What you surmised is purely conjecture and there has not been anything of substance released by the crew or UAL...and won't be as stated earlier for a lot of reasons.

This train is at the end of the line and all passengers are asked to disembark. We might as well discuss the weather.

G'Day Mate

 

Thanks for the laugh.

 

Agreed about "last minute". It would take a very serious problem with a flight attendant for me to divert and dump her/him at an airport then takeoff again.

It could be a Captain Jacob Veldhuyzen van Zanten moment or a secret plot by Flight Attendants to commit mutiny (snicker). Time will tell on the true story.

 

I think Carl Spackler had the right idea. If a Flight Attendant disagrees with the Captain's orders or fails to properly follow his orders, they should be arrested for Interference with a Crewmember...a federal offense !!! Just let him/her try to find another job with a federal rap sheet. Hell yes, divert that 767 and throw 'em off the aircraft. The paying passengers won't mind and the word will get out not to mess with one of our Captains !

 

And sure lets set a precendence that anyone who disagrees with a captain should be arrested, including the FO who speaks up because the captain is boneing up something, then we can eliminate CRM and go back to the good ole days when the captain has the right and ability and power to take off from a runway in fog with another plane taxiing on it. I say the above with some sarcasm because I really do get what your saying about the Captain being the last line, but you have to be careful when you define what kind of argument justifies this kind of action. Just because a crew member diagrees or even argues with a captain, does not mean you have them arrested or even divert, IF it doesnt affect the safety of the flight, them you handle it in house with professional standards. The punishment has to fit the crime otherwise well all get the death penalty if we forget to let the captain pick his crew meal first.

 

There is not the slightest chance that his "license" has been suspended over this at the present time.

This whole explanation is very suspect to me.

 

Besides, it is a "pilot certificate" not a "license."

 

I know you were being a bit sarcastic, but here is what I originally said about this...emphasis added:

 

"Sir" only?? Ummm, yeah, I don't think so. It does not say "Sir" on his ID anywhere, so that one is out for me.

No chance his license has been suspended. Even if he did wrong, the FAA is not that fast and the company has no authority with regards to suspending a license.

Sounds a little fishy to me at this point.

 

I understand what you were saying, another poster took it to the next level which is where I decided to put in my sarcastic remark, just so everyone didnt take it so seriously, sorry if I missed the translation...I did understand what you were saying....