United GRU-ORD Divert to MIA to Offload Purser

[lomapaseo]

To me the most important facet of the ordeal is the amount of attention it's drawn; as such it is a poor commentary on the state of the level of professionalism and cooperation in the Industry. Rumors are interesting, but gossip is deplorable. The difference?? Gossip is a rumor that's been dipped in poison. Plenty of that here, and it bodes ill.

That's the nature of an internet discussion board. It starts with rumor and progresses to gossip sic.

I do not consider an internet discussion thread a measure of the state of professionalism of the industry by any stretch. It is nothing more than a collection of opinions by annoymous people who claim to be part of the industry.

I decided to leave the misspelling as a humorous spoonerism

[SaturnV]

cityfan,

--with respect to several points in your hypothesis. The claim that the purser threatened to tamper with the captain's meal was posted in another forum around the end of July, and labeled there as third-hand hearsay. (Unless the captain heard the threat directly, it would be second-hand hearsay at best.) So that point, presumably favorable to the captain, has been 'public' for a while.

From your post, the captain has yet to return to flight status, and the incident is now about five weeks old. Perhaps United's investigations of such matters move at a glacial pace. His certificate has not been suspended by the FAA.

Curiously, you raised the possibility that this incident was manufactured by two or more conspiring cabin crew who were aware that the captain was a recent victim of harassment by United. For them to test/provoke the captain in such a way suggests that there was a previous incident of questionable judgment or temperament on his part, else why would they embark on such a course of action?

[Rainboe]

I can't get over the deadly serious 'pious and self righteous' judgements being handed down about the industry in general, and professional crew in particular.......usually I suspect from people who evidently are not in one and know nothing and have no experience of the other! Yes- an anonymous posting criticising the industry is going to have a devastating effect on it (not)!

Let's just let sleeping dogs lie now- there was a discipline problem of some sort, and an experienced Captain dealt with it the way he saw fit, with minimal disruption to his passengers and no effect on safety issues. Really a non-event for United to deal with internally, in whatever way it sees fit. Whatever people accuse me of saying in this thread, I have always called for dispassionate discussion, not the violently prejudiced opinion most people seemed to have before they even read up what little facts have been posted! It doesn't need so many thundering sound-offs here from people delivering instant judgements mainly from a basis of lack of information and inexperience of what is involved. Experience of lobbing grenades at 'Charlie' in 'Nam does not translate well to managing airline crew CRM, though I have to confess there were times when I thought it might be more appropriate.

[Bealzebub]

Something ugly going on. The company needs to sort it. It sounds to me like the company has allowed these people to carry a very unpleasant burden for 24 years.

I know I have been 'nobbled' on several occasions.

It is one step away from insanity to intentionally poison your pilot, but it happens. Those tending to do it are the older, embittered females with a grudge, real or imagined, or the young aggressive 'why are you paid more than me? We all do the same job'-type males with a real problem about 'overpaid pilots'.

At one point it looked as if we were getting some facts and then it turned out that the (newly registered) poster who claimed to be a F/A on the flight and claimed to be giving the 'facts' was (ab)using PPRuNe to pursue a grudge against the captain.

Although I have been flying for many years, and have come across a few people who warranted a healthy chat on the ground, I can honestly say that I have never even come close to having to consider a diversion to deal with a problem of this nature. Further, I cannot recall anybody else I know having to do this.

From the quotes above and others, it would appear that this is a more endemic problem in some companies than I and probably many other people would seem to appreciate. If so, then it is clearly a CRM issue with significant adverse aspects with regards to the safety and regularity of certain flights.

Why would you want to "let sleeping dogs lie", if as you state you have "been nobbled on several occaissions" yourself? It sounds like in some quarters there are potentially serious safety issues that are clearly not being addressed. CRM is not something that should break down to the level where aircraft are diverted to offload offending crewmembers as a matter of routine to be dismissed.

It seems there is a conflict between an open safety culture and some disturbing allegations of totally unacceptable and certainly unprofessional behaviour. If you are going to advance the argument that this should be quickly swept under the carpet, and kept "in house," then it might be better the results of such actions are not plastered across CNN!

This isn't a rush to judgment, it is a concern of some of the darker aspects being suggested in this thread. If this flight had diverted to remove a crewmember or passenger who was unwell it wouldn't likely have lasted a day in this forum or made the news. If it had diverted for an unruly or violent passenger, it probably wouldn't have grown beyond a page or two. The reason that it has, is because there is clearly more to this issue than simply a normal diversion that didn't inconvenience everybody too much.

[411A]

The entire problem of malcontent cabin crew can be delt with by simply having them sign on with (for example) four year renewable contracts, renewable at the descrition on management. Many asian/middle east airlines do this...time for other companies to fall in line.
This way, problem solved....cheaper too.
My company would not hesitate to terminate any cabin crew member who did not perform up to expectations...at any time.
Downroute, if necessary.
The CC, knowing this, are fully co-operative in nearly every respect, and quite frankly, a pleasure to fly with.
A done deal.

