United GRU-ORD Divert to MIA to Offload Purser
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Role of MIA Customs & Border Protection (CBP)
Some posters have questioned the role of MIA Customs & Border Protection (CBP) agents in questioning the CA about the reasons for the diversion. Obviously they are going meet and be present when the door is opened of any unscheduled international arrival aircraft – no matter what the circumstances for the arrival. Having an planeload of people and baggage to unexpectedly process is going to going to insure such action, even without any “incident” involving the law.
Having observed the occasional negative interaction between Customs agents and arriving Flight Crews (both cockpit and cabin), I doubt the CA played G-d when the rational for his actions were questioned by the CBP agent with a badge on his chest. Indeed, bof states that the CA remained in the cockpit.
It appears that only the Purser disembarked at MIA, the flight had adequate crew numbers and duty time remaining, and the CBP had no authority to challenge the decision, so UAL continued the flight. Since the CA did not make a case that would cause detention of the Purser, she alone was processed by CBP and sent on her way.
Knowing a little about the inter-connectivity of people who wear badges, even if that CA is cleared and/or regains his ticket, I would not want to be him presenting crew papers to Customs in the future. However, I somehow doubt he will again have that responsibility.
Having observed the occasional negative interaction between Customs agents and arriving Flight Crews (both cockpit and cabin), I doubt the CA played G-d when the rational for his actions were questioned by the CBP agent with a badge on his chest. Indeed, bof states that the CA remained in the cockpit.
It appears that only the Purser disembarked at MIA, the flight had adequate crew numbers and duty time remaining, and the CBP had no authority to challenge the decision, so UAL continued the flight. Since the CA did not make a case that would cause detention of the Purser, she alone was processed by CBP and sent on her way.
Knowing a little about the inter-connectivity of people who wear badges, even if that CA is cleared and/or regains his ticket, I would not want to be him presenting crew papers to Customs in the future. However, I somehow doubt he will again have that responsibility.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mentally unstable, very very unlikely.
If I were part of the crew, after likely trying to reason with the captain but failing to change his mind I would ultimately have considered the safest option under the circumstances would be to comply with the captains order. However, I would be hoping that the company would see fit to replace both the captain and the purser before continuing the flight on to its destination, whatever the delay.
If you have understood during the trip that the guy is difficult, hard to please and a pain in the rear, it is your responsibility to deal with his requests even more promptly and more courteously to avoid exactly the kind of thing that happened here.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Juud, nobody's ever called me a goldmine before! I've been called a **** frequently, and an ***, and I even had a ***** ** *** once (only once thank heavens), but goldmine? Not sure if I am not horrified!
Looking at my posts, nowhere have I sought to defend the Captain or accuse him, or blame it on the Purser. However, something caused a trivial incident to bend past breaking point. It may well be psychosis, painkilling drugs, discomfort, lack of sleep, fatigue. But to me, there is enough doubt about the incident that a valid judgement may only be made when in possession of more facts in this case. There are too many open ended questions- the role of the 2 copilots. If they unwillingly descended judging the decision flawed, why did they consent to continue with the same person? I would rather hear from them rather than another flight attendant who was not conversant with what was happening up front. If the incident was so bad, why did the cabin crew elect to continue? Don't carry on another 3 hours and then go grumbling he was crazy! Why carry on? If he was unbalanced enough to be 'dangerous' surely they wouldn't want to inflict him again on their precious passengers (as well as themselves) for another 3 hours?
Really unsatisfactory. Something smacks badly about 'it's OK to carry on another leg, then we are going to shout and scream that he is mad and should be grounded!' And now the battle lines are drawn, the poor guy, as well as having to explain himself, now has all this mud slinging going on from his own crew! Well folks, if he was good enough to continue the flight, someone has some explainin' to do about why? And the way to defend the Purser is to demolish the Captain? Bit sad and tasteless really, isn't it?
