United GRU-ORD Divert to MIA to Offload Purser
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cabin crew can please leave resentments of all kinds at the door and practice some upward management!
I will admit that I find it difficult to get my head around the scenario and how it has been allowed to escalate to the point of diversion (but again I don't have all the facts). I have flown with only two senior cc who I have needed to speak to, one I took to one side, out of site of the crew to have a quiet word...
Also, if United Airlines had any doubt about the purser's behavior in this, wouldn't she be on suspension until further investigation? The fact that they didn't suspend her says a lot.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots and F/A's are held to substantialy different standards.
...and so they should be.
I have personally seen cases where a Captain has been held out of service and a F/A continued to (...ride in the back.)
The Captain was 100 % in the right and the F/A 1000% in the wrong.
The Airline needs resolution that, all is well with the person in Command of the Airplane.
Don't read to much into it.
...and so they should be.
I have personally seen cases where a Captain has been held out of service and a F/A continued to (...ride in the back.)
The Captain was 100 % in the right and the F/A 1000% in the wrong.
The Airline needs resolution that, all is well with the person in Command of the Airplane.
Don't read to much into it.
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
We have now been asked not to discuss situation. 'bye
Without accusing or defending anybody, a 'situation' developed on board that escalated out of sensible limits. It is the responsibility of all on board to defuse such occasions, not stand back and watch it develop. Anyone with HF training should be aware such situations don't develop themselves, and are not usually developed by one person without input from others. That is why I said I suspect there is more that has not come out, and a proper investigation is needed. It seems this person carried the added burden of extreme unpopularity and possibly prejudice from other crewmembers. So again, when you point your finger at him, it is pointing 2 ways. Anybody showing extreme unfriendliness or prejudice is helping carry some of the blame for a shameful situation that developed, and it seems to me it cannot just be written off as the unreasonable behaviour of one person. That is why I was so adamant that indeed there was a case to answer. There is also a case to be heard.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Commander makes the call. There is no room for anyone to 'stand their ground' against the Commander, unless it is the F/O and he/she better be 100% correct, and it has to be the safety of the a/c. Anyone, anyone, who creates a 'situation' with the Commander, when what is at stake is less than stated safety, and within the purview of their own power to acquiesce, doesn't understand the nature of the environment. Now this can be egregious, or it can be incremental, either way, to play chicken with the Captain or any designated pilot is inexcusable, drawing a line in the sand if you are not in command is asking for correction. The Commander's job is to draw said lines, for those who don't 'get' the process. This is up to the hearing, and I remain surprised why people are still guessing without facts. BoF had her/his own facts, such as they are, and those will get an airing. NOT HERE. Discretion.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: 340 and climbing
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Johnny767, Rainboe, Will Fraser; there are Pursers/No1s/CSDs out there who are loyal and believe in the captain´s final say and final responsibility.
And who get punished for exactly that.
I know of a case, in a well known airline, where 3 CSDs were suspended by the cabin crew department during an investigation and later received a disciplinary. For not opposing their respective captains when they broke a rule.
A rule that is broken by captains every and day company wide because it is silly and impractical.
The captains were not suspended by the pilot department because the chief pilot knows that his captains break that particular rule every day, because he agrees that the rule is daft and because he knows the company is in the process of changing the rule to fit the practice.
3 CSDS suspended for a week, 3 CSDs with a disciplinary in their file for believing in the chain of command, for believing that the captain knows best and for simply sticking with their captains. All because their cabin crew department is having a crack down regarding the rules, and sends it stooges out among the crews to snitch.
3 captains completely unaffected career wise, but going to bat for their CSDs.
Without any effect whatsoever.
The captain is the boss yes, but apparently only as long as that suits the employer.
And who get punished for exactly that.
I know of a case, in a well known airline, where 3 CSDs were suspended by the cabin crew department during an investigation and later received a disciplinary. For not opposing their respective captains when they broke a rule.
