SWA: widow says flight crew wouldn't let her call suicidal husband

[peekay4]

GERMANTOWN, Wis. — Southwest Airlines is under fire after a Wisconsin woman said a flight crew refused to let her make an emergency call to her husband before he took his own life.

Karen Momsen-Evers was on a flight from New Orleans to Milwaukee last month when she received an alarming text message from her husband just before takeoff: “Karen, please forgive me for what I am about to do, I am going to kill myself."

She said she quickly responded "no" to the message and tried to call her husband, but "the steward slapped the phone down and said, 'You need to go on airplane mode now.'" Momsen-Evers said she explained the emergency, but the flight attendant said she could not call because of "FAA regulations."

More from:

Widow says flight crew wouldn't let her call suicidal husband | www.ajc.com

[ExXB]

Very unfortunate timing, but the crew do not have the discretion to waive the rules. Also there is no certainty that the phone could connect and maintain a connection to a cell network from the altitude the plane was flying.

Neither the crew, nor WN, are to blame for this.

[Ancient Mariner]

she received an alarming text message from her husband just before takeoff

What about engaging brain instead of relying on SOPs?
Like I said in another thread about air crew reactions, humanity is going down, and fast.

[alserire]

Agreed. Nonsensical behaviour by the crew.

[peekay4]

@ExXB

Statement from Southwest Airlines as quoted in the article:

Our hearts go out to the Evers family during this difficult time. Flight attendants are trained to notify the captain if there is an emergency that poses a hazard to the aircraft or to the passengers on board. In this situation, the pilots were not notified.

Maybe cabin crews are so used to having to make passengers stop using their phones (on practically every flight) that the situation has become generic -- they no longer consider if there's a real reason or justification for any phone's continued use. I think this just human nature... not really a "fault" per se.

[Capot]

............ the crew do not have the discretion to waive the rules.

Nonsense; the Captain can waive pretty much any rule if the circumstances, in his/her judgement, require a particular course of action.

The problem in this case, as in so many others, is a poorly-trained FA with an attitude that tells him/her that their passengers are all idiots. You only have to read some of the stuff in the CC Forum to see what I mean.

In this case the FA should have immediately referred to the Captain who, I suspect, would have immediately let the woman try.

Maybe the phone wouldn't work, but at least she could spend the rest of her life knowing that she did her best, rather than being prevented by the stupidity of an FA, who ignored the SOP to pass the problem up to the Captain.

[west lakes]

In this case the FA should have immediately referred to the Captain who, I suspect, would have immediately let the woman try.

And at that stage of the flight do you really think that SOPs really permit that interruption to the captain?

[Capot]

If the circumstances warrant it, yes. And they did. If the reports are right, the aircraft was on the ground. It was a situation any half-way competent Captain could easily handle. If they were taxying or holding, there are a number of options; sorting out last-minute issues at that stage, perhaps getting ATC to provide a stop out of the flow, is not unknown.

It was

......an emergency that poses a hazard to the aircraft or to the passengers on board.

[SeenItAll]

Given the ferocity with which I have seen many self-important people on planes persist in using their phones when they have been requested to turn them off, I have little doubt that cabin crew have been told by these people that continuing/making their call is vital for any number of fanciful, yet seemingly urgent reasons (e.g., left the baby strapped in his car seat in the car park, forgot to turn off the gas on the oven, etc.). How can you expect the crew to separate the liars from the truthtellers? And how do you give guidance as to exactly how urgent the call need must be? There will always be a new reason offered. There is no reason for this crew to be chided for enforcing standard regulations.

[Phileas Fogg]

Flight attendants are trained to notify the captain if there is an emergency that poses a hazard to the aircraft or to the passengers on board.

But there was no hazard to the aircraft or the passengers on board ... was there?

Let's face it, we hear it all the time when the LoCo passenger hasn't made it to the check-in desk on time, "But please, my mother is dying, you must let me travel" or whatever, alas we've heard so many excuses during our time we're pessimistic when we hear it the next time, and the next time etc.

[Capot]

The argument that this passenger had to suffer because in nearly every case where a passenger wants the staff to bend the rules their reason is manufactured doesn't wash.

When confronted by a situation where there is real doubt it is axiomatic that the passenger gets the benefit of the doubt, especially if the potential consequences of not doing so could be catastrophic, and the consequences of doing so are at worst inconvenience.

All she wanted to do was try and make a phone call. All the FA had to do was pass her request to the Captain, as per the Company requirement, apparently, and he ("the steward") refused to do that. (I do wonder if the personalities involved made calling the flight deck more difficult than it should be.)

All this stuff about people falsely pleading dying relatives at the check-in desk, as a justification for the FA's refusal to do even that, is irrelevant and, frankly, ridiculous.