But what leaves the worst taste in your mouth is the instant verdicts spouted here from quite frankly, uneducated and unknowing fools. If a pschotic episode is involved, instant dismissal is not the answer. Considering the legions of cabin crew sent for alcoholic drying-out of their problems by the airlines, one would hope a calm and reassuring hand would be applied to treat the problem. We are led to believe instant dismissal has occurred! I very much doubt it! But I wonder how much of that is involved- the virulence of the attacks on the guy make me suspicious- that is all I will say there! I have seen very rarely such games and spiteful behaviour going on from behind the door. Any such behaviour will be 'outed', and dealt with I hope. It seems to be a big legacy airline thing. It happens where senior cabin crew become senior enough to start feeling they are 'Capitains de la Cabine'! Some of them mould around their crew perfectly, others rub up bad.
Looking at my posts, nowhere have I sought to defend the Captain or accuse him, or blame it on the Purser. However, something caused a trivial incident to bend past breaking point. It may well be psychosis, painkilling drugs, discomfort, lack of sleep, fatigue. But to me, there is enough doubt about the incident that a valid judgement may only be made when in possession of more facts in this case. There are too many open ended questions- the role of the 2 copilots. If they unwillingly descended judging the decision flawed, why did they consent to continue with the same person? I would rather hear from them rather than another flight attendant who was not conversant with what was happening up front. If the incident was so bad, why did the cabin crew elect to continue? Don't carry on another 3 hours and then go grumbling he was crazy! Why carry on? If he was unbalanced enough to be 'dangerous' surely they wouldn't want to inflict him again on their precious passengers (as well as themselves) for another 3 hours?
Really unsatisfactory. Something smacks badly about 'it's OK to carry on another leg, then we are going to shout and scream that he is mad and should be grounded!' And now the battle lines are drawn, the poor guy, as well as having to explain himself, now has all this mud slinging going on from his own crew! Well folks, if he was good enough to continue the flight, someone has some explainin' to do about why? And the way to defend the Purser is to demolish the Captain? Bit sad and tasteless really, isn't it?
But what leaves the worst taste in your mouth is the instant verdicts spouted here from quite frankly, uneducated and unknowing fools. If a pschotic episode is involved, instant dismissal is not the answer. Considering the legions of cabin crew sent for alcoholic drying-out of their problems by the airlines, one would hope a calm and reassuring hand would be applied to treat the problem. We are led to believe instant dismissal has occurred! I very much doubt it! But I wonder how much of that is involved- the virulence of the attacks on the guy make me suspicious- that is all I will say there! I have seen very rarely such games and spiteful behaviour going on from behind the door. Any such behaviour will be 'outed', and dealt with I hope. It seems to be a big legacy airline thing. It happens where senior cabin crew become senior enough to start feeling they are 'Capitains de la Cabine'! Some of them mould around their crew perfectly, others rub up bad.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is pretty clear why the capt diverted: He wanted to show the purser that he has more power and that the purser would get punished for this diversion.
If he judged the safety was in danger - he should have diverted much earlier in the flight. If his mission would have been to bring his plane and its load as safe and as fast as possible to ORD, he would have demoted her. Ergo he followed his personal agenda.
Obviously, this tactic has failed.
The fact that the capt misjudged this situation by such a great amount, is an indication that he was not up to his job. The question we have to ask: Why can it happen that a perfect suitable and well selected and trained captain of a major airline does such a mistake? It's exactly because he hears every day that he is the most important, the most respected and the most correct person on board. If you hear these phrases every day for 30 years, you suddenly start to believe it. There is not a small amount of capt here in the forum who also believe it.
In my starting airline (a very well known airline throughout the world) , we were shown an impressing training movie: V1 cuts are trained in every sim session, we are very good and can decide in split seconds what to do. After year long training, we start to believe that we really are good in decision making, and we can perform task within very short time with a correct outcome. But there are certain tasks in our environment where we are amazingly slow and sometimes incorrect, when it is about human factors, untrained situations and unknown causes. In these situations, we are like any other human being: Sometimes correct, sometimes not. Even worse: Because we think that we are the Masters of the Universe, we horribly fail. If we know that, we can maybe make the correct decision.
