Basically this is about the firing of 13 flight attendants over a perceived security concern.
Both sides have valid arguments, but not the smartest response by UA management. You may read into other motives   

Maybe United should clean its planes more often   

http://ww1.hdnux.com/photos/34/04/61/7359560/9/920x920.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/business/netwo...ane-s-disturbing-image-6000368.php

United felt that a check of the engine compartment was warranted, so the fear of foul play was not unjustifed. Being that the engine compartment is not the only place where something could be placed, they should have done a full security sweep. If a bomb threat had been called in for that flight and it mentioned the engines would United have just checked the engines and said ok no bomb in the engines must be a hoax. No they would have security sweeped the whole plane.

slow news day or just the regular UA bashing?

It's in their contract; no fly - fired. This has to be more politically motivated than we are getting to read. SFO-HKG is a super senior trip and a lot of 40+ yr s/UA vets on that trip. Perhaps an excuse for early out and settle out of court?

Quoting kl911 (Reply 2): slow news day or just the regular UA bashing?

Did you read the articles? UA would've been prudent to do a sweep and I find it interesting that law enforcement wasn't involved. If they had been and seen no reason for a sweep, that would be against the FA's. I suspect they were not brought into the loop.

Quoting fxramper (Reply 3): This has to be more politically motivated than we are getting to read. SFO-HKG is a super senior trip and a lot of 40+ yr s/UA vets on that trip. Perhaps an excuse for early out and settle out of court?

By 13 F/A's who were pseudo-randomly assembled in a group by the central scheduling department? All of a sudden?

Unlikely.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5): By 13 F/A's who were pseudo-randomly assembled in a group by the central scheduling department? All of a sudden?

That's not really how a bid process works.

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 6): Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5): By 13 F/A's who were pseudo-randomly assembled in a group by the central scheduling department? All of a sudden? That's not really how a bid process works.

Even if this was a trip that these particular flight attendants bid, wanted and received, UA has thousands of flight attendants. Why these 13 on a random day? That doesn't seem likely. If it was just one of them that in the end refused to fly..... that seems much more likely. 13? Something isn't right especially on a senior/well liked longhaul.

13 with SFO base that were senior enough to bid the trip? I was going off the info that it was a senior only for the most part trip. I bet some of them knew each other.

Quoting olympic472 (Thread starter): Both sides have valid arguments, but not the smartest response by UA management.

UA management will be UA management  

Quoting jerseyguy (Reply 1): United felt that a check of the engine compartment was warranted, so the fear of foul play was not unjustifed. Being that the engine compartment is not the only place where something could be placed, they should have done a full security sweep. If a bomb threat had been called in for that flight and it mentioned the engines would United have just checked the engines and said ok no bomb in the engines must be a hoax. No they would have security sweeped the whole plane.

  

I can't blame anybody who would not want to fly on a plane with that 'Bye Bye' message on it given how such an expression is often correlated with a bomb or explosion. Planes get diverted and flights get delayed for much more silly reasons than a message that could be interpreted as a bomb threat so good on the crew for spotting this and looking after their interests regardless of the intent of the message / drawing...

Quoting fxramper (Reply 3): This has to be more politically motivated than we are getting to read. SFO-HKG is a super senior trip and a lot of 40+ yr s/UA vets on that trip. Perhaps an excuse for early out and settle out of court?

Smells like it doesn't it.

I don't want to start anything but when I saw the headline I thought to myself I bet they fired 13 sUA F/As. I clicked on the article and sure enough my suspicions were correct. By the time UA finally gets to the F/A contract...UA will finally get the sCO workrules they want because there won't be any sUA F/As left to vote on it. Looks like AAluminum lady works for UA now and she is smoking them out!

All joking aside...from reading the article UA did all checks and deem it was safe to fly. The F/A should have flown. I did think the photo was funny. Really the only person that could have drawn that was someone from the ramp. I'm sure they meant no harm or foul...but these 13 F/As really did go bye bye.