NB.
Now, I expect some will say...well, the CC have 'rights.'
Sorry, on the airplane they do not, and if they do not measure up, out they go, bag and baggage.
Ahhh, peace and tranquility.

[Les Shore]

And you wonder why there are problems

Now, I expect some will say...well, the CC have 'rights.'
Sorry, on the airplane they do not, and if they do not measure up, out they go, bag and baggage.

and

The entire problem of malcontent cabin crew can be delt with by simply having them sign on with (for example) four year renewable contracts, renewable at the descrition on management. Many asian/middle east airlines do this...time for other companies to fall in line

This in addition to calling cabin crew "old hags" and other disrespectful and juvenile comments. Maybe some of the problems could be solved if Captains had four year renewable contracts and had to prove their ability to manage a crew (different from barking orders) in addition to flying a plane.The only light at the end of the tunnel is that some dinosaur Captains must be getting pretty damn close to retirement age.

[cityfan]

cityfan,

--with respect to several points in your hypothesis. The claim that the purser threatened to tamper with the captain's meal was posted in another forum around the end of July, and labeled there as third-hand hearsay. (Unless the captain heard the threat directly, it would be second-hand hearsay at best.) So that point, presumably favorable to the captain, has been 'public' for a while.

It was firsthand.

From your post, the captain has yet to return to flight status, and the incident is now about five weeks old. Perhaps United's investigations of such matters move at a glacial pace. His certificate has not been suspended by the FAA.

This is not the first "I am the captain aft of the cockpit door" incident at UAL and is being handled with kid gloves because of previous harassment of this Captain by the company.

Curiously, you raised the possibility that this incident was manufactured by two or more conspiring cabin crew who were aware that the captain was a recent victim of harassment by United.

I don't believe it was "manufactured" in any way, by anyone. It was an unwillingness to acquiesce to Captain's Authority that escalated and, as means of self-defence and pre-emptive investigatory attack, it was characterized as something wholly different by parties who were NOT central to the incident.

For them to test/provoke the captain in such a way suggests that there was a previous incident of questionable judgment or temperament on his part, else why would they embark on such a course of action?

LOL! I guess you have not worked at UAL (or many other carriers) in the post-9/11, post-bankruptcy era, so I would be unkind if I mocked the comment. However, I can assure you there was no previous incident on his part. He is a BIG C Captain (as we call them here) and too many old, think-they-know-it-all F/As take liberties all the time with the crew....from waiting 30 minutes to open the door for a pee break to waiting for an hour for meals, etc, etc....and he was not going to allow this one to get away with a direct and open threat to him.

As you can tell, I applaud his actions and MIGHT even have had her arrested in Miami if it had been me. Interference with the crew is a federal offence and, once he had made the point that they were going to divert and he was to remove her, she DEFINITELY DID interfere with the crew.

As previously stated, I am intimately familiar with what happened and much of it has been greatly distorted on this message board. I realize this is a "rumor" mill and rumors turn to gossip and gossip leads to facts not in evidence being used as the Gospel. I just wanted to set the record straight: he is not a nutter and he WILL return to duty once this has blown over. Either that, or he will "retire" with a seven figure check in his back pocket. As mentioned, the FAA has not lifted a finger for the exercise of his authority FOR GOOD REASON.

Best to all.

[MU3001A]

previous harassment of this Captain by the company.

This was not his 1st experience with recalcitrant cabin crew then?

[cityfan]

Nope. COMPLETELY unrelated matter. Sorry.

Nothing to see here! He was right, she was wrong, but HE had all the LEGAL responsibilities and so the company has to ensure they dot the i and cross the t before washing their hands of this. Last time they tried to spank a Captain and make a point, she ended up walking away with a rather large (enough to comfortably retire on the interest sized) "settlement." I am not sure they want to go down that path again, so he gets an nice extended summer vacation WITH FULL PAY and time heals all wounds

[Les Shore]

Cityfan, with all due respect, I'm not sure how you could have "intimate" knowledge of what happened without being on the scene. That's puzzling.

There is another thing thing.The threat to the Captain's food must have been made within earshot of other flight deck members, if it was made directly. It is hard to believe a senior purser would risk her career by doing that. Regarding the "mutiny", again, if that threat was made directly, would it not have been made within hearing distance of others? Another career limiting move.

[cityfan]

Les,

Indeed, sir, indeed. Exactly the reason this issue is moving very slowly.