A rule that is broken by captains every and day company wide because it is silly and impractical.
The captains were not suspended by the pilot department because the chief pilot knows that his captains break that particular rule every day, because he agrees that the rule is daft and because he knows the company is in the process of changing the rule to fit the practice.
3 CSDS suspended for a week, 3 CSDs with a disciplinary in their file for believing in the chain of command, for believing that the captain knows best and for simply sticking with their captains. All because their cabin crew department is having a crack down regarding the rules, and sends it stooges out among the crews to snitch.
3 captains completely unaffected career wise, but going to bat for their CSDs.
Without any effect whatsoever.
The captain is the boss yes, but apparently only as long as that suits the employer.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In another forum, two United pilots discussed this flight and the diversion. If it was deemed that the CA could not continue the flight as PIC, the two FOs could not have continued the flight from MIA to ORD. The flight would remain on the ground in Miami until a replacement CA was flown in. The requirement that a CA be PIC of the flight is part of the union contract. (If the CA had become ill, the FOs could continue to fly the aircraft either to its destination or to a diversion airport. However, once on the ground at a diversion airport, a new CA would need to be placed in the cockpit to continue the flight.)
The FOs ability to affect the decision on whether the CA could continue piloting the aircraft was limited to their assessment on whether the safety of the flight might be compromised by having him remain as CA.
Mention was also made that the CA is more likely to be on medical leave rather than being suspended, which lends credence to the rumour that the CA may be seeking a disability-based pension.
The FOs ability to affect the decision on whether the CA could continue piloting the aircraft was limited to their assessment on whether the safety of the flight might be compromised by having him remain as CA.
Mention was also made that the CA is more likely to be on medical leave rather than being suspended, which lends credence to the rumour that the CA may be seeking a disability-based pension.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can this thread end now? We will probably have no more information six months from now than today. Nobody knows why the captain decided MIA was the answer to the problem in flight. Until we know that discussion is meaningless.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The requirement that a CA be PIC of the flight is part of the union contract.
quidquid excusatio prandium pro
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hole In One
This thread is a shocking embarrassment to the civil aviation community at large, and to UAL specifically.
Am I to believe the designated commander of an intercontinental widebody airliner, the enormous responsibility concomitant with that position, was not able to deal effectively and safely with a minor emotional outburst of a crewmember under his command? Land it half-way in MIA on a half-baked hunch? Or an uncomfortable bowel movement perhaps?
Dementia, ADD, Alzheimers, or just plain UAL systemic seniority syndrome, don’t know, but off with his farcical head. High time to go play forever-golf at the Shady Pines retirement home in southern Florida, God’s own little waiting room.
We’ll all be there one day not so distant…
Am I to believe the designated commander of an intercontinental widebody airliner, the enormous responsibility concomitant with that position, was not able to deal effectively and safely with a minor emotional outburst of a crewmember under his command? Land it half-way in MIA on a half-baked hunch? Or an uncomfortable bowel movement perhaps?
Dementia, ADD, Alzheimers, or just plain UAL systemic seniority syndrome, don’t know, but off with his farcical head. High time to go play forever-golf at the Shady Pines retirement home in southern Florida, God’s own little waiting room.
We’ll all be there one day not so distant…
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bugg smasher
Sensible and fair-minded folk are waiting to hear both sides of the story before they decide what they believe.
I see you're not one of them.
I agree 100%. 
That's exactly what I've been thinking about this thread for the past few weeks, and every post like yours makes it more embarrassing. We don't even know the captain's explanation of what happened on the flight yet but a lot of folk here are already condemning him anyway.
p51 guy
Exactly.
Just the sort of thing we criticize the media for when they do it.
B.
Am I to believe .....
off with his farcical head
This thread is a shocking embarrassment to the civil aviation community at large
That's exactly what I've been thinking about this thread for the past few weeks, and every post like yours makes it more embarrassing. We don't even know the captain's explanation of what happened on the flight yet but a lot of folk here are already condemning him anyway.
p51 guy
Nobody knows why the captain decided MIA was the answer to the problem in flight. Until we know that discussion is meaningless.
