United GRU-ORD Divert to MIA to Offload Purser

[Rainboe]

Semaphore Sam

My total sympathy is with the Captain, but, in this circumstance, his mental state, sadly, seems to have been...less than optimum? A diversion, in this circumstance, seems totally unjustified...and to those pilots justifying martinet behavior, in the name of pilot solidarity, again, sadly, you undermine the profession. I am open to more evidence in the Captain's favour, but, in this case, a diversion seems beyond the pale. I beg for mitigating evidence.

I see an experienced captain who felt the flight could not safely continue and willingly risking his judgement being called into question with a diversion to sort a problem out! We don't know the processes going on in his mind- remember we are only getting one extremely biased account. But without doubt- when you 'lose' a crew, through their fault or your own, there is a point where you had better stop travelling at 500kts without delay! I've only once lost it with a totally unco-operative and bizarre co-pilot. I nearly grounded him from a 737 at Basle, but I gave him the chance to redeem himself, which he did subsequently. But in effect, I endorsed him for another chance. That was my prerogative.

The credibility of the whole crew subsequently falls down with their unanimous decision to continue under his command. It goes no deeper than that. Once they get to their final destination, suddenly the captain in not 'fit for command'? They lost all credibility continuing, and their dreadful attacks on him since have no depth whatsoever. A sad, sad affair, but it speaks volumes for the state of CRM and flight deck/cabin crew relationships in this airline.

[Spooky 2]

Yea I remember that incident. ATL to NRT. The AC was at the controls and the Co Capt. was in the bunk. The design and location of the bunk on the MD11 was a hot button issue. Without even discussing the issue with the guy in bunk, the AC took it upon himself to start the diversion process in to PDX on his own. The Co Capt was surprised at the developing action but like a good soldier stood by and followed through. Interstingly the Co-Capt was a General in the Air Force, but I guess he knew who the boss was. The AC was a guy who took every opportunity to stir the ALPA agenda at Delta and while forget the outcome, none the less the rank and file were very divided on the terms of his discipline.

[Rananim]

Well,its a fascinating read but ultimately futile.We cant be judge and jury here,we only know one side of the story.There's merit in both opposing viewpoints;from Rainboe and 411 right through to the other end of the spectrum(basedonfacts).The only viewpoint I'd discard up-front would be the politically-correct one.We must deal in reality not CRM niceties.

The captain is in command.There's no cabin-Captain.The purser is in charge of the service.Does this mean that the purser must obey an unreasonable command?No.Does it mean the Captain is always right?No.If he's wrong and makes an unwarranted diversion,he WILL pay for it.Thats the balance.You put all the authority in one person because you dont want chaos,and you balance that risk by making that person legally responsible for his/her actions.Noblesse oblige.A skipper who abuses his authority is as bad as a purser who doesnt recognize/respect authority.The trick is to follow this tried and tested system and enjoy the day out at the same time.Many achieve this,some keep trying,only a very few fail.

[rgbrock1]

If you want to read, what could very well be, the Captain's view of this incident then I suggest Firefox-ing, or Internet Explod-ing, over to airlinepilotforums.com

Within the "Majors" section you'll have to do a search for this incident.

It may not be the Captain responding but the consensus on that forum seems to be that it was indeed him. (The vast majority of posters on airlinepilotforums.com seem to be, indeed, pilots.)

I'd provide a direct link but it was awhile ago and I don't have time to do the research. But it was quite interesting when I read it.

[parabellum]

Just been right through the whole ten pages and couldn't find anything that I would attribute to the captain, which username were you thinking of?

[Rapid D]

Yea I remember that incident. ATL to NRT. The AC was at the controls and the Co Capt. was in the bunk. The design and location of the bunk on the MD11 was a hot button issue. Without even discussing the issue with the guy in bunk, the AC took it upon himself to start the diversion process in to PDX on his own. The Co Capt was surprised at the developing action but like a good soldier stood by and followed through. Interstingly the Co-Capt was a General in the Air Force, but I guess he knew who the boss was. The AC was a guy who took every opportunity to stir the ALPA agenda at Delta and while forget the outcome, none the less the rank and file were very divided on the terms of his discipline

So since it seems you did not work at Delta during this time, would you agree there might be "more to the story" Spooky?

I was a Delta pilot during this incident, and I would say there was not much division at all about the Captain's decision to divert or his "discipline" as you said. There was no discipline. "Fatigue". End of story as far as that goes.

