Narrative:

Flight from ZZZ. My flight attendant informed me that 2 gentlemen refused to communicate with the 2 female flight attendants that were part of my crew. I questioned him and he reconfirmed that the 2 men gave him explicit instructions on how the flight will be managed to avoid any interaction with the female members of the crew. I immediately asked the operations agent and she now informed me that these 2 men had been demanding not to interact with any company female employee. The operations supervisor was called in to discuss this and she said that the problem had already reached her but she was unable to do anything about this. Far part 91 states; 'no person may assault; threaten; intimidate; or interfere with a crew member in the performance of the crew members' duties aboard an aircraft being operated.' (fom 5.1.6 PAR 2.) so did the 2 men's refusal to communicate with 2 of the 3 flight attendants constitute interference with far duties? I concluded that if a problem were to arise that required the a flight attendant to take charge of a safety-related situation; these 2 men would not comply with her commands; thus jeopardizing the safety of the remaining passenger and my crew. Before I made any rash decision; I called our chief pilot. He agreed with me but wanted to run it by the dispatch office and the customer service supervisor troubleshooter. A few mins later the chief pilot called back and reconfirmed my thoughts that this behavior was interference with far duties and to remove them from the flight. I asked the 2 gentlemen to reconfirm that they refused to comply with my female crew members' instructions and they confirmed it. I then asked if they would please leave the aircraft and they began to argue with me. The 2 men now were not complying with the captain's orders further enforcing my concern for flight safety. Only after threatening their physical removal by the police did they reluctantly walk up the aisle and out of the plane. I reassured them that our customer service people would find them a flight with all male flight crew members so they would not be so inconvenienced. While finishing up an MEL item and preparing the flight for departure; the ZZZ customer service supervisor came rushing into the cockpit interfering with our checklists and demanded that I reboard the 2 men in question. He stated that I had no right to deny them boarding and that the customer advocacy rep was insisting that I must board the two. I immediately informed our customer service supervisor that I did indeed have the authority/authorized for the safety of my flight. I immediately phoned my chief pilot and passed him to the interfering customer service supervisor. The chief pilot had me hold while he spoke with this customer advocacy person. The chief pilot and I both admitted that we did not realize there existed such a lofty office as this. After several mins I was told by the chief pilot that I must take these 2 men because of a fear that they would take legal action against company. I had the 2 men boarded and informed that if they caused any trouble during the flight I would have them arrested upon arrival. This was my error! I just traded flight safety for customer comfort; a direct violation of far part 91. I am responsible for the safe operation of this flight; and I was forced to jeopardize my professional responsibilities by my own company. I should have had myself removed from this flight instead of taking an unsafe situation into the air. Two men booked a flight on our company informing the reservations people that they could not fly with female flight attendants. The 2 men informed the ticket counter that they could not fly with 2 female flight attendants. The 2 men informed the operations agent; operations supervisor; customer service supervisor; and the customer advocacy department that they could not fly with female flight attendants. The chief pilot; css troubleshooter; and the captain of the flight all agree that this is a safety of flight issue and yet I am the only one who violated an far. Company had plenty of time and ability to accommodate these 2 gentlemen on an all male flight but chose to create a safety of flight issue that could only be corrected by me; the captain. Under guidance from our headquarters; I chose to ignore safety and jeopardize the remaining passenger and my crew. I did not realize the severity of my decision until I was airborne. I came to the realization that my own company had forced me to jeopardize safety. This is why I am submitting this report. I recommend that our legal or the customer advocacy department establish a written policy to be published in the fom that relieves the captain of his far responsibilities when dealing with passenger that announce their bigotry and hatred for certain types of crew members. If these bigots interfere with safe operations; then the consequences fall squarely on our company and not the captain. The traveling public also needs to be made aware of this policy.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN AIR CARRIER CAPTAIN REMOVED TWO MEN FOR REFUSING TO INTERACT WITH FEMALE FLIGHT ATTENDANTS. THE AIR CARRIER CUSTOMER SERVICE SUPERVISOR AND CHIEF PILOT ORDERED THE CAPTAIN TO RE-BOARD THE PASSENGERS FOR LEGAL REASONS. THE CAPTAIN FELT SAFETY WAS COMPROMISED.