A side note that it will be 30 years this April when Pan Am sold the Pacific routes to United.

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 11): .from reading the article UA did all checks and deem it was safe to fly.

From reading the article I got a different impression:


""Maintenance inspectors finished searching the engine compartment around 2:30 p.m. and found nothing suspicious, but did not investigate other portions of the plane, the complaint says."

"United’s SFO inflight supervisor, Virginia Coronado, came aboard and urged the flight attendants to trust the captain’s decision, but some said the only way to make sure the plane was safe was to conduct a complete security sweep. The Federal Aviation Administration requires airlines to deplane passengers and conduct such a search “in the face of a specific and credible threat to the security of the flight,” the complaint says.""


So I guess the FAs decided to interpret the message as a "specific and credible threat to the security of the flight" and hence were not going to be satisfied with anything less than a complete securtiy sweep. Anyway, let's see what happens...

Quoting jerseyguy (Reply 1): United felt that a check of the engine compartment was warranted, so the fear of foul play was not unjustifed. Being that the engine compartment is not the only place where something could be placed, they should have done a full security sweep. If a bomb threat had been called in for that flight and it mentioned the engines would United have just checked the engines and said ok no bomb in the engines must be a hoax. No they would have security sweeped the whole plane.

First of all a full security sweep of the aircraft was done prior to the FA's boarding the flight. I'm not at liberty to go into specific details about UA security but know this all aircraft are security swept before the first flight of the day and all aircraft operating international flights are security swept before anything is boarded on that plane this includes all international flights from the U.S. and flights to the U.S.. There then is a form that must be filled out on the computer and it is sent to at the hubs (station security officer and station operations center) at line stations (the station manager and operations center) also corporate security at Willis Tower receive a copy of the form. No flight can be dispatch without this form being fill out. When security concerns are raised there are procedures in place to deal with those concerns and there are instances where it is necessary to deplane the entire aircraft and conduct the full security sweep all over again.

Now I don't think UA should have fired the FA's but one thing I do know is everyone including UA pilots take security very serious but once the pilots signed off and said they were good and the plane was secure that should have ended the discussion but what you had was FA's trying to flex their muscle and force the aircraft to be deplaned even though all the security concerns add been address in accordance with DOT, FAA rules and UA policy and the pilots were ok with the additional security sweep.

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 8): 13 with SFO base that were senior enough to bid the trip? I was going off the info that it was a senior only for the most part trip. I bet some of them knew each other.

I think most of them are HKG-based not SFO...

Quoting USFlyer MSP (Reply 15): I think most of them are HKG-based not SFO...

Then they would definitely know each other.

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 11): Really the only person that could have drawn that was someone from the ramp. I'm sure they meant no harm or foul

You have decided it was a joke. Based on what? Messages like that sound like a threat from a disgruntled worker, possibly an angry Continental employee. You do not write threatening messages as a joke on an airplane.

Quoting USFlyer MSP (Reply 15): I think most of them are HKG-based not SFO...

The article states only one FA was from the Bay Area. The others were from HKG and other points in Asia.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 14): Now I don't think UA should have fired the FA's but one thing I do know is everyone including UA pilots take security very serious but once the pilots signed off and said they were good and the plane was secure that should have ended the discussion but what you had was FA's trying to flex their muscle and force the aircraft to be deplaned even though all the security concerns add been address in accordance with DOT, FAA rules and UA policy and the pilots were ok with the additional security sweep.

It seems fairly cut and dry to me. The security check was done and the captain signed off on it. The FAs should have flown. I can't believe a senior United 744 captain would have signed off on an aircraft if he didn't have confidence it was completely secure, so I'm not sure what the F/As were concerned about.

Captain is the captain. If "bye bye" becomes a statement that can't be said at an airport because it is indicative of a credible threat that will be a sad day.