Please do not fixate on HOW I know what happened, but rest assured it is true. (your choice to believe me or not, of course)

When something is said directly between the two combatants, it can become a "he said-she said" issue. In this case, his actions CLEARLY indicate he believes wholeheartedly that she meant what she said and, based on her previous interactions with his "authority" and the language she was using to describe him to other crew members, he chose to give her the OPTION of relief from purser duties or the jetway. She CHOSE the jetway and he obliged. She said she was taking the rest of "HER" crew with her. Clearly, she did not, perhaps because THEY understand what "mutiny" means and that SHE was not worth THEM losing their jobs.

We are a litigious bunch south of the border, as you know, and there are LEGAL issues here.

'nuff said, I hope.

[MU3001A]

cityfan:

Last time they tried to spank a Captain and make a point, she ended up walking away with a rather large (enough to comfortably retire on the interest sized) "settlement."

She being the flight attendant or the captain? I'm confused.

[Les Shore]

Cityfan, thanks for the information and your patience. If others took the same moderate tone in replying, this thread wouldn't have gone into some of the sub-themes that have developed.

Since there appear to have been witnesses who (reading between the lines) would verfify the Captains's version of events, it should almost be a slam dunk for him. I'm surprised that the purser was allowed to continue working, given your description of the situation and the fact that in early debriefings the FOs should have supported the Captain's story. Hopefully justice will prevail and we'll be reassured that this whole event wasn't based on someone's power trip or temper tantrum.

[411A]

Maybe some of the problems could be solved if Captains had four year renewable contracts and had to prove their ability to manage a crew (different from barking orders) in addition to flying a plane.

Oddly enough, Les, I have always worked for airlines on a contractural basis, renewable...and every one was renewed.
Have I had a 'problem' with cabin crew?
Only one time...and they were all terminated by the airline...all seven of them.
These malcontent CC tried to railroad the Cabin Supervisor, and I would have none of that nonsense.
It's called, shape up or ship out.
An easy concept to understand.

[Les Shore]

Oddly enough, Les, I have always worked for airlines on a contractural basis, renewable...and every one was renewed

Is it possible that these airlines were based in countries without labour standards that are the norm in North America and Europe?

To quote another poster

I've heard of a flight attendant being offloaded at an outstation for failing to properly greet the captain when he boarded 'his' aircraft. It was in the Middle East and egos tend to be ramped up a little there from what I've seen

Ah, for all the bluster, I'm sure you're not all bad 411A. You did say that you wouldn't disrupt cabin service unless you had a darn good reason or something like that. Oh sh$%. FULL CIRCLE.

Cityfan, last question, scout's honour. It has been rumoured that the Captain's demand to have the general dec presented to him in the middle of cabin service was the start of this sorry mess. The questions around what motivated him to do that and make an issue of it (if it's indeed true) are what has sparked a lot of the ensuing discussion. We all know he had to authority to make the request and even ask that they be served on a platter, if he wanted, but it's hard to understand the urgency given that they weren't needed for some time after So, if you can answer this,did a request for the general dec start the whole thing?

[captjns]

Is it possible that these airlines were based in countries without labour standards that are the norm in North America and Europe?

Labour standards?

Damn... coffee's all over the damn computer.

[Rainboe]

Les Shore

but it's hard to understand the urgency given that they weren't needed for some time after So, if you can answer this,did a request for the general dec start the whole thing?

It's quite obvious that it was just a catalyst in a developing situation- don't flog it to death!

What we are seeing here is the first possibility for some of you to consider that there are 2 sides to every story. HF in disagreements like this is not usually a solo developing process. There was a situation that he felt needed handling with some urgency. Whether you agree with that is immaterial- at the end of the day, it is an internal United process of no business of any interferers. Perhaps we could all review our tendency to leap to instant judgements over a keyboard and loudly trumpet them. The forest of 'thumbs-down; signals here were blinding, but now we hear the gladiator who was condemned to instant dispatch may have a side to his story.......like your own Rainboe was trying to say all along.

He may still be judged wrong, in which case he will go with a monumental settlement. He really has done nothing 'wrong'. It may be judged 'not the best course of events', but that is sub-judice now. The reason I made 42 posts in this thread (and counting) is that in all the howls of accusation, there was hardly anybody else talking of the possibility that just maybe, he had a case to make.

[captjns]

We were introduced to the situation after the movie started. This situation could have been festering for many months as they could have had many unpleasent experiences together. But alas... we'll never know. Oh well back to the soap operas.

[Ancient Observer]

Close it until?

Can't we close discussion on this until the United wheels have turned, and cityfan comes back to tell us the closing?

The whole thread was fast asleep until a couple of days ago.

[SaturnV]

Rainboe, "He may still be judged wrong, in which case he will go with a monumental settlement."

Is this suggesting he may be pensioned off?

He is type-rated for 727s, 747s, 757s, and 767s, among others, so almost certainly very senior at UAL.