So why does the captain argue with the ground handlers who his company has nominated and paid to ground-handle the aeroplane?
- Because the captain is usually the first to arrive at the scene of the crash;
- Because the captain bears ultimate responsibility for the safe conduct of the flight, and the jet shouldn't be going anywhere unless the captain's satisfied that it's safe and legal for it to do so; and
- Because ground handlers are coming under increasing pressure (KPIs etc) to achieve on-time departures. Pilots, not so much. So every so often we see ground staff applying pressure (including to the engineers and pilots) to depart on time, when there are still questions that need answering. Right off the top of my head I can think of two cases where ground staff didn't just apply pressure to colleagues of mine, they flat-out lied their arses off to try and force an on-time departure. The first case would've been a flagrant breach of procedures, common sense, and the relevant security legislation. The second would've caused a huge weight and balance error, and would almost certainly have resulted in the loss of the aircraft and 300 lives. (The ground handler concerned had to seek alternative employment as a result. )
That is why the captain is arguing with the ground handlers. Perhaps instead we should be asking, "Why are the ground handlers arguing with the captain?"
Yes, there are the willy-wavers with self-esteem issues that you mention. They're out there, they like using the word "commander" a lot, and they can be a pain in the arse. Not much we can do about that, and ultimately the jet's still not going anywhere until they're happy that it's safe and legal for it to do so. The sooner you can make them happy, the sooner they're off-blocks.