During pre-flight preparations at SFO last July, United employees discovered a disturbing image drawn on the tail of the aircraft near the access panel to one of the gas turbine engines. The image showed two faces, one of which could be interpreted as threatening, and the words "BYE BYE".
Fearing a possible bomb, the Captain opted to hold the flight because of security concerns and passengers, who had not yet boarded, were told the flight was delayed for maintenance reasons. Maintenance inspectors inspected the engine compartment and found nothing suspicious. They did not inspect the rest of the plane. The Captain, suspecting that the drawing was just a bit of ground crew graffiti, deemed the aircraft safe to fly and ordered the passengers boarded.
However, the flight attendants did not agree. They felt that the only way to ensure complete safety was to conduct a full security sweep of the aircraft. They refused a direct order from the United SFO inflight supervisor to return to work, which constituted grounds for dismissal under United rules. Thirteen flight attendants were terminated and the flight was canceled because of crew availability. The attendants have filed a federal whistle-blower complaint with the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration and are considering a lawsuit for wrongful termination.
This incident makes an excellent case study for decision makers. On the one hand, you have a genuine concern for passenger safety demonstrated by the flight attendants. On the other hand, you have United managers using risk analysis as the basis for deciding that a threat was not credible. Or you could describe it as an irrational fear for their own lives by the attendants versus corporate employees placing profits above safety. It all depends on your perspective.
This is what makes this such an great case study. We are taught that safety is always our first priority but the reality is that we can not guarantee complete safety and that safety comes at a cost. We are frequently in a position where we have to weigh that cost against other factors such as the credibility of the threat, expense, and public inconvenience. That sometimes means accepting a certain amount of risk.
Imagine yourself the person that had to make the decision as to whether or not to cancel this flight and conduct a full security sweep. What would have been your recommendation?
Comments