This UAL guy certainly forgot this lesson.
Dani
If he judged the safety was in danger - he should have diverted much earlier in the flight. If his mission would have been to bring his plane and its load as safe and as fast as possible to ORD, he would have demoted her. Ergo he followed his personal agenda.
Obviously, this tactic has failed.
The fact that the capt misjudged this situation by such a great amount, is an indication that he was not up to his job. The question we have to ask: Why can it happen that a perfect suitable and well selected and trained captain of a major airline does such a mistake? It's exactly because he hears every day that he is the most important, the most respected and the most correct person on board. If you hear these phrases every day for 30 years, you suddenly start to believe it. There is not a small amount of capt here in the forum who also believe it.
In my starting airline (a very well known airline throughout the world) , we were shown an impressing training movie: V1 cuts are trained in every sim session, we are very good and can decide in split seconds what to do. After year long training, we start to believe that we really are good in decision making, and we can perform task within very short time with a correct outcome. But there are certain tasks in our environment where we are amazingly slow and sometimes incorrect, when it is about human factors, untrained situations and unknown causes. In these situations, we are like any other human being: Sometimes correct, sometimes not. Even worse: Because we think that we are the Masters of the Universe, we horribly fail. If we know that, we can maybe make the correct decision.
This UAL guy certainly forgot this lesson.
Dani
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sweden
Age: 63
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
from a "uneducated and unknowing fool"
I guess you the one to answer your own question by telling us what was the option? in the middle of night!? to take the plane and pax to its destination?
as i see it as just a stupid quarrel, the best solution was desided, let him bring the plane to destination and to deal with it there
Well folks, if he was good enough to continue the flight, someone has some explainin' to do about why?
as i see it as just a stupid quarrel, the best solution was desided, let him bring the plane to destination and to deal with it there
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dani, yet another instant verdict of 'guilty as charged!'. You should know better. You are only hearing one side (allegedly!).
You might think you are a Master of the Universe. I was never troubled with such thoughts!
You might think you are a Master of the Universe. I was never troubled with such thoughts!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: West of nowhere
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Posts from industry outsiders
Thanks to Juud for bringing her experience and another perspective to this discussion.
I think many non-aviation types are concerned about this issue because of the bigger picture. Correct me if I’m wrong, but in some parts of the world, the fact that First Officers may be afraid to question a Captain’s decision-making because one simply doesn’t question authority in those cultures, is thought to have been a contributing factor in accidents. Even though it may not seem reasonable to the pros, a Captain who appears to have the attitude “I have all the answers…question me at your peril” (even with cabin crew) raises the fear of what seems unthinkable—that the same dynamic responsible for accidents elsewhere, is possible in our countries. A Captain whose actions (or words) seem to indicate that he/she expects blind obedience”, is not the commander most would wish for on their flights. On the surface of things, it seems hard to believe that there wasn't a better way of dealing with the situation in question. Some of the Captains who have responded on this thread have given examples of how they have dealt with insubordination without diverting a flight.
In the end, we all have our strong opinions but hopefully we can be open-minded enough to consider that someone may occasionally present an idea in a way that will enable us to alter our thinking or improve our decision-making in some aspect of our work or personal lives. Someone once said, “a good idea doesn’t care who has it”.
PPRuNe has given me insights into the aviation world and above all, my preconceived ideas about pilots have gone out the window. Pilots are like anyone else and affected by the same human frailties (but under close scrutiny because of the incredible responsibility and expectations of professionalism inherent in the job). Some are obviously better than others on a number of fronts and that includes interpersonal skills. Childish disputes,if that’s what happened, have less place in an airplane than almost anywhere else. But I have to trust that modern aviation has enough checks and balances built into the system to compensate for the fact that no one is infallible.
Thanks to Juud for bringing her experience and another perspective to this discussion.
