Narrative:

A passenger mentioned something about whether the flight was safe or would it go down on this trip. This was said to one of the business class flight attendants. That flight attendant got the agent and security involved. Both parties, plus the captain, spoke with the passenger and felt he was ok to take the flight. The flight attendant said that he wouldn't take the flight if the passenger was allowed back on the plane. Another flight attendant, who was not involved, said they would not go either. The purser said we couldn't leave down 2 flight attendants, and so the passenger should be removed. He was. The original flight attendant involved later stated that he had previously been involved with an incident of passenger misconduct before and did not want to have any problems on this flight. I believe the passenger was put on a later flight. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter never even saw the passenger in question, but only found out about it when the purser and the captain stopped by her galley and were discussing it. The purser was upset that the flight attendant involved didn't follow the chain of command by telling her about the passenger statement, but instead went out and got a passenger service supervisor. The captain even got involved before the purser did. The reporter said that the purser was concerned that the flight attendant had overreacted, but had to make her decision to back up the flight attendants because she didn't want to go to london understaffed. The reporter said there was some discussion of the event among the crew members, but nothing that could influence her to not remain neutral.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT ATTENDANT RPT, B777, ORD-LHR, PAX REMOVED ON BOARDING FOR MAKING A THREATENING REMARK TO A VIGILANT FLT ATTENDANT.

Narrative: A PAX MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT WHETHER THE FLT WAS SAFE OR WOULD IT GO DOWN ON THIS TRIP. THIS WAS SAID TO ONE OF THE BUSINESS CLASS FLT ATTENDANTS. THAT FLT ATTENDANT GOT THE AGENT AND SECURITY INVOLVED. BOTH PARTIES, PLUS THE CAPT, SPOKE WITH THE PAX AND FELT HE WAS OK TO TAKE THE FLT. THE FLT ATTENDANT SAID THAT HE WOULDN'T TAKE THE FLT IF THE PAX WAS ALLOWED BACK ON THE PLANE. ANOTHER FLT ATTENDANT, WHO WAS NOT INVOLVED, SAID THEY WOULD NOT GO EITHER. THE PURSER SAID WE COULDN'T LEAVE DOWN 2 FLT ATTENDANTS, AND SO THE PAX SHOULD BE REMOVED. HE WAS. THE ORIGINAL FLT ATTENDANT INVOLVED LATER STATED THAT HE HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN INVOLVED WITH AN INCIDENT OF PAX MISCONDUCT BEFORE AND DID NOT WANT TO HAVE ANY PROBS ON THIS FLT. I BELIEVE THE PAX WAS PUT ON A LATER FLT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR NEVER EVEN SAW THE PAX IN QUESTION, BUT ONLY FOUND OUT ABOUT IT WHEN THE PURSER AND THE CAPT STOPPED BY HER GALLEY AND WERE DISCUSSING IT. THE PURSER WAS UPSET THAT THE FLT ATTENDANT INVOLVED DIDN'T FOLLOW THE CHAIN OF COMMAND BY TELLING HER ABOUT THE PAX STATEMENT, BUT INSTEAD WENT OUT AND GOT A PAX SVC SUPVR. THE CAPT EVEN GOT INVOLVED BEFORE THE PURSER DID. THE RPTR SAID THAT THE PURSER WAS CONCERNED THAT THE FLT ATTENDANT HAD OVERREACTED, BUT HAD TO MAKE HER DECISION TO BACK UP THE FLT ATTENDANTS BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T WANT TO GO TO LONDON UNDERSTAFFED. THE RPTR SAID THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION OF THE EVENT AMONG THE CREW MEMBERS, BUT NOTHING THAT COULD INFLUENCE HER TO NOT REMAIN NEUTRAL.

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.