PLT RPT; A300; GND SUPVR KEPT PAX ONBOARD WITH NO CABIN CREW IN MECHANICAL DELAY; FAR VIOLATION.

Narrative

LOCATION: PUERTO PLATA. MAINT DELAY RESULTED IN FLT ATTENDANTS GOING ILLEGAL FOR FLT. PAX AGENT SUPVR PROPOSED HAVING 2 AGENTS AND 2 SECURITY PERSONNEL TAKE UP POS IN CABIN FOR 20 MIN WAIT FOR INBOUND REPLACEMENT FLT ATTENDANTS; RATHER THAN REMOVE AND REBOARD PAX WHO HAD ALREADY BEEN DELAYED OVER 2 HRS AND REMOVED AND REBOARDED ONCE. FLT ATTENDANTS SAID THEY UNDERSTOOD THEY COULD NOT LEAVE ACFT WITH PAX ONBOARD; BUT NONE OF US COULD FIND THAT EXPRESSLY STATED IN EITHER THE FLT ATTENDANT MANUAL OR IN PART 1. MANUALS DEAL ONLY WITH MINIMUM NUMBER OF FLT ATTENDANTS FOR SPECIFIED SITS IN NORMAL OPS. DUE TO INCONVENIENCE ALREADY SUFFERED BY PAX I DID NOT WANT TO DEMAND THAT THEY BE REMOVED. THINKING FLT ATTENDANTS ALREADY OVER LEGAL DUTY TIME; I ACCEPTED AGENT'S OFFER AND RELEASED FLT ATTENDANTS TO THE HOTEL. WHEN THE NEW CABIN CREW ARRIVED; THEY WERE VERY UPSET AND TOLD ME I HAD MADE A BIG MISTAKE LETTING THE OTHER CREW GO BEFORE THEIR ARR OR PAX REMOVAL AND THEIR REASONING MADE SENSE. GIVEN THE STATEMENT ABOUT AGENT RESPONSIBILITY IN PART 1; SECTION 13; ITEM 1.1; IT IS AMBIGUOUS AS TO WHO WAS MORE AT FAULT FOR THE ERROR; IF ONE WAS INDEED MADE. BASED ON THE NEW CREW'S VEHEMENT OBJECTIONS; I SHOULD HAVE HAD THE ILLEGAL CREW STAY UNTIL REPLACED. PART OF THE ERROR WAS THINKING OF ORIGINAL CREW AS ALREADY ILLEGAL; NOT JUST ILLEGAL TO INITIATE THAT LEG. NO REFUELING OR OTHER INCIDENTS TOOK PLACE DURING THE TIME NO FLT ATTENDANTS WERE ONBOARD. IF NECESSARY; PLEASE CLARIFY RESPONSIBILITY BY ADDING A PROMINENT STATEMENT TO PART 1 AND TO FLT ATTENDANT AND AGENT MANUALS; WHICH PROHIBITS ALLOWING PAX ONBOARD THE ACFT AT ANY TIME; UNLESS MINIMUM FLT ATTENDANT CREW IS ON DUTY.