...we don't have Flight Engineers any more, we don't need 'em, right!

Cheers...FD...:ok:

[apaddyinuk]

First of all, he may have had words with you in front of passengers but you did call him an "Idiot" in front of all those same passengers first! You also raised your voice to him saying that you were not imagining it in front of all those passengers. That was very wrong and very out of order! If you were indeed a commercial pilot you would know yourself never to do something like this. You also could have created a very nervous atmosphere for the fellow passengers at the gate. Now having said that he clearly did not react the way he should have but then not all of us are perfect human beings. But then, you did call him up in front of all his passengers who he is responsible for and proceeded to partake in childish name calling! You would have added undue stress to the start of that pilots day which would have lasted a lot longer then the event itself and could have created a its own sequence of events that could have led to safety being compromised, heaven knows we have seen enough cases of events where pilots where stressed by outside situations jeopordising their judgement!

If that had been any other situation outside of work you probably would have received a thump!

[Doctor Teeth]

You should also bear in mind that during the aircraft's transit at LAX there will have been a walkround inspection carried out by Air New Zealand's own Engineering Personnel in addition to the Flight Crew's own walkround inspection prior to flight.
I'm not saying that those two inspections are infallible, but a crack of the magnitude you have described and situated in the lower portion of the radome would most likely have been noticed during a ground level inspection.

[Final 3 Greens]

Apaddy

Once again you miss the point.

Any professional in any wlka of life can easily avoid problems with punters, after all we have the expert knowledge and status to deal effortlessly with such feedback.

"Ah thanks for pointing that out sir, it looks okay at first glance, but we'll check it out to be on the safe side, thanks again for taking the time to raise your concern."

End of story, relieved passenger, airline reputation enhanced.

Any professional who lets this type of event escalate into even a raising of voices is an idiot.

You would have added undue stress to the start of that pilots day which would have lasted a lot longer then the event itself and could have created a its own sequence of events that could have led to safety being compromised, heaven knows we have seen enough cases of events where pilots where stressed by outside situations jeopordising their judgement!

Paddy, I realise that you are CC, not a pilot, but flight deck are responsible for their state of health and any pilot who believes s/he is not fit to fly must declare himself sick, so your point is invalid.

[L337]

3 Greens I agree.

Beyond any doubt he should have politely listened, had a look, and reassured the passenger. The Kiwi Captain handled the situation very badly. Or so it would appear from what we are able to read here.

However, I do find it interesting that kkiwi flew on the service. With an "idiot" pilot and a crack that "started about halfway back and continued to the outside edge in a zig-zag pattern", I would have declined to fly.

If I was convinced of my knowledge, and kkiwi must have been convinced as he publicly abused the Captain, why fly?

[Final 3 Greens]

L337

If I was convinced of my knowledge, and kkiwi must have been convinced as he publicly abused the Captain, why fly?

I cannot answer that question, may kkiwi can.

[Desert Diner]

However, I do find it interesting that kkiwi flew on the service. With an "idiot" pilot and a crack that "started about halfway back and continued to the outside edge in a zig-zag pattern", I would have declined to fly.


This is an interesting question, especially as kkiwi states:

I am an ex-pilot and told him so.

So why did he chose to fly with his family on a "damaged" plane?

[7mile]

I am an ex-pilot and told him so.

I wonder if kkiwi got a knock back from AirNZ:{

[BeerMan]

Kkiwi, out of curiosity, what level pilot were you - ATPL/CPL?

[kkiwi]

Just to clarify - I'm not CPL just long expired PPL and I wasn't sure about it being a crack, I just wanted to point out a possible crack. I know I did wrong calling him an idiot in front of other passengers, I had been standing in line waiting to be "processed" for over an hour, and that was after a ten hour flight from NZ. If only he had been a bit more professional (& customer focused) he wouldn't have been called an idiot in the first place! By the way the name calling was fairly quiet, but unfortunately he heard it.