I would imagine that unless they can prove the airline had deficient procedures for evaluating the risk and proving safety here, that they're screwed.

It is one thing to raise a safety concern, and quite another to demand they evaluate it based on your own rulebook... so the question becomes whether the UA rulebook passes 3rd party muster. There's certainly no guarantee that all employees must feel safe regardless of cause.

[Edited 2015-01-07 21:38:35]

SMS principles say that anyone can stop the operation at any time, for any reason. "Accepting what the captain says" Is not always an acceptable answer.

I hope the FAs win. It should be part of modern safety culture that anybody can stop the process, if he sees a safety concern. Considering the location of the "drawing" it is logical that it could not have been a random ramp worker, it needed to be a person who probably had access to the whole plane. So I can not see why searching the engine compartment is enough.

If the pilots would have seen it as a joke from the maintenance section from the start, I would understand UA´s position, but the pilots also seemed to see a security risk.

Quoting EnviroTO (Reply 19): If "bye bye" becomes a statement that can't be said at an airport because it is indicative of a credible threat that will be a sad day.

What on Earth are you talking about?

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 23): What on Earth are you talking about?

Just some bored maintenance staff wrote 'bye bye' in the black soot of the engine cowling and these flight attendants became hysterical, I would have fired them too if I were United. This exactly shows what terrorists in New York and Paris have won, we can't just see a drawing like that lightheartedly.

I refused to get on a bus this morning because someone had written wash me. The bus captain drove off.

The captain is in charge for a reason. He takes the final decision. Not a flight attendant. Otherwise flights would ground to a halt.

"Because the captain says so" sounds like 30 years of Crew Resource Management (CRM) training down the drain.

And wasn't it United Airlines that spearheaded CRM after Flight 173?

Law Enforcement should have been involved after the threat was detected. Period.

Quoting fxramper (Reply 3): This has to be more politically motivated than we are getting to read. SFO-HKG is a super senior trip and a lot of 40+ yr s/UA vets on that trip

Wait.... What ?? You mean that as a FA @ UA, you need to have a +++++ seniority to be on a given flight? Is that a joke?
The logic would be that younger people should be affected to long haul flights granted that these are the most demanding ones... Talking about safety and security, there's something I don't get here.   

Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 24): Just some bored maintenance staff wrote 'bye bye' in the black soot of the engine cowling and these flight attendants became hysterical, I would have fired them too if I were United.

So they think their life is in danger, and refuse to get on a particular aircraft... and that means they should be sacked? Charming.

Quoting bestwestern (Reply 25): The captain is in charge for a reason. He takes the final decision. Not a flight attendant. Otherwise flights would ground to a halt.

Wow.

This response sums up this one perfectly...

Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 26): "Because the captain says so" sounds like 30 years of Crew Resource Management (CRM) training down the drain.

  

Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 24): Just some bored maintenance staff wrote 'bye bye' in the black soot of the engine cowling and these flight attendants became hysterical, I would have fired them too if I were United. This exactly shows what terrorists in New York and Paris have won, we can't just see a drawing like that lightheartedly.

Totally agree here.. The aim of terrorism was to desorganize the western freedom, and create fear amongst us... When I read this, I sadly believe they have won already

So to the people who don't believe the captain is In charge, who is? The junior on 4L?

Someone has to take a decision. The captain did.

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 17): You do not write threatening messages as a joke on an airplane.

Really?? May I ask you why?

Quoting bestwestern (Reply 30): So to the people who don't believe the captain is In charge, who is? The junior on 4L?  Someone has to take a decision. The captain did.

In the face of a perceived threat, unless a split-second action needs to be taken to avert immediate disaster, time is on your side. In this instance, a plane sitting at a gate with a considerable threat has all available resources to de-bunk the threat. And that apparently wasn't done because there "wasn't enough time". They checked the APU compartment because a threat just happened to be smeared over it, without letting Law Enforcement do what they have been trained to do across the entire plane? That just sounds asinine, and amateur.

