Narrative:

It was determined at departure time that there were 3 more passenger than available seats on the aircraft. I decided as captain to seat 2 passenger in the cockpit on available empty jump seats and place the remaining passenger on a F/a jump seat. I asked 1 F/a to stand in the cockpit during takeoff and landing. I safely flew the aircraft from cun to orl, where the 3 extra passenger were then taken off my aircraft and put on another airline to ny, and our now full aircraft safely continued to ny. My decision to fly the additional 3 passenger was based on my confidence that I could safely fly all passenger and crew member to orl, as the WX was excellent and no turbulence existed along our route of flight, which we ha just flown 1 hour prior to this flight. No objections were indicated by the other crew members for my decision at departure time. I had experienced the identical situation in ny on the same trip the previous week, and the ugly scene that ensued at the boarding door of irate passenger with tickets being denied boarding was still fresh in my memory. I did not like the thought of stranding 3 passenger in mexico when I could safely transport them to orl to make a connecting flight to ny. One crew member subsequently objected upon arrival in ny, which prompted this report. Obviously the 3 passenger should have been denied boarding in cun. Better crew resource management probably would have uncovered the objecting crew members disagreement with my decision. The late hour, distant location (cun), my desire to somehow accommodate the 3 passenger overshadowed my judgement to strictly adhere to seating requirements for all persons on the flight. Supplemental information from acn 173891: during the boarding process, it was discovered that an error on the gate agent's behalf resulted in there being 3 extra passenger than the aircraft could accommodate (aircraft boarding and loading at cun is handled by local airport personnel rather than our own company). Due to the nature of the charter (a group of college age youths), the time of day and our particular foreign location, this placed the crew in a rather awkward position. Supplemental information from acn 173895: it wasn't until just before takeoff that the first officer and I realized that 1 of the F/a's did not have a seat. (She came into the cockpit as we took the runway for departure and squatted behind the F/east's seat.) this flight started out wrong from the beginning. The aircraft we were scheduled to use from lga to cun had a gen drive problem that was ci'd. Maintenance looked at the aircraft and determined it was over-serviced, fixed it but didn't sign off the ci. We used it and it worked fine, but the ci was carried throughout the flight. All 3 drives ran hot, but in limits al night. We were delayed 1+45, leaving on the start of the trip that had already been scheduled for a 12 hour day. It was going to be a long night. When the additional passenger showed up in cun, the captain related to the crew that this had happened to him before, but did not say how he resolved it. It was obvious to us he was not leaving them in mexico. There was another flight (don't know who) leaving for bos and he tried to get them on it, but was told it was full. He stammered about a bit, then closed the door and pushed off the gate. For whatever reason, he was more concerned about leaving these students in mexico than any consequences that would come to him, and he knew there would be some. For my part, I should have objected more strongly to the situation developing, but didn't. Why? I don't know, but factors were: 1) being on probation. 2) the captain was a check airman who was well respected. 3) the F/a's had mildly objected and had been basically ignored. Hindsight being what it is, we all should have strongly objected and maybe the captain would have reconsidered, but I don't know for sure.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PIC OF AN ACR CHARTER FLT IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY ALLOWS 3 EXTRA OVERLOAD PASSENGERS ON BOARD, PLACING 2 IN COCKPIT AND REQUESTS THAT 1 CABIN ATTENDANT PLACE HERSELF IN COCKPIT, WITHOUT SEAT OR RESTRAINTS, FOR TKOF CRUISE AND LNDG.