I think many non-aviation types are concerned about this issue because of the bigger picture. Correct me if I’m wrong, but in some parts of the world, the fact that First Officers may be afraid to question a Captain’s decision-making because one simply doesn’t question authority in those cultures, is thought to have been a contributing factor in accidents. Even though it may not seem reasonable to the pros, a Captain who appears to have the attitude “I have all the answers…question me at your peril” (even with cabin crew) raises the fear of what seems unthinkable—that the same dynamic responsible for accidents elsewhere, is possible in our countries. A Captain whose actions (or words) seem to indicate that he/she expects blind obedience”, is not the commander most would wish for on their flights. On the surface of things, it seems hard to believe that there wasn't a better way of dealing with the situation in question. Some of the Captains who have responded on this thread have given examples of how they have dealt with insubordination without diverting a flight.
In the end, we all have our strong opinions but hopefully we can be open-minded enough to consider that someone may occasionally present an idea in a way that will enable us to alter our thinking or improve our decision-making in some aspect of our work or personal lives. Someone once said, “a good idea doesn’t care who has it”.
PPRuNe has given me insights into the aviation world and above all, my preconceived ideas about pilots have gone out the window. Pilots are like anyone else and affected by the same human frailties (but under close scrutiny because of the incredible responsibility and expectations of professionalism inherent in the job). Some are obviously better than others on a number of fronts and that includes interpersonal skills. Childish disputes,if that’s what happened, have less place in an airplane than almost anywhere else. But I have to trust that modern aviation has enough checks and balances built into the system to compensate for the fact that no one is infallible.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they unwillingly descended judging the decision flawed, why did they consent to continue with the same person? I would rather hear from them rather than another flight attendant who was not conversant with what was happening up front. If the incident was so bad, why did the cabin crew elect to continue? Don't carry on another 3 hours and then go grumbling he was crazy! Why carry on? If he was unbalanced enough to be 'dangerous' surely they wouldn't want to inflict him again on their precious passengers (as well as themselves) for another 3 hours?
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another 'shoot from the hip' judgement! I'm intrigued though, how was he on the last leg ProofofthePudding or whoever you claim you are? If he was OK, how come he is accused of being crazy afterwards? You willingly flew on another leg with what is claimed to be a crazy 'for the sake of the passengers', then you land and all start making reports he's nutty? I see. God save the airline industry from crew such as you who to ensure your own sweet smelling survival are so happy to attempt to demolish an unpopular individual.
And tell us how was the preceding nightstop? Any comments? Attitude on the plane? This guy was carrying his reputation with him, not one of the most popular pilots. Exactly what provocation caused him to make what could be seen as an injudicious decision? Could it be there is a severe relationship problem with certain United crew?
If I was part of the investigating team, I would have the whole lot in individually until I teased out what the hell was going on, because fingers pointing very often point both ways! It's very possible he has a problem, it's also very possible the rest of the crew have a problem without realising it.
And tell us how was the preceding nightstop? Any comments? Attitude on the plane? This guy was carrying his reputation with him, not one of the most popular pilots. Exactly what provocation caused him to make what could be seen as an injudicious decision? Could it be there is a severe relationship problem with certain United crew?
If I was part of the investigating team, I would have the whole lot in individually until I teased out what the hell was going on, because fingers pointing very often point both ways! It's very possible he has a problem, it's also very possible the rest of the crew have a problem without realising it.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kent
Age: 65
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When people react to an incident with vehement emotion that seems illogical and out of proportion, I have learned that they are usually reacting to something other than the situation at hand. In other words, they have unresolved problems of their own that have been triggered by the incident.
The facts as we know them suggest an intense overreaction on the part of the UA Captain. Presumably time will tell. However, I am more interested in the vehemence and illogic demonstrated on this thread.
I would hazard a guess that at least one of us has had 'issues' with CRM and crew relations during his career, or at the very least has had a damaging run-in with cabin staff.
The facts as we know them suggest an intense overreaction on the part of the UA Captain. Presumably time will tell. However, I am more interested in the vehemence and illogic demonstrated on this thread.
