Narrative:

Our flight to the east coast was too heavy to depart runway 25R (the runway in use) so we taxied to runway 7L for departure. This caused a significant delay in our departure since las was using 25s and 19s. At nearly one hour we had an ECAM for an APU bleed leak; after complying with the ECAM procedures and a short time later we received another ECAM for a right wing pneumatic leak. I contacted dispatch and maintenance and determined we needed to return to the gate. Upon reaching the gate maintenance came on board and; after some trouble shooting; determined that a repair would take some time and some passengers deplaned. After an hour or more went by; we were told a fix may not be coming in the near term. As a result all the remaining passengers departed.maintenance then indicated that a part they were looking for had been found and that a repair would be made and completed in approximately 40 minutes. During that time the passengers were re-boarded per customer services desires and we waited for the paperwork and logbook to be finished. Another hour then passed before I got word that the repair had not been made and that an MEL would be placed on the aircraft for an inoperative right pack. I contacted dispatch and had the release redone accordingly. Now more than an hour had passed since the passengers had been re-boarded.we were finally ready for push back when the ECAM for an APU bleed leak returned. We stopped the push back called back the customer service supervisor and maintenance to make new arrangements and repairs. At this time the passengers were getting very irritated; the cabin was getting warm and information from maintenance and customer service was slow in coming. At that point a passenger angrily gave one of the flight attendants a copy of that days newspaper with an article speaking to a recent court order against our pilots to stop any kind of a work slow down (not the case here or ever). He told the flight attendant to give this to the captain and tell him 'we know what is going on and it's not right'. At which time he proceeded to stir up the passengers around him.with it hot on the aircraft and tempers high; the situation went down hill rapidly. The flight attendant gave me the paper and relayed the passenger's remarks as well as the fact that several people were now getting loud and that we were starting to lose control of the cabin. While waiting for maintenance to give us an idea of what was now going to happen I asked the flight attendant to have that passenger come to the cockpit and I would explain the situation to him personally. He refused and told the flight attendant that I could come back in the cabin to him. The group of passengers around this one passenger was rapidly turning into a mob. Another passenger then interjected himself into the situation. He was also very loud and using profanity and aggressive behavior towards the flight attendants. I called for a customer service supervisor and a customer representative officer (both the same person in this case). We discussed the situation and my concern that we were losing control of the cabin and a mob was developing. She agreed that the two instigating passengers should be removed from the flight and proceeded to do so. Shortly after that I made an announcement and explained as best I could the nature of the maintenance issue. Several minutes later we were advised that the aircraft was being removed from service and a new aircraft was being sought. Ultimately; the flight was operated more than 8 hours late. At that point I raised some concerns with crew scheduling regarding crew duty time and back of the clock operations that this crew had not planned for nor had planned for the rest required for such and operation. I gave a cut off time of 14 hours duty time for the crew before I stopped the operation. Argument ensued from scheduling indicating that we were required to go to 15 hours duty time. I politely indicated againthat 14 would be the end of the line for me. This goal was met; barely. But with a lot of fighting and hand ringing; not once did I feel that crew scheduling was concerned for safety; only the completion of the flight at any cost.the causes of events such as this are plain and simple loss of captain's authority. I had no say as to when the flight was boarded in light of the maintenance issue (and pending court order). My decisions on maintenance issues are now not only being questioned by the company; but also the passengers as a result of the public battle over maintenance write ups; etc. Decisions [are made] by people not on location and unaware of the situation on board the aircraft be it mechanically; environmentally or emotionally; people whose only desire is to 'move the metal'. In addition we now have decisions being questioned by passengers who have absolutely no knowledge what-so-ever of aviation or aircraft systems because of newspaper articles calling into question pilot's decisions.this company needs to restore captain's authority and provide support for the PIC in times of maintenance difficulty. We need less second guessing; more interest in safety and less emphasis on moving the metal. We need to allow my nearly 27 years of jet experience and almost 23 years as a captain work for the company as a valuable tool and not just a company expense that they need to control.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An A321 Captain faced with lengthening maintenance delays; unco-operative ground personnel and short tempered passengers--whose displeasure had been catalyzed by news reports of previous conflicts between labor and management at this airline--had to have two passengers removed and debated with crew schedulers about continuing the flight after a more than eight hour delary.