Just the sort of thing we criticize the media for when they do it.
B.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An observation, probably my last one.
I don't believe any pilot who has commented on this thread has said he/she would have acted similarly given the circumstances described. (I believe there was a comment or two that if the continued safe operation of the flight was compromised, e.g., cabin crew became intoxicated, they would divert.)
I don't believe any poster has cited a similar situation having occurred elsewhere in which disrespect, insubordination, or failure to follow a Captain's command has led to an in-flight diversion. Numerous instances cited of conflicts being handled on the ground before or after a flight, or in-flight by relieving a F/A of his/her duties.
IIRC, the time from when the CA did not promptly get the document he sought and it was slid under the door, and the time the plane landed in MIA was about five hours. Usually, sufficient time for the heat of the moment to have cooled, and calmer heads come to the fore. Allegedly, a FO suggested that if the CA was going to divert, that they divert to Orlando which was enroute and where United has a station. The CA declined this suggestion.
So a highly unusual incident, indeed it meets the definition of unique. And leading to this perhaps not-so-hypothetical question: what if United management asks this captain if he can guarantee that this won't happen again, and he replies, he can't guarantee that. With such a response, would United put him in the front seat of an airplane ever again? ---Or is he pensioned off?
I don't believe any pilot who has commented on this thread has said he/she would have acted similarly given the circumstances described. (I believe there was a comment or two that if the continued safe operation of the flight was compromised, e.g., cabin crew became intoxicated, they would divert.)
I don't believe any poster has cited a similar situation having occurred elsewhere in which disrespect, insubordination, or failure to follow a Captain's command has led to an in-flight diversion. Numerous instances cited of conflicts being handled on the ground before or after a flight, or in-flight by relieving a F/A of his/her duties.
IIRC, the time from when the CA did not promptly get the document he sought and it was slid under the door, and the time the plane landed in MIA was about five hours. Usually, sufficient time for the heat of the moment to have cooled, and calmer heads come to the fore. Allegedly, a FO suggested that if the CA was going to divert, that they divert to Orlando which was enroute and where United has a station. The CA declined this suggestion.
So a highly unusual incident, indeed it meets the definition of unique. And leading to this perhaps not-so-hypothetical question: what if United management asks this captain if he can guarantee that this won't happen again, and he replies, he can't guarantee that. With such a response, would United put him in the front seat of an airplane ever again? ---Or is he pensioned off?
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
With such limited information, I don't think hypothetical questions help in this instance.
Sorry, but don't agree. In the face of almost universal condemnation (on very limited information), and a 'BiasedonFacts' testimony of what went on, I felt I had to point out that judgements without further information are not valid, and there could be many instances where a Captain may feel for the safety of the operation, an en route landing would be the best option. I never 'defended' or 'accused' him, just pointed out that there are circumstances where such a decision could be justified.
It does expose something nasty in the core of human relations in some companies. Long festering old industrial grievances permeate some companies. This case is like an iceberg breaking the surface- something is going on in UA. We had another awful example in the 1989 Australian indurstrial dispute- I still get shocked hearing some of the words coming from Australian mouths concerning that. Companies have every need to eradicate such emotions and thoughts, just as they have over the last 20 years eradicated prejudice in race, sex and sexual orientation. They have not done so. The poison permeates industrial relations for 24 years. It's largely a legacy airline thing.
Can this thread end now? We will probably have no more information six months from now than today. Nobody knows why the captain decided MIA was the answer to the problem in flight. Until we know that discussion is meaningless.