There have been far too many aviation (and other industry) disasters because "there wasn't enough time". This easily could have been one of them.

And what if it had?

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 9): I can't blame anybody who would not want to fly on a plane with that 'Bye Bye' message on it given how such an expression is often correlated with a bomb or explosion.

In Hollywood movies, maybe. Has it ever been used that way in real life?

And "often"???? Even including usage in the movies, it must have that correlation less than 0.00000001% of the time.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 13): The Federal Aviation Administration requires airlines to deplane passengers and conduct such a search “in the face of a specific and credible threat to the security of the flight,” the complaint says.""

I see two faces and good wishes. No specific or credible threat.

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 17): You do not write threatening messages as a joke on an airplane.

True. But I see no threatening message here.

Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 26): Law Enforcement should have been involved after the threat was detected. Period.

What threat, exactly?

Quoting EnviroTO (Reply 19): If "bye bye" becomes a statement that can't be said at an airport because it is indicative of a credible threat that will be a sad day.

  

Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 24): This exactly shows what terrorists in New York and Paris have won, we can't just see a drawing like that lightheartedly.

  

Quoting airproxx (Reply 29): Totally agree here.. The aim of terrorism was to desorganize the western freedom, and create fear amongst us... When I read this, I sadly believe they have won already

  

Have we really all become so hysterical that all those terrorists can forget trying to smuggle bombs on board and instead resort to just writing "bye bye" to create chaos?

oh my, I always had a high opinion of United but after this image of the tail I am not impressed!

Quoting seahawk (Reply 22): I hope the FAs win. It should be part of modern safety culture that anybody can stop the process, if he sees a safety concern. Considering the location of the "drawing" it is logical that it could not have been a random ramp worker, it needed to be a person who probably had access to the whole plane. So I can not see why searching the engine compartment is enough. If the pilots would have seen it as a joke from the maintenance section from the start, I would understand UA´s position, but the pilots also seemed to see a security risk.

The process was stopped the flight was delayed an hour because the pilot requested a security sweep be done. More than just that one compartment was inspected again people with knowledge of what those additional security procedures are can not go into details on this website just like UA is not free to go into details with the media but the process was stopped and an additional security check was done in full compliance with DOT, and FAA rules and guidelines. After the additional sweep was done the pilots signed off and were willing to take the plane. Once UA has met the guidelines set forth by the DOT and FAA and once UA has addressed the security concerns of the pilots,and you combine that with the fact that a full security sweep was done prior to anything being boarded on that plane, and it has been determined there was no threat to the safety of the plane, passengers or crew there was no need at that point to deplane the aircraft.

While I do believe UA went to far in firing these FA's once this case goes to trial the FA's will loose because because UA will demonstrate that they followed the law and the pilots willingness to take the plane after the additional sweep was done will be used against the FA's. Once the pilots said ok we are good to go that should have been go enough for the FA's because their is no pilot willing to fly an aircraft where he or she is not completely satisfied with the security sweep.

The article says engine compartment only. If a full sweep was done it is a different case.

I doubt that if someone had planted a device, that they would draw pictures on the tail.

Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 24): Just some bored maintenance staff wrote 'bye bye' i

How do you know? Without any context, someone coming across this would see it as a threat. It would have been seen as a threat in the 1960's and 70's no different from today. The FA's may have been wrong to refuse to fly after what the airline called proper security checks, but lets not pretend and assume everyone knows this was a harmless joke taken the wrong way.

Bomb or no bomb the FAs's careers are over. Just sayin'.

Quoting airproxx (Reply 27): Wait.... What ?? You mean that as a FA @ UA, you need to have a +++++ seniority to be on a given flight? Is that a joke?