I would hazard a guess that at least one of us has had 'issues' with CRM and crew relations during his career, or at the very least has had a damaging run-in with cabin staff.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sweden
Age: 63
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would hazard a guess that at least one of us has had 'issues' with CRM and crew relations during his career, or at the very least has had a damaging run-in with cabin staff.
who first?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You make a fair point in the last paragraph Rainboe and I am sure it will happen.
Flying aeroplanes does not make you a good leader. I am reasonably sure that leadership is not a prime measure, when promoting a first officer to command. It would never have been in the job role. Hiding behind the law of the sky, does not promote good leadership skills.
In most other jobs, leaders are selected because of their leadership skills. This is true for cabin crew. is it the same for flight crew?
Flying aeroplanes does not make you a good leader. I am reasonably sure that leadership is not a prime measure, when promoting a first officer to command. It would never have been in the job role. Hiding behind the law of the sky, does not promote good leadership skills.
In most other jobs, leaders are selected because of their leadership skills. This is true for cabin crew. is it the same for flight crew?
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am reasonably sure that leadership is not a prime measure, when promoting a first officer to command. It would never have been in the job role. Hiding behind the law of the sky, does not promote good leadership skills.
Overthewing, how do you produce such an analysis as
The facts as we know them suggest an intense overreaction on the part of the UA Captain. Presumably time will tell. However, I am more interested in the vehemence and illogic demonstrated on this thread.
I would hazard a guess that at least one of us has had 'issues' with CRM and crew relations during his career, or at the very least has had a damaging run-in with cabin staff.
I would hazard a guess that at least one of us has had 'issues' with CRM and crew relations during his career, or at the very least has had a damaging run-in with cabin staff.
Speaking as a humble SLF with an interest in surviving my flight
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another 'shoot from the hip' judgement! ... If he was OK, how come he is accused of being crazy afterwards?
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs- you have no idea of the trauma copilots go through to get that extra stripe. At a stroke, you are denigrating what they go through to get promoted, without really any idea, have you?
Well if he shouldn't land (according to you), how does he offload anybody, himself included?
He actually took a safe course of action stopping the flight and getting everybody on the ground safely. The really bizarre course of events is continuing. Whilst his behaviour in diverting is raising questions, nobody seems to be questioning the bizarre behaviour of all the other actors in this drama subsequently! Am I to accept the logic of 'we thought it best to continue to get the passengers to their destination, then we started a hollerin' in Chicago that he was crazy and must be canned!' Er, say again, please?
Incredible. If the mere presence of the purser disturbed him so much that he felt he could not continue and had no other choice but to divert and offload her, perhaps it would have been better for all concerned if he had offloaded himself and appealed to his employer for consideration of his poor mental state occasioned by the dispute?
He actually took a safe course of action stopping the flight and getting everybody on the ground safely. The really bizarre course of events is continuing. Whilst his behaviour in diverting is raising questions, nobody seems to be questioning the bizarre behaviour of all the other actors in this drama subsequently! Am I to accept the logic of 'we thought it best to continue to get the passengers to their destination, then we started a hollerin' in Chicago that he was crazy and must be canned!' Er, say again, please?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well if he shouldn't land (according to you), how does he offload anybody, himself included?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: DORSET
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
suninmyeyes
Sharksandwich said "If an experienced member of cabin crew wanted a flight aborted for any reason, his or her's view should take precedence over a captain." This may work in the world of medicine but it is an example of uninformed opinion which is ridiculous to any airline pilot. Pilot's need to listen very carefully to any information from cabin crew but it is not the cc who make decisions to abort the flight. At the end of the day a decision needs to be made and the Captain is the person who makes it. Sharksmith I have had cc tell me the right engine is abnormally noisey (loose door seal), "it must be too foggy to takeoff," (RVRs in limits), "there's a hydraulic noise in the cabin" (resonance from recirc fan), "we can't go because we are out of hours," (they weren't), "an engine has just exploded" (RB211 top of descent surge.)
