|Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 20):|
I have no reason to believe that they were innocent little angels, but I have no reason to believe that they weren't legitimately concerned. Having said that, I don't really care either. I'm more concerned with the broader implication that if someone has what they believe to be a legitimate reason to feel unsafe to board an airplane, then there should at a minimum be an opportunity for them to make their case before being terminated - not that they should get a free pass.
I have someone close who's a flight attendant and has been for decades. She has had a number of occasions where what she deemed unsafe was different than what the airline or pilot deemed unsafe, and they usually over-ruled her. After going through a few nasty cabin decompressions and other questionable (to her) stuff (I'm keeping it very generic), she has on at least one occasion refused to fly, forcing them to bring in a new crew. She wasn't fired - she was, of course, investigated and probably admonished, but isn't that why you have unions - to protect you when you feel you are being put at risk?
Okay lets start by setting the record straight. After the graffiti was discovered and the pilots informed the FA
's and station management the aircraft was reinspected. As a matter of fact all UA
aircraft have a security inspection done before the first flight of the day and for any aircraft operating internationally an inspection is required before each and every departure. Whether the aircraft if operating to the U.S. or leaving the U.S. There are several layers of security and multiple departments conducting security inspections all of which must be documented in the computer prior to departure or else the security system UA
has in place will prevent final weights from being sent to the crew. You can not fake an inspection because there are video cameras everywhere recording your every move. These inspection are required by the FAA so any employee who would be stupid enough to claim they did a security inspection but never did not only faces termination but could be prosecuted by the federal government for falsifying a required FAA document.
The reason the FA
's were fired was because they were not satisfied with the re-inspection that was done after the graffiti was brought to the attention of the pilots and station management. The FA
's wanted to have the aircraft de-planed and have a security search done again in the cabin after going over the security measure UA
has in place the pilot overrode the FA
's request because (A) a security search of the cabin had already been done . (B) The area where the graffiti was found was was searched. (C) The graffiti was drawn on the aircraft in ICN
and after reviewing the video tape of the incident in ICN
it was clear this was just graffiti and ramp level personal never boarded the aircraft or entered after the cabin after the cabin security search was done in ICN
So to review you had a cabin security search done in ICN
, a cabin security search done at SFO
, multiple layers of exterior security searches done. A second exterior security search done plus a search of the effect compartment at the request of the pilot. The pilot in command said a second security search of the cabin wasn't necessary and was satisfied with the searches that had been accomplished and was ready to take the plane but the FA
's decided all of this was not enough and demanded a second search of the aircraft cabin be done which would mean deplaning all passenger and according to UA
would have resulted in the cancelation of the flight because the flight crew would have been illegal.
This argument people are trying to make that somehow UA
did not address the FA
's security concerns is a load of crap. UA
addressed the security issue and once those issues were addressed and cleared their attention turned to getting their customers to HKG
's were determined to have the cabin cleared when there was no need to take a 365 passengers off a plane. So when they refused to fly after secondary searches were done and the pilot signed off and was willing to take the plane they then were charged with insubordination. Knowing the many layers of security UA
is required to do by law and knowing that all those security measures must be documented prior to departure I don't think these FA
's stand a chance in a court of law of getting the jobs back. It is unfortunate and I feel for these FA
's but they should have known that UA
would never risk their safety or the safety and lives of 365 customers, another reason why I think UA
is fighting this lawsuit because UA
wants their customers to know that UA
takes safety and security seriously and any notion that UA
somehow does not take it seriously if categorically false. So while UA
's reputation in other areas maybe tarnished UA
will fight to preserve its reputation that it runs a safe and secure operation.