Narrative: IT WAS DETERMINED AT DEP TIME THAT THERE WERE 3 MORE PAX THAN AVAILABLE SEATS ON THE ACFT. I DECIDED AS CAPT TO SEAT 2 PAX IN THE COCKPIT ON AVAILABLE EMPTY JUMP SEATS AND PLACE THE REMAINING PAX ON A F/A JUMP SEAT. I ASKED 1 F/A TO STAND IN THE COCKPIT DURING TKOF AND LNDG. I SAFELY FLEW THE ACFT FROM CUN TO ORL, WHERE THE 3 EXTRA PAX WERE THEN TAKEN OFF MY ACFT AND PUT ON ANOTHER AIRLINE TO NY, AND OUR NOW FULL ACFT SAFELY CONTINUED TO NY. MY DECISION TO FLY THE ADDITIONAL 3 PAX WAS BASED ON MY CONFIDENCE THAT I COULD SAFELY FLY ALL PAX AND CREW MEMBER TO ORL, AS THE WX WAS EXCELLENT AND NO TURB EXISTED ALONG OUR RTE OF FLT, WHICH WE HA JUST FLOWN 1 HR PRIOR TO THIS FLT. NO OBJECTIONS WERE INDICATED BY THE OTHER CREW MEMBERS FOR MY DECISION AT DEP TIME. I HAD EXPERIENCED THE IDENTICAL SITUATION IN NY ON THE SAME TRIP THE PREVIOUS WK, AND THE UGLY SCENE THAT ENSUED AT THE BOARDING DOOR OF IRATE PAX WITH TICKETS BEING DENIED BOARDING WAS STILL FRESH IN MY MEMORY. I DID NOT LIKE THE THOUGHT OF STRANDING 3 PAX IN MEXICO WHEN I COULD SAFELY TRANSPORT THEM TO ORL TO MAKE A CONNECTING FLT TO NY. ONE CREW MEMBER SUBSEQUENTLY OBJECTED UPON ARR IN NY, WHICH PROMPTED THIS RPT. OBVIOUSLY THE 3 PAX SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED BOARDING IN CUN. BETTER CREW RESOURCE MGMNT PROBABLY WOULD HAVE UNCOVERED THE OBJECTING CREW MEMBERS DISAGREEMENT WITH MY DECISION. THE LATE HR, DISTANT LOCATION (CUN), MY DESIRE TO SOMEHOW ACCOMMODATE THE 3 PAX OVERSHADOWED MY JUDGEMENT TO STRICTLY ADHERE TO SEATING REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL PERSONS ON THE FLT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 173891: DURING THE BOARDING PROCESS, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT AN ERROR ON THE GATE AGENT'S BEHALF RESULTED IN THERE BEING 3 EXTRA PAX THAN THE ACFT COULD ACCOMMODATE (ACFT BOARDING AND LOADING AT CUN IS HANDLED BY LCL ARPT PERSONNEL RATHER THAN OUR OWN COMPANY). DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE CHARTER (A GROUP OF COLLEGE AGE YOUTHS), THE TIME OF DAY AND OUR PARTICULAR FOREIGN LOCATION, THIS PLACED THE CREW IN A RATHER AWKWARD POS. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 173895: IT WASN'T UNTIL JUST BEFORE TKOF THAT THE F/O AND I REALIZED THAT 1 OF THE F/A'S DID NOT HAVE A SEAT. (SHE CAME INTO THE COCKPIT AS WE TOOK THE RWY FOR DEP AND SQUATTED BEHIND THE F/E'S SEAT.) THIS FLT STARTED OUT WRONG FROM THE BEGINNING. THE ACFT WE WERE SCHEDULED TO USE FROM LGA TO CUN HAD A GEN DRIVE PROB THAT WAS CI'D. MAINT LOOKED AT THE ACFT AND DETERMINED IT WAS OVER-SERVICED, FIXED IT BUT DIDN'T SIGN OFF THE CI. WE USED IT AND IT WORKED FINE, BUT THE CI WAS CARRIED THROUGHOUT THE FLT. ALL 3 DRIVES RAN HOT, BUT IN LIMITS AL NIGHT. WE WERE DELAYED 1+45, LEAVING ON THE START OF THE TRIP THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN SCHEDULED FOR A 12 HR DAY. IT WAS GOING TO BE A LONG NIGHT. WHEN THE ADDITIONAL PAX SHOWED UP IN CUN, THE CAPT RELATED TO THE CREW THAT THIS HAD HAPPENED TO HIM BEFORE, BUT DID NOT SAY HOW HE RESOLVED IT. IT WAS OBVIOUS TO US HE WAS NOT LEAVING THEM IN MEXICO. THERE WAS ANOTHER FLT (DON'T KNOW WHO) LEAVING FOR BOS AND HE TRIED TO GET THEM ON IT, BUT WAS TOLD IT WAS FULL. HE STAMMERED ABOUT A BIT, THEN CLOSED THE DOOR AND PUSHED OFF THE GATE. FOR WHATEVER REASON, HE WAS MORE CONCERNED ABOUT LEAVING THESE STUDENTS IN MEXICO THAN ANY CONSEQUENCES THAT WOULD COME TO HIM, AND HE KNEW THERE WOULD BE SOME. FOR MY PART, I SHOULD HAVE OBJECTED MORE STRONGLY TO THE SITUATION DEVELOPING, BUT DIDN'T. WHY? I DON'T KNOW, BUT FACTORS WERE: 1) BEING ON PROBATION. 2) THE CAPT WAS A CHK AIRMAN WHO WAS WELL RESPECTED. 3) THE F/A'S HAD MILDLY OBJECTED AND HAD BEEN BASICALLY IGNORED. HINDSIGHT BEING WHAT IT IS, WE ALL SHOULD HAVE STRONGLY OBJECTED AND MAYBE THE CAPT WOULD HAVE RECONSIDERED, BUT I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.