United Attendants Say 13 Fired for Protesting ‘Menacing’ Jet

[stagger]

"Thirteen former United Airlines (UAL) flight attendants say they were improperly fired last year after refusing to work on a Boeing Co. (BA) 747 jumbo jet that had “menacing” images drawn below its tail."

United Attendants Say 13 Fired for Protesting "Menacing" Jet - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-07/united-attendants-say-13-fired-for-balking-at-menacing-images.html)

[hkgmjq]

The SCMP are running their own version of this story, with an interesting modification:

"A group of 13 flight attendants say they were illegally fired by United Airlines after refusing to fly on a Hong Kong-bound plane last July that had a “threatening” message scrawled under its tail engine, according to a complaint filed with the US Department of Labor.

In the complaint, filed Tuesday, they said the words “Bye Bye” and two faces, one smiling and the other “devilish”, were found finger-drawn in oil grime under the auxiliary engine of the Boeing 747-400 plane at San Francisco International Airport."

:ugh:

[ironbutt57]

no info as to the reaction of the flight deck crew when they were made aware of this? most certainly I would have requested a security search of the airplane..

[fox niner]

Offensive cartoon from Charlie Hebdo?:mad:

[Skeleton]

Sadly that is the world we ALL live in. I think they did the right thing highlighting this, should it of cost them there jobs? There has to more to it and I would want to know the Captains reaction, his ship, his rules etc.

[aterpster]

Sounds like their own union did not support them.

The captain knew as much about the circumstances and concerns as they did, and he accepted the airplane.

I hope the doors didn't hit them too hard on their way out.

[ironbutt57]

I hope the doors didn't hit them too hard on their way out

excellent CRM there..I would have walked off it myself...until it was completely searched, find the same message on a lav mirror and it's different?

[glendalegoon]

first off, the ''artist'' would be easy to find as his or her finger would be dirty...and fingerprints might be easy to find.

It really works like this: IF YOU THINK that the plane is in jeopardy you have an obligation to stop the op (operation) until YOU are satisfied that safety has been restored.


The FAs will sue and will win. They will go on talk shows and make united look even more stupid than it already is.

Were those markings authorized by UNITED? OF COURSE NOT< so someone has tampered with the plane.

I saw the images on local tv news (our of the bay area) and it looks more like one face is oriental and one is occidental. Perhaps a message from one MX department to the other.

But how did the girls know? Did the F/O or someone tell them after the walk around?

[Two's in]

If you find a message on the lav mirror it could be anyone of 400 or so idiots with a perverse sense of adventure, and the threat level is probably low. To be able to write it on the tail some 30 foot in the air means it was likely somebody with airside access, probably involved in a maintenance activity, and with more than just a passing knowledge of the aircraft systems. I would think that was justifiable cause for concern from the FA's.

[aterpster]

If you find a message on the lav mirror it could be anyone of 400 or so idiots with a perverse sense of adventure, and the threat level is probably low. To be able to write it on the tail some 30 foot in the air means it was likely somebody with airside access, probably involved in a maintenance activity, and with more than just a passing knowledge of the aircraft systems. I would think that was justifiable cause for concern from the FA's.

Sounds to me like the captain made the correct call (he or she was trying to operate an airline), then the F/As decided they were in command.

Last time I checked the captain was the PIC, not one of the folks working the cabin.

[glendalegoon]

aterpster

usually I like your posts, showing knowledge and understanding of the technical aspects of aerial naviagation.

HOWEVER, I disagree here with you

The captain can be wrong and if he has ANYTHING brought to his attention he should work to make everyone reasonably content about the safe continuation of the operation.

This was not done here. poster TWO's IN has the concept quite right. Who has access to the apu area of the plane? Mechanics who probably wouldn't want anyone hurt...OR some bad guy who did want someone hurt. Recently in San Jose , California, USA someone managed to get into the wheel well on a 767 to Hawaii. Breaches in airport security are becoming MORE commonplace and grabbing ascafolding/ladder and compromising the plane is a possibility.