Captain claimed crew fatigue and they went into PDX. PDX was a MD-11 base at the time, and new crew flew pax onto NRT. Reserve crew had plenty of notice. And due to crappy performance of MD-11 during winter winds, this flight sometimes had to go into PDX for gas anyway. Not a big deal operationally.

In this case, it was to make a statement. MGT was stonewalling on b.s. foldout/curtain crew rest contraption - it was far from a "bunk" - and ALPA was insisting on a better/more restfull area. It finally took a CA with some gnads to make some change. And it worked. Much better crew rest area was created.

While there were some that did not agree with the Captain's decision or tactics, the rank and file were not "very divided" as you stated. The rank and file were mostly supportive.

There was a very anti-pilot mgt group at the time led by then CEO Leo Mullen (all top officers cashed out with millions during BK by the way) and they refused to believe this was a safety issue and not just pilots getting one over. It took this action to make reasonable man change happen.

To most of us, this captain was our hero for standing up for all of us. "Every opportunity to stir the ALPA agenda" is b.s. too. Makes for a better story I know, but did you work at Delta or know this guy personally?

At the time, this pot stirring effected change and all MD-11 crews were grateful.

[WhatsaLizad?]

Rapid D,

We dealt with a related issue at my carrier. There was an endless changing of airplanes at Sao Paulo after a 8-10 hour flight from MIA/JFK. The crew was supposed to wait at GRU for the DFW airplane, more than 2-3 hours after an all night flight.

Meanwhile both crews would switch planes, and both planes would end up back in the the same damn place, GRU, that night after their Rio and Ascuncion turns.

Then one morning a real Captain showed up on the flight from JFK. He was told he would wait 3 hours for the DFW inbound plane, company said tough, "you wait pilot boy". He offered to take his JFK plane to Rio, company said "tough, you wait pilot boy". The Captain said, I'm fatigued, goodnight, I'll be resting at the hotel.

I arrived that morning in GRU marveling at the chaos. When I heard the story, and knew the total BS of the cubicle dwellers behind it, I finally smiled to myself as I thought "damn, there's a real Captain". It's amazing what an airline will do to drive an actual Admiral in the US Navy Reserves to such an action.

A few years later he retired.

Not long after that he was a passenger in the aircraft that hit the the Pentagon on 9/11 along with his wife of many years.

[cityfan]

The insubordination continues even in your writing, IF you were a crew member!

A few things:

1) There is NO FAA action being taken against this Captain, so BoF is wrong.

2) The international FA crews at UAL are some of the worst in the industry and, as you can see from the attitudes, it does not take a rocket scientist to see that labor relations as a result of years of bankruptcy, cutbacks, and generally letting the FAs get away with murder, have not helped that any.

3) Not everyone is easy to get along with, and I have never suggested this Captain is either. However, we have ONE Captain at a time and UNLESS there is a SAFETY PROBLEM, then HE is in command at all times and HAS EARNED THE RESPECT that goes with the uniform.....maybe it was just not on the ONE SEGMENT BoF flew with him.

4) Notice the interactions with the FOs and the FAs....The entire interactions (from the FA perspective) is that the FOs came back to complain about the Captain. However, from the Captain's perspective, and from what ACTUALLY HAPPENED, it is clear that the Captain was bolstered by the input of the FOs, who were the ones that relayed the "food issue." the WHOLE situation, especially from BoF's perspective, smacks of insubordination and lack of respect for authority.

SO, we KNOW the aircraft landed in MIA and we KNOW the FAs and the Captain did not see eye to eye. Now, did he MAKE IT ALL UP or was there something substantive that happened? Did the FOs say, "No, Sir/Captain, YOU will be in ALOT of trouble if we divert over NOTHING!" Did the Purser leave in MIA? YES! Did anyone else (and there was ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR AN EXTRA FO FROM MIA TO ORD)? NO! No FOs got off the aircraft, just one FA.

Now, simply ask yourself a few even easier questions:

Has the Captain been fired? No!
Will the Captain be fired? No!
Has the FAA sought to sanction the Captain in ANY way? No!
Does the Captan have the discretion to act as he pleases within the bounds of safe operation, while being answerable for those actions? Yes!
Is he being forced to answer those actions? Yes!
Has this Captain had previous run ins with the company du to his strong union affiliation? Yes!
Does ANYONE think THAT might have ANYTHING to do with what the Captain is being forced to do before returning to the line? I DO, you decide for yourself!