I would not want to have a raw kid playing with my life- I would rather have a professional, qualified, responsible pilot. No question about this.
I was trying to refer to breakdown in comm. between an experienced cc and a receptive pilot.
To go all the way back to Kegworth - if the men up front had asked the cc to check which engine was burning out, without immediately taking corrective action...
The Tenerife disaster led to better teamwork in the office - perhaps each plane should have at least one experienced cc - with whom the office staff up front trusted...?
We all know the minutes and seconds leading to disaster and averted disaster demand all the time of the people in the office up front.
I was merely suggesting the info from a trusted cc may buy valuable time,before emercency action has to be taken.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Over the hill and far away
Age: 76
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether your idea of CRM aligns with 411A's or is more liberal, like Dani's, the one thing that guides - if not determines - good CRM is common sense.
While not flight or cabin crew, I work with pilots on a daily basis. My boss is an ex-DC10 freighter skipper and one of our part-timers is an ex-Part 135 PIC. ALL of the pilots and ex pilots I come into contact with have an abundance of common sense. I would say that it would be impossible to obtain a crew position on an airplane without common sense.
So why did common sense seem to go out of the window on this flight?
The Captain had just returned from a lengthy spell of sick-leave due, so we are told, to a knee injury. He has been on a four-day trip, in a less than comfortable position. Do we know what effect this has had on his injury? How much pain had he been enduring? Someone mentioned he may have been on medication - I doubt the airline medics would have passed him fit to fly had he been on anything too strong.
Did he hear the FO and FA talking about him behind the flight-deck door (as reported they did in BoF's earlier post). Was it the last straw? Did he feel the need to (re) assert his authority?
Based on Facts has given us one side of the story. I will not call BoF a liar, because I don't know the facts any more than the majority of posters on here. But it does seem to be, at least, a very biased report of the incident. (No criticism there - it's nice to see people sticking-up for their colleagues).
I simply think we should refrain from passing judgement on the skipper. 1. it's not our job. The airline and the FAA will do that, if necessary.
2. We may be doing him a grave disservice, especially if he took an action that he thought was necessary for the continued safety of the flight (ie, if he was getting agitated, it would not be in the best interests of the flight for the situation to continue).
The end result was that an airplane full of people reached their destination with no harm done. One purser had an overnight in MIA and was then returned to ORD.
While not flight or cabin crew, I work with pilots on a daily basis. My boss is an ex-DC10 freighter skipper and one of our part-timers is an ex-Part 135 PIC. ALL of the pilots and ex pilots I come into contact with have an abundance of common sense. I would say that it would be impossible to obtain a crew position on an airplane without common sense.
So why did common sense seem to go out of the window on this flight?
The Captain had just returned from a lengthy spell of sick-leave due, so we are told, to a knee injury. He has been on a four-day trip, in a less than comfortable position. Do we know what effect this has had on his injury? How much pain had he been enduring? Someone mentioned he may have been on medication - I doubt the airline medics would have passed him fit to fly had he been on anything too strong.
Did he hear the FO and FA talking about him behind the flight-deck door (as reported they did in BoF's earlier post). Was it the last straw? Did he feel the need to (re) assert his authority?
Based on Facts has given us one side of the story. I will not call BoF a liar, because I don't know the facts any more than the majority of posters on here. But it does seem to be, at least, a very biased report of the incident. (No criticism there - it's nice to see people sticking-up for their colleagues).
I simply think we should refrain from passing judgement on the skipper. 1. it's not our job. The airline and the FAA will do that, if necessary.
2. We may be doing him a grave disservice, especially if he took an action that he thought was necessary for the continued safety of the flight (ie, if he was getting agitated, it would not be in the best interests of the flight for the situation to continue).
The end result was that an airplane full of people reached their destination with no harm done. One purser had an overnight in MIA and was then returned to ORD.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This event will be handled by UA and the truth will come out. Dealing with fragments of the story here is a real waste of everyones time. If this is a pissing contest gone bad then whoever loses will pay a price.