Narrative: Our flight to the East Coast was too heavy to depart Runway 25R (the runway in use) so we taxied to Runway 7L for departure. This caused a significant delay in our departure since LAS was using 25s and 19s. At nearly one hour we had an ECAM for an APU bleed leak; after complying with the ECAM procedures and a short time later we received another ECAM for a Right Wing Pneumatic Leak. I contacted Dispatch and Maintenance and determined we needed to return to the gate. Upon reaching the gate Maintenance came on board and; after some trouble shooting; determined that a repair would take some time and some passengers deplaned. After an hour or more went by; we were told a fix may not be coming in the near term. As a result all the remaining passengers departed.Maintenance then indicated that a part they were looking for had been found and that a repair would be made and completed in approximately 40 minutes. During that time the passengers were re-boarded per Customer Services desires and we waited for the paperwork and logbook to be finished. Another hour then passed before I got word that the repair had not been made and that an MEL would be placed on the aircraft for an inoperative Right Pack. I contacted Dispatch and had the release redone accordingly. Now more than an hour had passed since the passengers had been re-boarded.We were finally ready for push back when the ECAM for an APU Bleed Leak returned. We stopped the push back called back the Customer Service Supervisor and Maintenance to make new arrangements and repairs. At this time the passengers were getting very irritated; the cabin was getting warm and information from Maintenance and Customer Service was slow in coming. At that point a passenger angrily gave one of the flight attendants a copy of that days newspaper with an article speaking to a recent court order against our pilots to stop any kind of a work slow down (NOT THE CASE HERE OR EVER). He told the Flight Attendant to give this to the Captain and tell him 'we know what is going on and it's not right'. At which time he proceeded to stir up the passengers around him.With it hot on the aircraft and tempers high; the situation went down hill rapidly. The Flight Attendant gave me the paper and relayed the passenger's remarks as well as the fact that several people were now getting loud and that we were starting to lose control of the cabin. While waiting for Maintenance to give us an idea of what was now going to happen I asked the Flight Attendant to have that passenger come to the cockpit and I would explain the situation to him personally. He refused and told the Flight Attendant that I could come back in the cabin to him. The group of passengers around this one passenger was rapidly turning into a mob. Another passenger then interjected himself into the situation. He was also very loud and using profanity and aggressive behavior towards the flight attendants. I called for a Customer Service Supervisor and a Customer Representative Officer (both the same person in this case). We discussed the situation and my concern that we were losing control of the cabin and a mob was developing. She agreed that the two instigating passengers should be removed from the flight and proceeded to do so. Shortly after that I made an announcement and explained as best I could the nature of the maintenance issue. Several minutes later we were advised that the aircraft was being removed from service and a new aircraft was being sought. Ultimately; the flight was operated more than 8 hours late. At that point I raised some concerns with Crew Scheduling regarding crew duty time and back of the clock operations that this crew had not planned for nor had planned for the rest required for such and operation. I gave a cut off time of 14 hours duty time for the crew before I stopped the operation. Argument ensued from Scheduling indicating that we were REQUIRED TO GO TO 15 HOURS DUTY TIME. I politely indicated againthat 14 would be the end of the line for me. This goal was met; barely. But with a lot of fighting and hand ringing; not once did I feel that Crew Scheduling was concerned for safety; only the completion of the flight at any cost.The causes of events such as this are plain and simple loss of Captain's authority. I had no say as to when the flight was boarded in light of the maintenance issue (and pending court order). My decisions on maintenance issues are now not only being questioned by the company; but also the passengers as a result of the public battle over maintenance write ups; etc. Decisions [are made] by people not on location and unaware of the situation on board the aircraft be it mechanically; environmentally or emotionally; people whose only desire is to 'move the metal'. In addition we now have decisions being questioned by passengers who have absolutely no knowledge what-so-ever of aviation or aircraft systems because of newspaper articles calling into question pilot's decisions.This company needs to restore Captain's authority and provide support for the PIC in times of maintenance difficulty. We need less second guessing; more interest in safety and less emphasis on moving the metal. We need to allow my nearly 27 years of jet experience and almost 23 years as a Captain work for the company as a valuable tool and not just a company expense that they need to control.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.