United Attendants Say 13 Fired for Protesting ‘Menacing’ Jet
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" 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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
including a comprehensive safety sweep prior to boarding, and the pilots, mechanics and safety leaders deemed the aircraft entirely safe to fly.”
So you get those same (unprofessional) mechanics to safety sweep the aircraft? How is that going to allay the fears of the flight attendants?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
including a comprehensive safety sweep prior to boarding, and the pilots, mechanics and safety leaders deemed the aircraft entirely safe to fly.”
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 47
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
I REALLY SHOULDN'T BE HERE
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.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
Mere example of post 9/11 paranoia.
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.
Mere example of post 9/11 paranoia.
The Cooler King
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: In the Desert
Posts: 1,703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
AFA has apparently already shot their bolt and failed. The "demand" is meaningless.
