United GRU-ORD Divert to MIA to Offload Purser
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: MNL ex CCR ex CLE
Age: 65
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First, as a medic, I totally agree with the above 2 posts regarding the ingestion of Visine, or other eye drops containing these medications and it's effects. Without naming them, there are many different substances that can cause the 'squirts'....but this ain't one of them. 
Second, as to why the purser was not held and was quickly flown out of KMIA....as has been previously stated, this is an IN HOUSE issue at UAL - and more importantly, it's a safety of flight issue. Perhaps UAL was trying to KEEP this in house and behind closed doors and LIMIT the amount of PR damage it would cause - not to mention possibly trying to keep the information/evidence surrounding this incident 'sterile' so as to protect BOTH sides of the issue. Unfortunately, the horse had already bolted on the purser side of the story. In many companies I've worked for, releasing confidential information - ESPECIALLY information relating to HR issues - is grounds for immediate termination!
Just my 2 cents!
Second, as to why the purser was not held and was quickly flown out of KMIA....as has been previously stated, this is an IN HOUSE issue at UAL - and more importantly, it's a safety of flight issue. Perhaps UAL was trying to KEEP this in house and behind closed doors and LIMIT the amount of PR damage it would cause - not to mention possibly trying to keep the information/evidence surrounding this incident 'sterile' so as to protect BOTH sides of the issue. Unfortunately, the horse had already bolted on the purser side of the story. In many companies I've worked for, releasing confidential information - ESPECIALLY information relating to HR issues - is grounds for immediate termination!
Just my 2 cents!
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carbon Bootprint, no disagreement. The more people who know about how serious this could be, the better.
For those who believe this practice happens regularly and point to their own trips to the bathroom as "proof", that isn't the case.That gives me hope there are fewer nutters out there than some would think. Saying that, if someone is stupid enough to make that kind of threat, it is a serious matter and that person should be permanently removed from any position of responsibility.An FA who would do this has clearly lost it just as much as a Captain who would divert without a legitimate safety concern. In this event, at least one person had a brain freeze.
For those who believe this practice happens regularly and point to their own trips to the bathroom as "proof", that isn't the case.That gives me hope there are fewer nutters out there than some would think. Saying that, if someone is stupid enough to make that kind of threat, it is a serious matter and that person should be permanently removed from any position of responsibility.An FA who would do this has clearly lost it just as much as a Captain who would divert without a legitimate safety concern. In this event, at least one person had a brain freeze.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cityfan: Your comments in your post # 595 make it sound as if you were there on the aircraft hearing the conversations between the captain and the FA. And in that same post you say "Please do not fixate on HOW I know what happened, but rest assured it is true". That's nice but anyone reading your posts would place more weight in what you say if you could offer a further peek into how you know what words were exchanged on the aircraft. An earlier poster asked this same general question but your answer seemed vague to me. You admit that you are supporting the captain and thus have "taken sides". Therefore you should be more open about how you "know" what happened.
A good start would be for you to answer this specific question: Were you on the aircraft? Your answer will help much in evaluating your comments.
A good start would be for you to answer this specific question: Were you on the aircraft? Your answer will help much in evaluating your comments.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rmiller774
To be fair, cityfan is caught between a rock and a hard place. He can't confirm that he was on the scene because to do so would get him in hot water with UAL. It is understandable that they would have put crew under a gag order. If he says he wasn't at the scene, we'll pounce on him like vultures.
To be fair, cityfan is caught between a rock and a hard place. He can't confirm that he was on the scene because to do so would get him in hot water with UAL. It is understandable that they would have put crew under a gag order. If he says he wasn't at the scene, we'll pounce on him like vultures.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think the most concerning point to have come out of this whole thread is the suspicion of a well respected PPRuNe commentator and Captain that he has had his food knobbled.
The implications for airline transport safety inherent in the validity of these comments is serious indeed.
If the general tenor of this thread is correct then CRM appears to be in tatters in some airlines and even parts of the world. Is this really true?
The implications for airline transport safety inherent in the validity of these comments is serious indeed.
If the general tenor of this thread is correct then CRM appears to be in tatters in some airlines and even parts of the world. Is this really true?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paranoia don't mean they aint out to get ya!
Because my ex wife was cabin crew I used to hang around a LOT of them. Let me tell you, hearing them discuss pilots they l didn't like made me sure not want to raise their ire! lol Sometimes we tend to forget the power of a woman (who never forgets) surrounded by shrewish mates. I'm not even agreeing with CityFan (whom for all his balanced 'other side' seems to me the vinyl record that has 'BasedonFacts' on the other side 
Here's some of the stuff thats recounted to me - (truly bizarre passive agressive sh*it) 1. hold a document ever so slightly out of reach. 2. Look to the FO (or anyone else) right after he gave a direction (as if, is it ok to follow that particular order? ok? well all right then, I'll go do it! little things that if you were to report it yourself, you'd look like an incredibly petty fool. Having been in 'Harms Way' and being taken in harms way under leadership of others, I can tell you that 'safety issues' are more than one particular patrol or flight. Perhaps he didnt have to divert - perhaps she WASTNT going to go total 'bat*****" on THIS particular flight. But a bitter corrosive force doesnt cut cleanly, rather it eats away and rots what it comes into contact with. The issue wastnt the 'Gendecs' despite CityFans comments to the contrary. A legitimate, legal order from a PIC is to be followed. Period. 2nd guessing is to be done on the ground. When you run YOUR cabin, and command YOUR staff, you perhaps think it's YOUR airplane, the same way my dog takes ME for a walk! Was the Captain, 'over the top' ? perhaps. But sight unseen, unmet, I am going to trust his judgment. I firmly believe that his action taken is not just to be viewed in the context of this one flight but of future flights not yet taken. If there is a CRM issue a simmering, then he has brought it to a boil - perhaps to force reluctant cooks to look into the pot!
