Can Someone Please Verify This For Me?

[oldiebutgoody]

I've read the above posts with a great deal of dismay, as many of the flight attendants on this crew are personal/professional friends of mine, with whom I've had the good fortune of flying with over the years, and from whom I've learned a tremendous amount in providing superior passenger service, compliance with FARs, and crew resource management.

Although the appropriate discipline for the infraction is at contention, and the circumstances of the flight are not particularly accurate as posted on this forum, please keep in mind that these flight attendants have years of exemplary service to US Airways and the customers that we serve. This was most definitely a "worst case scenario" in terms of poor judgement at the time a critical decision needed to be made. A "human" error made under a very unusual and stressful moment and set of circumstances.

I agree. As I said before, this points out a huge problem in the way UAIR closes out flights. Often, in their haste to get the door closed (5 minutes early, I might add), the process becomes a big melee. It's not unheard of to have the agent change the pax count two or three times before settling on one, usually AFTER being corrected by the F/As. It is NOT even a requirement for the F/As to count the pax, unless requested by the Captain, until after the door is shut and the plane is off the gate. I believe that this may be what happened, and since it was an employee that was being inconvenienced without a seat they made a poor decision to go anyway. It could also have been a paying pax, in which case I am sure that they would have gone back to the gate. Let me point out that I do not know anything about this situation other than what I have read here, so the circumstances may be different than I perceive.

 

[Light Years]

I have a couple of questions, please correct me if I missed it (I kind of scanned through the post)...

First of all, what was the aircraft type? Even if it was a 737-300, our smallest aircraft, there would still be an extra jumpseat- unless there are extra positions on the 73s again, which I doubt. So why didnt she sit there? Was it occupied? If so, did the jumpseater know what was going on?

Secondly, if she was in the lav I'm sure it wasnt the forward lav... so if she was in the back, how on earth would the B not have known until after takeoff? Is that why he's in trouble too- maybe they dont believe he didnt know what was going on?

 

[T-bone]

I feel I would have to take Pitbulls side to a large degree on this one. First there was no investigation, was there? Did all the crew know? Did peeps who had no idea get the axe? Was this the case of the company setting an example? It's common knowledge that this sort of thing has gone on for years, why terminate the entire crew now? So FAA reg's were violated. Not exactly a capitol offense here. In any "worse case senario" no one would have suffered extordinary harm due to an extra body in the lav, this includes weight and balance unless this chic weighed 400 lbs is wouldn't have made a differance.

Yes there should have been some sort of disciplinary action, possibly sever, but termination please, stop being so self rightious over this, and stop with the Faa reg trash. It was a plain stowaway f/a happens ever day get over it.

 

[Ch. 12]

Yes there should have been some sort of disciplinary action, possibly sever, but termination please, stop being so self rightious over this, and stop with the Faa reg trash. It was a plain stowaway f/a happens ever day get over it.

I've never had a fear of flying, T-Bone, but it's your complacency that makes me wonder exactly how many f/a's actually care about safety. Thanks for being such a great representative (of what is wrong). Looking forward to never flying with you.

The crew works as a team and therefore should be accountable (as a team) for any good or bad that happens on the flight within their control. This was a situation within the CREWS control and they let it happen. Doesn't matter how many knew about it...there are checks and balances. Doesn't anybody notice that the pax list shows more onboard than there are seats or js's?

 

[Colby]

Light Years... Good luck Getting an Answer.....I asked the same question about the Jumpseat a couple of days ago and still no reply. They seem to be too busy debating the FARs rather than answering what should be a simple question.

 

[tadjr]

Doesn't anybody notice that the pax list shows more onboard than there are seats or js's?

The crew onboard the plane does not get a list of passengers for the entire flight. They are told by the boarding agent (as is the cockpit) how many customers have boarded the flight. // Here is where a boarding pass reader would come in handy. We were testing a system in TPA, that wasnt very accurate I want to add, but it still was an attempt to count people as they got on the plane. We've since been told we're going in a different direction, whatever that means.// We used to "verify" the count with the crew, but more often than not, it wasnt the same, even with a couple of crew members counting, so that policy was abandoned regarding door closure.
It is very possible that somewhere along the line a ticket was not shown as boarded and the agents thought there was an open seat, but they should have checked this out. Also, even though the jetway might have been pulled, I thought the plane couldnt push until everyone was seated. They should have known at the gate that there wasnt a seat available and called for the jetway to be put back up delay or not. I dont know when they actually realized there wasnt a seat, but it should have been before push.