Someone is wrong here, but it is not the FAs. Running an airline is always secondary to safety at an airline...isn't it?

[aterpster]

glendalegoon:

From the linked article:

“Our flight operations, safety and maintenance teams appropriately investigated and determined there was no credible security threat,” the Chicago-based airline said by e-mail. “All of FAA’s and United’s own safety procedures were followed, including a comprehensive safety sweep prior to boarding, and the pilots, mechanics and safety leaders deemed the aircraft entirely safe to fly.”

[Evanelpus]

find the same message on a lav mirror and it's different?

Here, here. Could you imagine this being found on the mirror in the head?:ouch:

[bubbers44]

The captain is PIC but must use his crew to keep him informed of problems or concerns they have with the operation of the flight. After their input it is his responsibility to do what ever is necessary to insure the safety and proper operation of the flight.

When he has made this decision and you as a crewmember choose to not follow his direction you are putting your job on the line and you know this.

I have done this a couple of times as an FO and both times knew the consequences but felt it was my duty. Both times the captain let it go. One time he thanked me. Do your job. Just make sure you are right if you push it.

[glendalegoon]

aterpster

so, exactly who made the images? did united investigate that? did they explain that it was a couple of jerk mechanics fooling around?

back in the old days, leaving notes on planes or even chewing gum outside happened...but things have changed...I think if it had said : HELLO, instead of BYE BYE it might have been different.

UNITED started CRM because they really screwed the pooch on a few mammouth crashes that the captain really made some bad choices.

CRM dictates you fix things up so everyone is reasonably happy ( I say reasonably because real happiness is hard to achieve) about the safety of flight.

AT THE VERY LEAST, this should teach UNITED AIRLINES TO NOT BE CHEAP ABOUT WASHING THEIR PLANES.

Wondering what else they are cheap about. I SUPPORT THE FA's on this one.

[GunpowderPlod]

http://www.scmp.com/sites/default/files/styles/486x302/public/2015/01/08/ua-byebye.jpg?itok=_LFbJ6VH

If YOU saw this on a plane you were about to board, would you be happy to board? A group of 13 flight attendants say they were illegally fired by United Airlines after refusing to fly on a Hong Kong-bound plane last July that had a “threatening” message scrawled under its tail engine, according to a complaint filed with the US Department of Labor. Sanfrancisco to HK 14Jul14.

If the Captain thought it was OK to fly after this was found without deboarding and searching the plane, then I will NOT fly with United ever again.

[GunpowderPlod]

"When the images were discovered, the airline should have checked the entire jet, not just the auxiliary power unit, according to the complaint. The unit is a small turbine that drives a generator mainly for power on the ground.

With the 747 in a secured area of the airport and the graffiti on the tail about 30 feet off the ground, the images should have triggered a more-comprehensive reaction, according to the complaint. A pilot’s suggestion to the crew that images were applied when the plane was in South Korea before arriving in San Francisco should have raised alarms about safety in that country, the attendants said."

United Attendants Say 13 Fired for Protesting ?Menacing? Jet - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-07/united-attendants-say-13-fired-for-balking-at-menacing-images.html)

[HS125]

News story with pic here:
13 United flight attendants want their jobs back after refusing to fly on a plane defaced with a creepy message - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2015/01/08/13-united-flight-attendants-want-their-jobs-back-after-refusing-to-fly-on-a-plane-defaced-with-a-creepy-message/)

Legal Proceedings here:
http://savvystews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/150106-SavvyStews.com-United-Filing.pdf

[Admiral346]

I don't find the message "creepy" at all.
It says BYE BYE and has 2 smilies drawn in the dirt on the tailcone.
There is no threat, no warning.
The flight attendant scare looks like some kind of "group dynamics" to me, with emotions boiling over.
If the pilots deemed it safe to fly in consultation with the company and had the area reinspected with no findings, I find the insubordination out of place.

