Can Someone Please Verify This For Me?

[Colby]

A friend of mine just called and was telling me that he heard that an Agent allowed a non-rev to non-rev in the LAV... Then, the whole crew ended up being fired for allowing this.

Is this true or another of many typical F/A B.S stories ?? Please could someone verify this !!!

 

[Twicebaked]

Still not sure if it is true, but this is what I heard.

It was a Boston crew and the "non-rev" was a 34 year flight attendant.
One of the flight attendants ratted out when they had agreed to allow this to happen.
Although it is a saftey violation, they should not have ratted his own crew out. They should have said NO in the fisrt place.

Again, I am not sure if it is true, but that is what I heard on the subject.

 

[USAirBoyA330]

100% true. I know serveral people on the crew. I don't think I should discuss the details however, it is true.

 

[Twicebaked]

100% true. I know serveral people on the crew. I don't think I should discuss the details however, it is true.

Why not?....
Although I do respect you for keeping their names out of it, the correct details would halt the "rumors" about what happened. If people know they might as well know the truth. Maybe????

 

[oldiebutgoody]

100% true. I know serveral people on the crew. I don't think I should discuss the details however, it is true.

Did the crew get fired? How about the front end crew? Did they know about it?

 

[USAirBoyA330]

All I can say is from what I was told....

It was about 2 weeks ago and a NON-REV F/A stowed away in the LAV. She was NOT even going to work and had some backup flights. A male F/A later went and ratted the whole crew out. All were fired and the one that told on them is suspended indefinitely.
I think that's all everyone needs to know. I don't agree with this crews actions and the days of hiding in the LAVS ended in the 70's.

 

[PITbull]

It shows how desperate the crew members are to just get home. If they get stuck anywhere, they can't afford hotel expenses, where before the p/cuts we could.


I feel very terrrible about this situation. I strongly believe that not all crew members should be terminated just because they did not want to "rat" on their collegue. They should have been given a suspension without pay, instead. To terminate them was a discipline that was way too punitive. I know I would not have ratted on anyone. However, I do not believe the f/a who chose to break the FAA, should have used that judgement and jeopardized her collegues by doing so.

Union will fight to get their jobs back, you can take that to the bank!

 

[Colby]

Thanks for the info. I Seriously didn't believe what I was hearing...Especially these days.

Did anything happen to the Non-Rev?

There is no reason to Jeapordize an entire crew this way!!!!


Thanks Again.

 

[ClueByFour]

Anybody who knew about it and did not stop it or come forward should be terminated. Post haste.

The traveling public is constantly reminded that FAs are "here primarily for your safety." I don't have the FAR immediately at hand, but I'm pretty sure that intentionally riding the lav has to violate a FAR of some sort. I'm also quite sure that if the hitchhiker was not listed on the manifest that a FAR violation occurred.

I disagree with PITBull on this one. Allowing something like this to happen simply undermines the credibility of the cabin crew when it comes to flight safety. Every single one of the crew who were aware of the situation should have come forward.

The gate agent who allowed it to happen needs to be terminated, as well. If either of the cockpit crewmembers were aware of the situation, they need to go as well.

The stowaway should be prosecuted, in addition to all of this.

 

[ACrazy8]

I wonder if the company will recall any invol. furloughed F/A's to replace those who retired in OCT. (9) and this crew & nonrev (5) who are no longer employed? Maybe a small class of 15 or 20? Hmmmmm. Perhaps not.


This place is out of control...... -_-

 

[Kev3188]

Several years ago, when I worked at YV, this same scenario occured (only on a Dash-8). All involved-both pilots,gate agent, non-rev, working F/A-were terminated. Not sure if any got their jobs back; I left for the "majors" while it was still going on........

 

[Twicebaked]

Union will fight to get their jobs back, you can take that to the bank!

Pitbull,
I am not sure if I can agree with you on that one.
They broke FAA safety regs. They should have been fired. I know you think it is extreme, but it was not an accident. They knew what they were doing. They should have known better. Although, the union should fight for certain issues, this might not be one of them. If it is fought...should the union win? I personally don't think so.
Rules are rules. The flight attendant should have NEVER put their fellow workers in the situation. They had the voice to say no, but they didn't.

 

[PITbull]

I can not give the particulars of the case.


But, I can tell you that their is severity of rules. Some are more servere and others are much more benign. Like traffic laws that have fines and suspension of liscense, or total revoking of liscense and jail terms.

For instance, if your manuel is not up to date with the latest revision, should you be terminated? That has a suspension tied to it, fining as well, but not termination.

Again, I disagree.

 

[Twicebaked]

I have to agree with clueby4. Had it been a civilian, they would be prosecuted. The same should happen to the non-rev flight attendant. If I were the FAA I would prosecute them. The company should turn them in. The union wanting to fight this one only shows to the company that we think we can do whatever we (as flight attendants) want and not have to pay the price.

We have to learn to pick our battles. This is NOT a battle to be fought. The union needs to stay focused on the real problems.

About the recalls, they are getting rid of more very soon. They won't replace them now.

 

[UFO]

If someone is "stowing away in the aircraft lavatory" it is most certainly a violation of both safety and procedures for the airline. Not only could they receive serious injury in the event of an aborted takeoff or emergency landing, but it could effect the weight and balance of the aircraft. The "A" flight attendant should never have allowed this to happen, and if the "A" was not aware of this then someone else was obviously aware and did not inform the rest of the crew. We have to draw the line on any situation that introduces safety risks to the passengers and crew regardless of how much we want to help someone travel (crew or passenger).