 

[phllax]

I chatted with the crew of my flight on Monday night about this and they said that there was already somebody in the spare jumpseat, and that the "B" FA was already back at work.

 

[Colby]

Thanks for the INFO......

 

[firstamendment]

Wow, I just disagree with the heavy handedness. The "rat" deserves his title if he also knew well in advance of this and failed to draw it to the A's attention or better yet the Capt. There is a big difference in a misscount causing an extra body on board and bladently sneeking someone on the plane. This was a huge mistake but you guys are acting like the poor person hijacked the airplane. If someone was sick and runs into the bathroom throwing up and the aircraft lands with that person in the bathroom, THAT is a violation, BUT you and I know that there ARE exceptions when peoples health or safety are involved and most wouldn't give a thought to that example. The same can be said for the sick pax getting up on the LGA-DCA when within the 30 min. limit.

In otherwords, how direct are we going to be as f/a's. Did the "rat" buckle in during taxi out? Was he reading any material on his jumpseat? Was he in his brace position on take-off? Did he follow every rule to the law while on the aircraft? What happened was wrong, but the situation did not put anyone on that aircraft in any danger anymore than the example of the sick pax in the lav on landing.

Suspension...yes.....termination...no

I hope the fellow who turned in the crew sleeps well knowing the airline industry is now much safer now that a stow a way employee in the locked, no doubt, lav has been caught and crew fired. I'd hate to be your significant other. :down:

 

[PITbull]

First Amendment,

That was exactly my point. You conveyed it so much better than I.

Thanks.

 

[Do_it_for_Dave]

US Airways Flight Attendant May Have Hidden on Plane, FAA Says

Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) -- A US Airways Group Inc. flight attendant who was off duty may have stowed away on an Oct. 13 flight, said the Federal Aviation Administration, which is investigating the incident as a possible violation of U.S. rules. "We could seek a federal penalty against the airline,'' said agency spokeswoman Alison Duquette in Washington. FAA rules require all passengers and crew members to have seats during flights and to have seat belts fastened during takeoffs and landings, she said. The attendant may have hidden in a bathroom for part of the flight, Duquette said.

Arlington, Virginia-based US Airways, which reported the incident to the agency, fired the off-duty attendant and two other attendants who were working during the Philadelphia-Boston flight, said company spokesman David Castelveter. A third attendant on duty during the flight was suspended, he said.

The airline and the FAA wouldn't identify the attendant suspected of stowing away. Castelveter also wouldn't give the names of the other attendants. The flight's attendants should have reported the off-duty worker's presence to the captain, and none apparently did so, Duquette said. "We view something like this to be a very serious matter'' and will cooperate with the U.S. agency, Castelveter said.

 

[Smoke and Mirrors]

This should send a strong message to all flight crew members that this is not acceptable behavior under any situation.

 

[Whatnow?]

This should send a strong message to all flight crew members that this is not acceptable behavior under any situation.

FYI....This situation is not common practice for F/A's. It obviously was a bad judgement call for all those involved and they are being dealt with accordingly. I wonder though, was the "stowaway" F/A a commuter on RSV? The company is on such a "witch hunt" now to capture F/A's out of base who are on duty...that I wonder if this played into their situation? Not that it matters, its still a violation of FAA rules....however, one wonders. I have heard that the company has hired an "outside firm" to track the commuters who are on duty....is this true? Also, could the implementation of the new RSV system before prefferential bidding, play in the companys' favor by showing that we have an excess of F/A's who are unable to work? I have 15 years as a F/A on RSV in PHW, and can't get a trip to save my life! Also, why would they offer vacation flyback on top of this RSV system.....c'mon give us a break! :angry:

 

[ClueByFour]

For the laymen here, what constitues "in base?"

In the airport? In the city? How long do you have to report for a flight?

 

[Whatnow?]

"in base" means where you are based.......as a reserve F/A you go on/off duty at 3PM.....in the city to which are are based. since the reserve system captures F/A's from the bottom most junior all the way up to about 24 years depending on which base you are in.....many of us have lives and families accross the country where we are originally from. So now, we have to make sure we are in base when we go on duty....even if we fly or not.