Narrative: FLT FROM ZZZ. MY FLT ATTENDANT INFORMED ME THAT 2 GENTLEMEN REFUSED TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE 2 FEMALE FLT ATTENDANTS THAT WERE PART OF MY CREW. I QUESTIONED HIM AND HE RECONFIRMED THAT THE 2 MEN GAVE HIM EXPLICIT INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW THE FLT WILL BE MANAGED TO AVOID ANY INTERACTION WITH THE FEMALE MEMBERS OF THE CREW. I IMMEDIATELY ASKED THE OPS AGENT AND SHE NOW INFORMED ME THAT THESE 2 MEN HAD BEEN DEMANDING NOT TO INTERACT WITH ANY COMPANY FEMALE EMPLOYEE. THE OPS SUPVR WAS CALLED IN TO DISCUSS THIS AND SHE SAID THAT THE PROB HAD ALREADY REACHED HER BUT SHE WAS UNABLE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT THIS. FAR PART 91 STATES; 'NO PERSON MAY ASSAULT; THREATEN; INTIMIDATE; OR INTERFERE WITH A CREW MEMBER IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CREW MEMBERS' DUTIES ABOARD AN ACFT BEING OPERATED.' (FOM 5.1.6 PAR 2.) SO DID THE 2 MEN'S REFUSAL TO COMMUNICATE WITH 2 OF THE 3 FLT ATTENDANTS CONSTITUTE INTERFERENCE WITH FAR DUTIES? I CONCLUDED THAT IF A PROB WERE TO ARISE THAT REQUIRED THE A FLT ATTENDANT TO TAKE CHARGE OF A SAFETY-RELATED SITUATION; THESE 2 MEN WOULD NOT COMPLY WITH HER COMMANDS; THUS JEOPARDIZING THE SAFETY OF THE REMAINING PAX AND MY CREW. BEFORE I MADE ANY RASH DECISION; I CALLED OUR CHIEF PLT. HE AGREED WITH ME BUT WANTED TO RUN IT BY THE DISPATCH OFFICE AND THE CUSTOMER SVC SUPVR TROUBLESHOOTER. A FEW MINS LATER THE CHIEF PLT CALLED BACK AND RECONFIRMED MY THOUGHTS THAT THIS BEHAVIOR WAS INTERFERENCE WITH FAR DUTIES AND TO REMOVE THEM FROM THE FLT. I ASKED THE 2 GENTLEMEN TO RECONFIRM THAT THEY REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH MY FEMALE CREW MEMBERS' INSTRUCTIONS AND THEY CONFIRMED IT. I THEN ASKED IF THEY WOULD PLEASE LEAVE THE ACFT AND THEY BEGAN TO ARGUE WITH ME. THE 2 MEN NOW WERE NOT COMPLYING WITH THE CAPT'S ORDERS FURTHER ENFORCING MY CONCERN FOR FLT SAFETY. ONLY AFTER THREATENING THEIR PHYSICAL REMOVAL BY THE POLICE DID THEY RELUCTANTLY WALK UP THE AISLE AND OUT OF THE PLANE. I REASSURED THEM THAT OUR CUSTOMER SVC PEOPLE WOULD FIND THEM A FLT WITH ALL MALE FLT CREW MEMBERS SO THEY WOULD NOT BE SO INCONVENIENCED. WHILE FINISHING UP AN MEL ITEM AND PREPARING THE FLT FOR DEP; THE ZZZ CUSTOMER SVC SUPVR CAME RUSHING INTO THE COCKPIT INTERFERING WITH OUR CHKLISTS AND DEMANDED THAT I REBOARD THE 2 MEN IN QUESTION. HE STATED THAT I HAD NO RIGHT TO DENY THEM BOARDING AND THAT THE CUSTOMER ADVOCACY REP WAS INSISTING THAT I MUST BOARD THE TWO. I IMMEDIATELY INFORMED OUR CUSTOMER SVC SUPVR THAT I DID