What does Guppy think about ORD-HKG-Macau confusion, referenced above under pilot writes letter about VLA management?
I finally located the thread in question, but didn't make it past the first post. I lost patience and got too bored to continue. What it sounds like to be is a stressful, long day for the crew, little support from the company, and an ongoing battle of wills between junior management/dispatch, and the crew. In other words, a typical day in aviation.
I didn't understand the concept the Captain kept pushing about a ferryboat without proper passenger screening and security. He does comprehend that it's a foreign country and a ferry boat, not an airline flight? Perhaps he had a legitimate concern, perhaps not. I wasn't there, and can't comment directly.
To point back to your question once more, could the captain have made these decisions on his own (and remembering that I could bring myself to wade through the entire thread)...possibly yes. Possibly no. I don't know the company policy or culture over there, or the captain or any of the other actors involved to be able to intelligently speak to who could have done what, and why.
I've no doubt that the captain did the best he could, whatever he did, under the circumstances, as do we all.
I do know that I've seen several pilots in the past called on the carpet and fired for comments made on a public web board regarding company actions. How that applies in this case I can't say, because I am not associated with any of the parties.
I believe the thrust of your question is why the captain couldn't simply make the decision on behalf of the company. Bearing in mind that I don't work for that company and was not in his shoes...
The captain has authority as pilot in command of the airplane during a trip. One could say it's "his" airplane. When making decisions on the ground, he's done exercising pilot in command authority, because the flight is over. Certainly he holds a certain amount of "rank," and in most operations will still be recognized as the on-site manager for his crew...but whether or not his company extends him the ability to make decisions directly in opposition to what the company tells him to do...I can't say. I very much doubt it.
If the company airlines me around the world, they're supposed to do it business class if it's available. When I travel, it's nearly always economy class...often as not in the middle seat, and often as not it's hardly a glamorous or restful way to go. I'd prefer not to do that. I could use the company card to upgrade my ticket for some expense, but the company would take it right out of my paycheck, and I'd have some explaining to do. When the company tells me "not authorized," that's not code for "you go right ahead and do whatever you want."
Simply because one is aircrew doesn't mean one can disregard company direction. One can certainly stand one's ground on regulatory or even contractual points...but I don't get to pick the hotels or the flights or make my own arrangements. The company does that.
Pushing back works sometimes, but it's really a matter of risking winning the battle and losing the war. One needs to pick one's battles carefully. In this case it appears the crew was inconvenienced beyond measure...which really isn't all that uncommon. The crew was treated badly, the passengers were treated badly, and the whole affair could have been handled with greater cooperation and tact.
I'm a little surprised that the letter is aired in a public forum. There is absolutely nothing that the court of public opinion could do to aid that case. Channels exist to handle those things appropriately, and taking the fight into a public place accomplishes nothing but raised eyebrows and futile shaking of heads. I feel sorry for the crew, but I've been there myself, and am quite sure nearly every other pilot on this board has too. It's not right...but it's aviation.