Board any United flight that goes between continents (or an American flight, or a Delta flight, or a US Airways flight) and you'll see it's most assuredly NOT a joke. FAs in the US bid for assignments based on seniority, which is why the most premiere routes to overseas destinations rarely have crews with less than 25 years' experience anymore. Sometimes those senior crews can be fantastic (many were trained during the "golden days" of the 1960s and 1970s), but more often they can be tired, disinterested and sometimes downright nasty, which is how UA/AA/etc. have acquired such a poor reputation for inflight service overseas.

This sounds like a purser who got the rest of the crew riled up into what they assumed was a legitimate reaction that the airline would take their corner on. 9/11 rattled flight attendants harder than just about any other workgroup. I've had more than one tell me that the job was never the same again after that day. Any whiff of a security issue really does seem to prompt many flight attendants to simply shut down, as we saw here.

I'm with United on this one, but I suppose I can understand the mindset of the cabin crew.

This is just surreal. I could (albeit with a stretch of imagination) understand the fear if it was written on a gear door or some other easy accessible area. Like this little scary horrific drawing here:

View Large View Medium

Photo © Matthias Geiger
God knows how the captain or FO had the balls to push that throttle forward to take off, knowing that someone had drawn this on their aircraft...

Or this one:

View Large View Medium

Photo © Erwin van Dijck

...which has AZ written on it. It could be written by a fan of Dutch soccer club AZ Alkmaar. It could be the spooky abbreviation of some threatening text. Let's go with option #2. Scary stuff!

In all seriousness, in this UA case it's sad to see logical thinking being tossed out the window that easily by the FA's (...although I can imagine that when the captain told the purser "to not talk to the others about the security issue because it could scare them", he might have dropped an involuntary bomb on the whole situation himself).

It's logical (and extremely precautionary yet understandable) thinking that the FO used by requesting an inspection and removal of the image, and thus afterwards felt assured of the safety of the crew and 300+ passengers. Logical thinking that the captain used (reinforced by consulting the airline management and/or maintenance records) by suggesting that the graffiti was done by mechanics in South-Korea, and thus felt assured of the safety of the crew and 300+ passengers. Logical thinking by the management for having looked into the matter and decide that the aircraft was good to go and feel assured of the crew and 300+ passengers to their destination. If the crew still refused to go and disregarded all those factors, I can completely understand this firing. How harsh it may seem.

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 38): How do you know? Without any context, someone coming across this would see it as a threat. It would have been seen as a threat in the 1960's and 70's no different from today. The FA's may have been wrong to refuse to fly after what the airline called proper security checks, but lets not pretend and assume everyone knows this was a harmless joke taken the wrong way.

I'm not sure if "without any context" can apply to this case. You have the location of this image that is only accessible by MX. Either they towed the aircraft to a hanger with a tail dock, drove a maintenance dock on wheels under it, or worse, send some poor souls 30 feet up in the air in a dodgy scissor lift. You have the visual hints of clean APU doors and surrounding areas that tell that a MX task has recently been performed on or near that APU. You have a captain, FO mechanics, airline manager that are capable of understanding those hints. And you have the maintenance books that can tell you exactly when something was done, what was done, and where it was done. Which might very well be the reason that the captain first showed concerns, but later suggested to the crew that it probably was a one-off joke done by mechanics in South-Korea.

These FA's will take this case to court and have their jobs back or a HUGE settlement within 6 months. Regardless of contract you cant force someone to work when they feel it is unsafe, or in this case, they feel their lives are at stake. Its illegal.

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 17): Messages like that sound like a threat from a disgruntled worker, possibly an angry Continental employee.

And you base this on what proof ? Pot, kettle, black.

Quoting joperrin89 (Reply 42): These FA's will take this case to court and have their jobs back or a HUGE settlement within 6 months. Regardless of contract you cant force someone to work when they feel it is unsafe, or in this case, they feel their lives are at stake. Its illegal.

So are you saying that anyone with a feeling is allowed to cost an airline (or any company) $100s of thousands of dollars, not to mention the incalculable inconvenience and cost to the passengers? If I cost my company even a fraction of this expense, I would be fired on the spot too.