Is the Purser some angel who is loved by all and the Captain some devil who is hated by all, as BoF would have us believe (weak d!ck captains and fos supposedly gossiping with some FAs about a fellow pilot! What BS!)? No!

SOMETHING DID HAPPEN AND THE FAS DO NOT LIKE WHAT IT WAS, BECAUSE IT SHONE THE SPOTLIGHT ON SOME OF THEM WHO HAVE A LACK OF RESPECT FOR AUTHORITY, ESPECIALLY CAPTAIN'S AUTHORITY.

WHETHER THE CAPTAIN WAS RIGHT OR WRONG, WHETHER IT COULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED A DIFFERENT WAY, OR EVEN SHOULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED A DIFFERENT WAY, IS FOR THE COMPANY AND THE CAPTAIN TO WORK OUT, WHICH THEY ARE, WITH A JAUNDICED EYE IMHO....NOT A FA WITH AN AXE TO GRIND AGAINST PILOTS.

Done.

[etrang]

cityfan, since you seem to have some inside knowledge, could you tell us;

what exactly IS the captain being forced to do?

what the Captain is being forced to do before returning to the line?

What exactly DID happen (as far as you know)?

SOMETHING DID HAPPEN AND THE FAS DO NOT LIKE WHAT IT WAS,

[cityfan]

He has been asked to take a psychological interview/evaluation, apparently because the company feel he overreacted to a situation that THE COMPANY was unable to substantiate (the food issue).

As you may know, there have been cases where pilots have been "visined" by cabin crew. Such threats against one's food are not only a threat, but also complete insubordination, as in this case.

Hope that answers your question?

Just for context, there have been cases at UAL where the Captain has had a negative interaction/relationship and has sought to move the Purser from the forward cabin/cockpit interaction position and into the back cabin. The Pursers have REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE CAPTAIN'S DECISION under the auspices of "I have the seniority to hold Purser and you do not have the authority to usurp my seniority!"

While the OVERALL relationship between cockpit and cabin crews is generally quite good, especially in the narrowbody/domestic arena where crews seem to have greater camaraderie over the crummy schedules they both fly. Sadly, the same cannot be said for the mainly VERY SENIOR, OLDER crews who fly internationally. It seems to me there is some "entitlement" mentality and, especially among SOME of the very senior FAs, even the STATED mentality that "he might be in charge from the cockpit door forward, but I am in command of the cabin." Hate to say it, but I have seen it, heard it and even heard of some of the discipline cases that have resulted from same.

IMHO, this WHOLE THING would and should have normally been a Professional Standards issue. However, in this instance, the Captain CLEARLY felt that a threat had been made against him, and more especially his food, AFTER negative interactions between himself and a member of the cabin crew AND his FOs and a/some member(s) of the cabin crew. Therefore, he felt it was within his authority to descend and land in MIA to relieve the crew member. I believe THAT DECISION is the ONLY THING being questioned by the company and the reason that, based on previous negative interactions with the company (that have NOTHING TO DO WITH EVENTS LIKE THIS), this pilot was seen as a "soft target" for a psych interview. Because this issue is NOT covered by the CBA, the union has little or no recourse against the company seeking this outcome, which is why the Captain is complying with their wishes...albeit possibly unwillingly.

Funny how the company had never had a problem with this pilot until a few months before the recent lawsuit against ALPA, when he was supposedly seen posting a notice about another person who was engaged in ANTI-UNION activity. I have no details on that issue, but do know it happened.

That's it. I have said as much, if not more, than I should, but only because SOME PEOPLE on this Forum are quick to condemn a 20+ year experience professional aviator because a hysterical Flight Attendant (with no appreciation for what it takes to become a widebody Captain at a major airline) seems to think he has a problem. Amusing that the person with the biggest problem I have seen in this incident is BoF!!!

Good luck, and tailwinds, to us all.

[SaturnV]

cityfan,

One point and one question. You assert that there were past instances of cabin crew poisoning the food of flying crew, and imply this occurred at UAL. I presume that if such did occur, the perpetrators were arrested and tried in court.

The question: Under UAL's CBA, if the Captain were to retire (or be retired) because of disability, would his pension be greater than if he retired simply because of age?

[stilton]

Very well said CityFan.


I have seen numerous examples of these senior dinosaur f/a's with this entitlement mentality and the attitude they are accountable to no one.