Here's some of the stuff thats recounted to me - (truly bizarre passive agressive sh*it) 1. hold a document ever so slightly out of reach. 2. Look to the FO (or anyone else) right after he gave a direction (as if, is it ok to follow that particular order? ok? well all right then, I'll go do it! little things that if you were to report it yourself, you'd look like an incredibly petty fool. Having been in 'Harms Way' and being taken in harms way under leadership of others, I can tell you that 'safety issues' are more than one particular patrol or flight. Perhaps he didnt have to divert - perhaps she WASTNT going to go total 'bat*****" on THIS particular flight. But a bitter corrosive force doesnt cut cleanly, rather it eats away and rots what it comes into contact with. The issue wastnt the 'Gendecs' despite CityFans comments to the contrary. A legitimate, legal order from a PIC is to be followed. Period. 2nd guessing is to be done on the ground. When you run YOUR cabin, and command YOUR staff, you perhaps think it's YOUR airplane, the same way my dog takes ME for a walk! Was the Captain, 'over the top' ? perhaps. But sight unseen, unmet, I am going to trust his judgment. I firmly believe that his action taken is not just to be viewed in the context of this one flight but of future flights not yet taken. If there is a CRM issue a simmering, then he has brought it to a boil - perhaps to force reluctant cooks to look into the pot!
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would definitely revise my initial take on this if:
i)Purser made a threat to tamper with a crew meal
ii)Purser referred to the remaining FA's as "her" crew
iii)Purser tried to interfere with the chain-of-command(ie,refused a reasonable order/refused to stand down/attempted to take "her" crew with her at MIA)
Like many,I may have rushed to judgement.I saw it as a simple spat that escalated unnecessarily.If theres any truth to (i),(ii) or (iii) then I would say he was justified in removing her asap,except for (ii) alone in which case the CA should give her every opportunity to retract.If she doesnt retract,then it would require a stand-down and if that failed,a diversion would be justified.Diversion for mutiny(direct or indirect)is of course justifiable.If (i) is true,then legally it could be labelled a "terrorist" act and perhaps that explains why the FAA havent tried anything because they know "legally" he may well have been right to characterize her actions as "terrorism".But how do you prove something like that?Theres the rub.You'd need it on tape or a corroborating witness.Very difficult.
i)Purser made a threat to tamper with a crew meal
ii)Purser referred to the remaining FA's as "her" crew
iii)Purser tried to interfere with the chain-of-command(ie,refused a reasonable order/refused to stand down/attempted to take "her" crew with her at MIA)
Like many,I may have rushed to judgement.I saw it as a simple spat that escalated unnecessarily.If theres any truth to (i),(ii) or (iii) then I would say he was justified in removing her asap,except for (ii) alone in which case the CA should give her every opportunity to retract.If she doesnt retract,then it would require a stand-down and if that failed,a diversion would be justified.Diversion for mutiny(direct or indirect)is of course justifiable.If (i) is true,then legally it could be labelled a "terrorist" act and perhaps that explains why the FAA havent tried anything because they know "legally" he may well have been right to characterize her actions as "terrorism".But how do you prove something like that?Theres the rub.You'd need it on tape or a corroborating witness.Very difficult.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would certainly be interesting to know if Cityfan is flight crew or cabin crew.
I remember, early days on the 727 (a notoriously difficult, swept wing aircraft to land IMHO), I lowered a runway by at least a foot and possibly more. As we taxied in, I remarked to the Captain that I had better stand at the cockpit door and apologize for that.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cityfan could well be x-PA. The eighties were tumultuous times, with the strike, esop. and absorbing Pan American pilots, all of whom were (and are) great people. The equipment, not so much.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 62
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By demanding the crew decs at an inappropriate time, when he new the cabin crew would be busy with service he managed to provoke the reaction he wanted and made the best of the FA's tardy response to press home his advantage, calling her to the cockpit for a little chat
If he wanted to provoke a confrontation, why didn't he just do it at a crew layover or stop?
Do you think he was stupid enough to risk his career by going to these kinds of lengths in mid air?
You don't make it to senior airline Captain by being the kind of kook you are trying to make this guy out to be!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well if you have a better explanation of how a simple request for a set of unimportant documents became the catalyst for a confrontation which spiraled out of control leading to a diversion solely to offload a crew member, then have at it.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 62
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well if you have a better explanation of how a simple request for a set of unimportant documents became the catalyst for a confrontation which spiraled out of control leading to a diversion solely to offload a crew member, then have at it.
An uppity purser provokes an outbreak of insubordination amongst the CC and things come to a head, ultimately by chance, over the Gendecs.
The Captain decides enough is enough and takes a perfectly legitimate course of action and removes the ring leader.
Command decision made.
Job done!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't believe things came to a head by chance, it smells of having been engineered. A put up job, designed to allow the captain to exercise his authority over the purser in the most prejudicial manner available to him. Either that or he simply lost his cool over something totally inconsequential and things escalated from there. Take your pick.