It does expose something nasty in the core of human relations in some companies. Long festering old industrial grievances permeate some companies. This case is like an iceberg breaking the surface- something is going on in UA. We had another awful example in the 1989 Australian indurstrial dispute- I still get shocked hearing some of the words coming from Australian mouths concerning that. Companies have every need to eradicate such emotions and thoughts, just as they have over the last 20 years eradicated prejudice in race, sex and sexual orientation. They have not done so. The poison permeates industrial relations for 24 years. It's largely a legacy airline thing.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, if we go right back to the beginning, the Capt asked for some papers, the Head of Cabin said she didn't have spare crew at that time to cover the opening of the flighty deck door, (security requirement), so she slid the required document under the door, anyone have a problem with that?
Now, Capt asks for some documents and head of Cabin says to herself, ''Stuff you, I have better things to do" and in full view of other CC then slides documents under the door with the observing crew saying, "That will show him, way to go gal!"
Two totally different scenarios and after 536 posts we still are none the wiser.. 'Based on Fact' you had an opportunity to lay this whole thing cold on page one but you chose to dramatise, shame on you.
Now, Capt asks for some documents and head of Cabin says to herself, ''Stuff you, I have better things to do" and in full view of other CC then slides documents under the door with the observing crew saying, "That will show him, way to go gal!"
Two totally different scenarios and after 536 posts we still are none the wiser.. 'Based on Fact' you had an opportunity to lay this whole thing cold on page one but you chose to dramatise, shame on you.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bug smasher:
You are correct, the only thing embarrassing is when posters add no value by sharing their own, ridiculous assumptions.
Jetlegs:
Sounds like the Cabin Crew Department needs a reality check. A common ailment of North American Airlines.
It is unfortunate that the Flight Ops side (without knowing the details) has some useless rule in place.
Again... it all sounds to familiar.
One side of this story has been blabbed all over the Internet, that of the F/A's.
- I find it very difficult to believe that the two F/O's wouldn't have talked some sense into the Captain.
- For that matter, the two F/O's could have legally removed the Captain of his Command.
If the story is, as told by the F/A's.
There is WAY more to this story.
Until then, I side with the Pilot In Command.
You are correct, the only thing embarrassing is when posters add no value by sharing their own, ridiculous assumptions.
Jetlegs:
Sounds like the Cabin Crew Department needs a reality check. A common ailment of North American Airlines.
It is unfortunate that the Flight Ops side (without knowing the details) has some useless rule in place.
Again... it all sounds to familiar.
One side of this story has been blabbed all over the Internet, that of the F/A's.
- I find it very difficult to believe that the two F/O's wouldn't have talked some sense into the Captain.
- For that matter, the two F/O's could have legally removed the Captain of his Command.
If the story is, as told by the F/A's.
There is WAY more to this story.
Until then, I side with the Pilot In Command.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "Captain," is in Command of the Aircraft - from tip to tail.
The "First Officer," is 2nd in Command of the Aircraft.
The "Second Officer" (in the old days,) or now the - Augment First Officer - Cruise Relief Pilot - Second Officer, is 3rd in Command of the Aircraft.
If the Captain is not doing his / her job:
As per the Airlines (Standard Operating Procedures,) the Regulators (FAA's) rules, exhibiting abnormal behavior, is incapacitated by illness etc.
The First Officer is obligated to take Command of the Aircraft.
That is why they are there and that is why there is a "Chain of Command."
...you just - better be right!
I would fully expect a F/O, that is in strong disagreement with the decision of a Captain.
To do something about it.
For me, there is the question. Not ONE but TWO First Officers ended up on the ground in Miami.
Leads me to ASSUME, they agreed with the Captain.
The "First Officer," is 2nd in Command of the Aircraft.
The "Second Officer" (in the old days,) or now the - Augment First Officer - Cruise Relief Pilot - Second Officer, is 3rd in Command of the Aircraft.
If the Captain is not doing his / her job:
As per the Airlines (Standard Operating Procedures,) the Regulators (FAA's) rules, exhibiting abnormal behavior, is incapacitated by illness etc.