“Our flight operations, safety and maintenance teams appropriately investigated and determined there was no credible security threat,” United spokeswoman Christen David said in a statement. “All of FAA’s and United’s own safety procedures were followed, including a comprehensive safety sweep prior to boarding, and the pilots, mechanics and safety leaders deemed the aircraft entirely safe to fly.”

But given, that they might really have been afraid for their lives, even for reasons out of being overemotional, firing them all imediatly is way to harsh. Kinda shows a little about the company culture on dealing with stress incidents.

Whoever did this should better have written "Wash me!"...

[MrDK]

*** But given, that they might really have been afraid for their lives, even for reasons out of being overemotional, firing them all imediatly is way to harsh. Kinda shows a little about the company culture on dealing with stress incidents. ***

How much did this event cost the company?

[Boomtown]

The associated bad publicity will likely cost far more than any delay. This was international news.

[BRE]

there was a similar thread here yesterday that got moved to the CC forum without a "moved"-notice

[MrDK]

*** The associated bad publicity will likely cost far more than any delay. This was international news. ***

Underscores the reason for termination IMO

[Admiral346]

How about finding and firing the Tech guy (who else would have access) who did this?

Justified?

[Ranger One]

*** The associated bad publicity will likely cost far more than any delay. This was international news. ***

Underscores the reason for termination IMO

I think you misunderstand; I believe the previous poster was referring to the bad publicity because of the terminations, not due to the original incident. Or at least that's how I read it, and what would be my view.

Like it or not, you pay these people to be professionals and part of the team. You want people in those positions who are empowered to stop things if they have real safety concerns.

Irrespective of whatever conclusions other operational staff may have come to, the cabin crew still - unanimously, remember - had concerns. That, especially the unanimity, has to carry considerable weight.

You don't fire an entire crew for acting on a perceived safety concern. You just don't. That sends a very bad message.

[ShotOne]

" you don't fire a crew for acting on a perceived safety concern..." That surely hinges on whether two smilies amounts to a reasonable basis for retaining that perception after the airlines safety team has checked it out.

[OldLurker]

Look at this in the context of American hysteria over flight safety since 9/11. There have been far too many cases of passengers raising fantasy scares, especially over other passengers of the 'wrong' colour. It's not surprising that cabin staff have caught the bug.

[NSEU]

including a comprehensive safety sweep prior to boarding, and the pilots, mechanics and safety leaders deemed the aircraft entirely safe to fly.”

Considering it's about 20 feet in the air, the most likely people to have done it would have been "mechanics" (APU oil top up? Nav/strobe light relamps?). If it was cleaners, they didn't do a very good job :}

So you get those same (unprofessional) mechanics to safety sweep the aircraft? How is that going to allay the fears of the flight attendants?

[A and C]

I think it is the whole nation that has caught the bug !

[NSEU]

including a comprehensive safety sweep prior to boarding, and the pilots, mechanics and safety leaders deemed the aircraft entirely safe to fly.”

So they got the same very unprofessional mechanics who wrote on the aircraft to check the tail area?
I'd say it would be mechanics because it's over 20 feet in the air. It's not likely some random person with a big stepladder just happened to be passing by.

first off, the ''artist'' would be easy to find as his or her finger would be dirty...and fingerprints might be easy to find.

Engineers usually have ready access to protective gloves. I'd definitely be wearing gloves if it was that dirty :ok:

It would be likely that more than one person would be involved. If they were working on the APU, you would normally need two people to close the APU doors.

[MrSnuggles]

OMG; United!

Firing someone who thinks it's suspicious to have someone scribbling ambiguous messages at that particular place high up in the air... come ON!

If you can scribble this, you certainly can fasten a little remote controlled irritant wherever you wish on the plane.

These anomalies is what makes Mossad so good at what they do. They follow up on them. In High Security Amurca; unless it's in a plastic container bigger than 100ml it is not dangerous. Do you sense the irony?