It frequently saddens me when I see the industry in which I have worked for 40 years reducing its front-line staff to a bunch of jobsworth robots who are unable, perhaps not even allowed, to assess a situation properly and act accordingly in the service of the passengers who pay their wages. It hasn't always been like that.

This applies particularly to a minority of passenger handling staff on the ground, and a minority of cabin staff in the air.

[Phileas Fogg]

just before takeoff

Perhaps, just perhaps, the Captain was preoccupied whilst the cabin had been secured, all passengers and cabin crew strapped in, take-off imminent, perhaps a slot time to make, an on-the-spot discretionary decision by the cabin crew member to expedite departure and not inconvenience hundreds of passengers for an explanation that some might find extraordinary, perhaps even alcohol or narcotic induced.

I despise that the industry has been reduced to call centre type mentalities wearing brightly coloured tee shirts but there is no suggestion of that being a factor in this situation.

As for providing a service for the passengers that pay their wages, it is well known regarding restricted if any mobile phone usage on board airliners and if that is a problem then take the bus or the train instead.

[ExXB]

Capot,
How would you have handled it if you were the flight attendant, performing the final phase of departure checks?

How would you have handled it if you were the PIC also performing the final phase of departure checks? What would you have done?

[Capot]

As the FA I would have called the Flight Deck to resolve the problem. That's what i am supposed to do. Final checks in progress or not.

I would have said to her as the Captain;

"OK, make your call".

And if she insisted on being disembarked after it I would have gone back to the gate to offload her asap.

Exactly as I would do if a passenger suddenly became very ill, or disturbed, at any moment prior to take-off.

Massive disruption, etc etc. **** happens from time to time.

I am aware that in these days of fear of consequences a Captain may feel he/she needs to discuss it with Head Office before doing anything out of the ordinary, but your question was "what would you do?".

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Originally Posted by Phileas Fogg

But there was no hazard to the aircraft or the passengers on board ... was there?

How would you react if you had just found out your better half was about to kill themselves?

[Phileas Fogg]

Capot,

These days I run a modestly sized resort where one frequent question I am asked by guests is if they can use the kitchen. After many an earlier problem the answer is, since, always "NO", they come up with all sorts of pleads and in the end one needs to switch off listening, as if to say "What part of NO do you not understand?" and I often use an excuse that it would present a security risk which would have the police close me down.

Similarly, in a world that has become addicted to mobile phones Cabin Crew must hear all the time excuses why passengers need to continue using mobile phones and, like me, I'm sure to a degree they just switch off listening to all the excuses, the answer in "NO", end of, and I don't blame them for blaming it on the FAA as I blame my excuse on the police.

So the flight attendant in this situation has my every support, he/she has heard similar a thousand times before and he/she gave the answer "NO". You suggest the aircraft should have returned to stand, if one wants aircraft returning to stand then one should pay to fly with a legacy carrier.

One day I was travelling on business BHX/CDG and due to a train cancellation I arrived at the AF desk a couple of minutes after it had closed, I gave them a sound explanation of the train, that I am aviation staff, I'll "leg it" to the gate etc. and, bless them, they checked me in ... Want full service then pay for it!

Could the widow's phone call have prevented him from topping himself, if he hadn't done it that day then he is likely to have done it another day, hundreds of passengers disrupted for one person that wants to end his life, it can be a cruel world but SWA's priority is to shifting passengers from A to B and maintaining their schedules as best they can.

[Phileas Fogg]

Originally Posted by Phileas Fogg View Post
But there was no hazard to the aircraft or the passengers on board ... was there?
How would you react if you had just found out your better half was about to kill themselves?

So, precisely, what was the hazard to the aircraft or the passengers on board?

[Capot]

, he/she has heard similar a thousand times before

I doubt that.

Perhaps all the cabin crew who have been confronted by a highly distressed passenger producing a text from a spouse saying "I'm about to kill myself" would now raise their right hands. Yup, thought so. Not very many.

As I said, I've been in the industry for 40 years, of which 20 were pretty much on the front line, and I have never seen or heard of anything remotely similar. You cannot excuse the FA on the grounds that he had seen it all 1,000 times before. He had not.

And, all he needed to do was call the flight deck and pass the problem to them. Why was that so difficult?

I have to tell you that if i got a text from Mrs C, while in a jet taxying out to the holding point, saying that she's had enough and is going to kill herself, and the cabin crew said, in effect; "Tough, our schedule is far more important than your wife's life, turn your phone off NOW, siddown and shut up," I would run amok, partly as a way to get offloaded immediately, but mostly through frustrated rage. So would many people posting here defending the FA, I suspect. And if not, they should.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

How would you react, precisely?

[Phileas Fogg]

Capot,

Now you're telling porkies.

I've just read the report again and nowhere does it state nor suggest that the passenger produced a text, to the crew, from a spouse saying "I'm about to kill myself"