We have suspected the 'visine' trick at my airline but, to my knowledge it has never been proved.



My sympathies remain with the Captain who acted completely within his rights as the ultimate authority on the Aircraft.



I hope he can return to the line soon, unfortunately, as disgraceful as it is he will be a 'marked man' to many of these f/a's.

[cityfan]

Did you say "pension?" We are talking about United Airlines, right?

[SaturnV]

cityfan, as you know, United's defined benefit pension plans are now the responsibility of the Federal government (Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp), and are administered by the government. I believe the PBGC does provide a higher pension payment for disability-related retirements, even if someone retired on disability after UAL's ownership of the plan ended in 2005. I also believe the PBGC honors the general terms and conditions of plans it administers as were in effect at the time that PBGC assumes ownership from the corporation terminating its plan. I assume this captain is but one of the thousands of UAL pilots whose defined benefit pension became the responsibility of the PBGC in 2005.

[WhatsaLizad?]

SaturnV,

Perhaps a little clarification is in order for the lurkers to understand what you posted.

While it is true that the US goverment backed PBGC does guarantee the UAL pensions, it does so at a much reduced rate. While I don't know the post Age 65 retirement benefit, the Age 60 benefit maximum for retiree is around $2500 US per month.

I don't know the original pre-bankruptcy numbers, but it's safe to say the UAL pilot retirement was $10,000/mth or greater.

Ask the divorced UAL retiree how things are going on their $1250 month US.

[based on facts]

City Fan: while you profess to "be in the know..." here are afew facts, you neglected to state: 1) the captain in question was ORDERED into Anger Management Therapy. 2) ALPA has contacted the Purser 3 different times, through 3 different means (AFA EAP, her Inflight supervisor and people at OSAP) for a "Mediated Conflict Resolution Meeting" with the Capt. She said, "absolutely not...HE had the conflict...not she." Is he a "marked man?" You bet...with PILOTS and Flight Attendants alike. Had the captain acted like a leader and utilized a token of our CLR program...NONE is this incident would have happened. He, as the captain should have utilized CLR and he opted not to. FYI: authority comes with the uniform.... Respect is earned...period.

[martinmax69]

Don't feed him

[based on facts]

Another point "City Fan"...the minute this captain opted to land an international flight after dispatch denied his request to do so...took this situation way beyond "professional standards." IF there was a "safety concern" he would have landed this aircraft way before 7 hours into this flight. The First Class Galley F/A heard, him tell the Immigration Officers that he "didn't get his crew decs when he asked for them. Should there be an evacuation psgrs. wouldn't know who to listen to and that was a safety concern." Even the MOST hardened capt. advocates, have to admit that's a VERY weak reason for the action he took. City Fan, your sign olff was"...tails winds... You CERTAINLY have wind coming out of your tail. 'nuf said

[korrol]

"Visining": Deliberate Adulteration of Flight Deck Food?

Some clarification please: As someone who flies mostly as SLF these days I'd never heard of "visining" until I read this thread so may I just check that I've got it right?

As I now understand it, a malcontent member of the cabin crew deliberately pours Pfizer "Visine" eyedrops (as used by flight attendants who wear contact lenses) into food being prepared for the Captain. The captain consequently suffers from stomach cramps and diahorrea - but has no way of proving that his food has been - there's no other word for it - poisoned

If this is true it's absolutely outrageous and, it goes without saying, extremely dangerous. Is this common? Does it happen on many airlines? What on earth are these lunatics playing at?

[A Comfy Chair]

Another point "City Fan"...the minute this captain opted to land an international flight after dispatch denied his request to do so...took this situation way beyond "professional standards." IF there was a "safety concern" he would have landed this aircraft way before 7 hours into this flight.

I hope that you aren't a crewmember. The decision to land the aircraft at other than the destination is ENTIRELY at the captains perogative - it has NOTHING to do with dispatch approving or denying a request! They can certainly be consulted for input in some decision making processes, but have no more influence than that.

How do you know the "safety concern" started earlier? The threat, or safety issue, may well have arisen far later into the flight. To take the "visining" example: If I were a crewmember that was told that someone had poisoned (or threatened to poison) my (or another crewmembers) meal, I can see no alternative but to land the aircraft at the nearest practical airport. The sky is no place to be when potentially affected by any form of toxin.

Korrol - I've heard of it apparently happening, but never seen it in action. I would hope that cabin crew are smart enough to not incapacitate a pilot, but I guess it would be hard to ever really know.