The First Officer is obligated to take Command of the Aircraft.
That is why they are there and that is why there is a "Chain of Command."
...you just - better be right!
I would fully expect a F/O, that is in strong disagreement with the decision of a Captain.
To do something about it.
For me, there is the question. Not ONE but TWO First Officers ended up on the ground in Miami.
Leads me to ASSUME, they agreed with the Captain.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 445
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainboe
I realise you are not defending if the captain was correct or not and also that he has the right to divert if he determines it to be necessary. However can you give me an example of how it could be seriously considered that flight safety was compromised.
Sure a p%ssed off FA is not nice but I still do not realise how this could lead to "anarchy" on the flight, as some have quoted.
This is not a dig at you but I really want to have some examples.
As for BoF, his/her rants, or at least the style of writing that comes across as a rant, does nothing to portray the Senior CC member in a good light.
I realise you are not defending if the captain was correct or not and also that he has the right to divert if he determines it to be necessary. However can you give me an example of how it could be seriously considered that flight safety was compromised.
Sure a p%ssed off FA is not nice but I still do not realise how this could lead to "anarchy" on the flight, as some have quoted.
This is not a dig at you but I really want to have some examples.
As for BoF, his/her rants, or at least the style of writing that comes across as a rant, does nothing to portray the Senior CC member in a good light.
Guest
Posts: n/a
A clever move?
I totally agree. I don't buy it that a seasoned captain would suddenly loose it only because a flight attendant pushes papers under the door. I guess the captain surprised all on board when he diverted because of that! They were stunned.
Maybe he really wants to be "out". From what I gather he is not very much liked or respected for some reasons, and he reportedly showed his colleagues a reciprocal attitude.
That he diverted to Miami instead of Orlando (which is, like, 30 Minutes away?) intrigues me: He put his company in bind: Disrupt service even more or let him continue to fly? From what I gather from the information on this thread, this strengthend his position when it comes to a profitable retirement settlement.
I know, speculation ... but if true, very well played, Sir!
Maybe he really wants to be "out". From what I gather he is not very much liked or respected for some reasons, and he reportedly showed his colleagues a reciprocal attitude.
That he diverted to Miami instead of Orlando (which is, like, 30 Minutes away?) intrigues me: He put his company in bind: Disrupt service even more or let him continue to fly? From what I gather from the information on this thread, this strengthend his position when it comes to a profitable retirement settlement.
I know, speculation ... but if true, very well played, Sir!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Johnny767, I agree that if the CA is ill or incapacitated in some manner and not capable of safely flying the airplane, he loses command.
A CA who disconnects the autopilot and begins muttering "Tawakkalt ala Allah", loses command.
A CA who is thoroughly p*ssed about some work-related or labor issue, or is an absolute stickler about rules or authority, but is otherwise fully capable of safely flying the aircraft, I doubt he loses command.
Few dispute that the CA possessed the inherent authority to divert if he so chose, and provided he safely and competently executed the diversion, and the diversion itself placed no additional risk to the flight and passengers -- such as his choosing to divert to an airport where fuel minimums might come into play, or if the evicted purser had left the cabin with too few crew to legally continue -- then his rationale and judgment are for subsequent discussion between himself and management, and management will evaluate and decide.
A CA who disconnects the autopilot and begins muttering "Tawakkalt ala Allah", loses command.
A CA who is thoroughly p*ssed about some work-related or labor issue, or is an absolute stickler about rules or authority, but is otherwise fully capable of safely flying the aircraft, I doubt he loses command.
Few dispute that the CA possessed the inherent authority to divert if he so chose, and provided he safely and competently executed the diversion, and the diversion itself placed no additional risk to the flight and passengers -- such as his choosing to divert to an airport where fuel minimums might come into play, or if the evicted purser had left the cabin with too few crew to legally continue -- then his rationale and judgment are for subsequent discussion between himself and management, and management will evaluate and decide.