INDEED HAVE THE AUTH FOR THE SAFETY OF MY FLT. I IMMEDIATELY PHONED MY CHIEF PLT AND PASSED HIM TO THE INTERFERING CUSTOMER SVC SUPVR. THE CHIEF PLT HAD ME HOLD WHILE HE SPOKE WITH THIS CUSTOMER ADVOCACY PERSON. THE CHIEF PLT AND I BOTH ADMITTED THAT WE DID NOT REALIZE THERE EXISTED SUCH A LOFTY OFFICE AS THIS. AFTER SEVERAL MINS I WAS TOLD BY THE CHIEF PLT THAT I MUST TAKE THESE 2 MEN BECAUSE OF A FEAR THAT THEY WOULD TAKE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST COMPANY. I HAD THE 2 MEN BOARDED AND INFORMED THAT IF THEY CAUSED ANY TROUBLE DURING THE FLT I WOULD HAVE THEM ARRESTED UPON ARR. THIS WAS MY ERROR! I JUST TRADED FLT SAFETY FOR CUSTOMER COMFORT; A DIRECT VIOLATION OF FAR PART 91. I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAFE OP OF THIS FLT; AND I WAS FORCED TO JEOPARDIZE MY PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES BY MY OWN COMPANY. I SHOULD HAVE HAD MYSELF REMOVED FROM THIS FLT INSTEAD OF TAKING AN UNSAFE SITUATION INTO THE AIR. TWO MEN BOOKED A FLT ON OUR COMPANY INFORMING THE RESERVATIONS PEOPLE THAT THEY COULD NOT FLY WITH FEMALE FLT ATTENDANTS. THE 2 MEN INFORMED THE TICKET COUNTER THAT THEY COULD NOT FLY WITH 2 FEMALE FLT ATTENDANTS. THE 2 MEN INFORMED THE OPS AGENT; OPS SUPVR; CUSTOMER SVC SUPVR; AND THE CUSTOMER ADVOCACY DEPT THAT THEY COULD NOT FLY WITH FEMALE FLT ATTENDANTS. THE CHIEF PLT; CSS TROUBLESHOOTER; AND THE CAPT OF THE FLT ALL AGREE THAT THIS IS A SAFETY OF FLT ISSUE AND YET I AM THE ONLY ONE WHO VIOLATED AN FAR. COMPANY HAD PLENTY OF TIME AND ABILITY TO ACCOMMODATE THESE 2 GENTLEMEN ON AN ALL MALE FLT BUT CHOSE TO CREATE A SAFETY OF FLT ISSUE THAT COULD ONLY BE CORRECTED BY ME; THE CAPT. UNDER GUIDANCE FROM OUR HEADQUARTERS; I CHOSE TO IGNORE SAFETY AND JEOPARDIZE THE REMAINING PAX AND MY CREW. I DID NOT REALIZE THE SEVERITY OF MY DECISION UNTIL I WAS AIRBORNE. I CAME TO THE REALIZATION THAT MY OWN COMPANY HAD FORCED ME TO JEOPARDIZE SAFETY. THIS IS WHY I AM SUBMITTING THIS RPT. I RECOMMEND THAT OUR LEGAL OR THE CUSTOMER ADVOCACY DEPT ESTABLISH A WRITTEN POLICY TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE FOM THAT RELIEVES THE CAPT OF HIS FAR RESPONSIBILITIES WHEN DEALING WITH PAX THAT ANNOUNCE THEIR BIGOTRY AND HATRED FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF CREW MEMBERS. IF THESE BIGOTS INTERFERE WITH SAFE OPS; THEN THE CONSEQUENCES FALL SQUARELY ON OUR COMPANY AND NOT THE CAPT. THE TRAVELING PUBLIC ALSO NEEDS TO BE MADE AWARE OF THIS POLICY.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 2009 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.