What I'm trying to say is that if you need or want to be paranoid you must be paranoid of the unusual, not the usual. Terrorists always finds way to pass the usual, the standard airport security. THIS is unusual. THIS should concern parties involved.

Sadly those concerned got fired because the threat/whatever was unusual. Ridiculous.

[speedrestriction]

FWIW practically all aircraft I have flown have had little scribbled on them - around the fuelling panel, the gear bays or the holds (stuff like "greetings from PMI" or supporting football teams etc). Little bits of innocuous graffiti. Silly prank, nothing more. If someone genuinely had malicious intent they would be most unlikely to advertise it in such a way. Not enough common sense and too much group-think.

[de facto]

"Menacing" images?
I see an asian and a caucasian giving a smily bye bye..
If it were written bye bye boom then yes it would be cause for serious pre safety checks.:E

Mere example of post 9/11 paranoia.

[Farrell]

"...while United inspected an auxiliary power unit near the drawings, found nothing suspicious and trivialized the incident as a “joke".”

How many folks have made a "joke" at check-in or at security and found themselves in front of a judge?

So basically, it is only a joke when it suits them.

[glendalegoon]

Farrell...the cooler king has the best take on this whole thing...if its a joke, it is not funny

if it is a NOTHING, fine, don't do it again.

But firing safety professionals over this is WRONG. Few people know this now, but Flight Attendants are now LICENSED and have been for some time.

Fire the person who answers the phone, fire the myriad of other people that make an airline run, BUT YOU CANNOT OR SHOULD NOT FIRE SOMEONE WHO HAS THEIR ASS RIDING ON THE DARN PLANE when it comes to safety.

[glendalegoon]

Just saw that the flight attendant union has DEMANDED the reinstatement of the fired FA's....good for them...

[Hunter58]

So a 'goodbye' message from maintenance becomes a terror threat?

[Rotorhead1026]

Bad publicity for United or no, the "girls" don't have much of a legal basis. The airplane was checked over. What more did they want - disassembly?

The complaint was filed with OSHA, which strikes me as something desperate. FAA and DHS had no problem with the airplane being flown, or they'd be involved already. I suspect the f/a's have exhausted all of their company and union appeals, leaving this as the only alternative. Why don't they sue? Most such cases are taken on a contingency basis in the US - and that's likely all these folks can afford anyway. However, no attorney will take such a case unless there's a good chance of winning. That tells us something.

Sorry, but every single party involved said the airplane was good to go, save these flight attendants. Expressing their concerns is fine, but once the aircraft passed inspection they were wrong to walk off.

[glendalegoon]

rotor

and all


CRM was started at UAL because they kept crashing planes because one person was wrong and someone else was right, but the person in charge was wrong and there was no recourse.

SO, now a days, GIVEN TIME (plenty of time sitting on the ground in san francisco) ANYONE who brings up a safety concern must (according to CRM) have their say and have things made right.

The Airline did have the "RIGHT" to relieve the crew and have a new set of FA's come work the flight. BUT the FA's had the right to believe things were ok and they simply were not.


Now, many years ago, those little drawings only meant the airline was no good at keeping their planes washed...but now a days...well its different.

IF IT WERE THE GOOD OLD DAYS they would not have been delayed...but in the good old days I could ask anyone to sit in the jumpseat or come to the cockpit in flight.

Good old days only work one way, not both ways.

They do have a good legal case, they have brought suit and will likely win or settle. And now their union has demanded their reinstatement.

[Rotorhead1026]

No, they haven't brought suit. They've filed a complaint with OSHA. Again, the only reason that I can see that they haven't filed a civil claim is that no one thinks they have a case. I'll admit there may be more to this story, but until any more facts come out I have to agree with those attorneys. At some point genuine safety concerns become obstructionism, and I think these "girls" crossed that line here.

AFA has apparently already shot their bolt and failed. The "demand" is meaningless.