Reading between JayUnited's lines (based on his knowledge of flight dispatch procedure), it's pretty clear the flight crew addressed the concerns of the cabin crew, deemed this a non issue, and yet the crew still didn't operate the flight. The irony is the picture now fits the situation, Bye Bye FAs.

This is ridiculous and I'm in complete disbelief that anyone can justify this behaviour.

Quoting joperrin89 (Reply 42): These FA's will take this case to court and have their jobs back or a HUGE settlement within 6 months. Regardless of contract you cant force someone to work when they feel it is unsafe, or in this case, they feel their lives are at stake. Its illegal.

Yeah, let's open up that giant can of worms. FA's can then just go: "Well, sorry captain, you say that maintenance fixed the engine problem, but we're not having it... we ain't goin' nowhere. Tell management to send over another aircraft please."

It's the captain's decision whether it is safe or not. And in this case the captain assured them that there was no threat anymore. No captain is going to take a gamble and endanger the lives of 300 passengers on his jet, including his own.

Quoting joperrin89 (Reply 42): These FA's will take this case to court and have their jobs back or a HUGE settlement within 6 months. Regardless of contract you cant force someone to work when they feel it is unsafe, or in this case, they feel their lives are at stake. Its illegal.

   United is going to have a hard time winning this. The flight attendants will all win and be very well compensated and be returned to work. When the airline world comes to a complete dead halt when some joker pulls something stupid and can cause the the shut down and total evacuation of an airport, this incident will be very expensive for United. The biggest winner will be the lawyers who will be laughing their way to the bank.   

If the FO really called this a "disturbing image" and the captain told the pursers not to tell the whole crew the reason so not to scare them and if this is true:

“Captain Bowman replied, 'I’m with you,’ and said that he also was 'uncomfortable,’ but added that he was awaiting a decision from 'those guys,’ presumably meaning Airline management, regarding whether to proceed with the flight,” the complaint says.

I would say the pilots handled it very badly.

Quoting kl911 (Reply 2): slow news day or just the regular UA bashing?

I read the article. I am not in the aviation business. It seems many of you are responding from the perspective of the aviation professional who knows procedures and such. If this goes to a trial by jury, which it should, I think UA is screwed. We live in a time when airborne flights are interrupted and make emergency landings because a passenger throws water at another passenger. We have to remove our shoes and scan them prior to boarding a flight. Cockpit doors are now reinforced and locked at all times. There is little place for doubt or comedy related to airline safety. The fact that it's 13 and not one or two makes the case even more decisive. What jury, or judge, is going to make a ruling that says that flight attendants, who are in place for SAFETY rather than service, are not allowed to bring forth security concerns. I think that UA is getting lots of very negative publicity and that they would be wise to rethink their position.
FLY2LIM

Quoting kl911 (Reply 2): slow news day or just the regular UA bashing?

Quoting fxramper (Reply 3): It's in their contract; no fly - fired. This has to be more politically motivated than we are getting to read. SFO-HKG is a super senior trip and a lot of 40+ yr s/UA vets on that trip. Perhaps an excuse for early out and settle out of court?

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 4): Did you read the articles? UA would've been prudent to do a sweep and I find it interesting that law enforcement wasn't involved. If they had been and seen no reason for a sweep, that would be against the FA's. I suspect they were not brought into the loop.

I read the articles and found that there has to be more to the story than was reported. Obviously with no comment from UA due to liability issues here, were TSA involved or the DHS called in to inspect the aircraft? I doubt this is the story and it doesn't really ring true.

I am definatly a UA basher for good reasons I have posted on these boards before but I will defend UA in this respect that there is no story here if the authorities were not alerted.

I am on holidays so I can waste my time responding to these silly articles written by some online pseudo news organization's reporter trying to put out drivel that passes as news to make her quota of stupid articles.