AN A320 CAPT RPTS A SUBTLE ATTEMPT BY OPS TO FLY AN AIRPLANE A PREVIOUS CREW REFUSED. ACFT HAD ONE FAILED ELEVATOR AILERON COMPUTER DEFERRED AS INOP PER THE MEL.

Narrative

ARRIVED IN OPS 1 HR PRIOR TO PUSH FOR THE FLT. MET ANOTHER CREW; SPECIFICALLY THE CAPT WHO RELAYED TO ME THE FOLLOWING EVENTS. HIS FLT IS NOW DELAYED BECAUSE HE REFUSED THE AIRPLANE WITH A CERTAIN DEFERRAL OF A FLT CTL COMPUTER; AN ELAC. HE THEN TOLD ME THAT OPS WAS PLANNING ON SWAPPING THE AIRPLANE WITH MY FLT. THE THINKING BEING; THAT IF HE REFUSED IT; ANOTHER PLT WILL ACCEPT IT. WE SPOKE IN DETAIL ABOUT THE INOP EQUIP AND I AGREED WITH HIS THINKING. IF ANOTHER FAILURE OCCURRED; IT WOULD DEGRADE THE FLT CTLS FURTHER. THIS WOULD BE UNACCEPTABLE. I SPOKE WITH DISPATCH; AND THEN A 3-WAY CALL WITH OPS AND I MENTIONED THAT I TOO WOULD NOT TAKE THE AIRPLANE AS IS; WITH THE DEFERRAL. NORMALLY; THIS WOULD NOT BE OF SIGNIFICANCE EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT PRIOR TO ENTERING OPS IN ZZZ; THE STATION MGR WAS WAITING OUTSIDE THE DOOR FOR ME. SHE ASKED IF SHE COULD SPEAK WITH ME PRIOR TO ENTERING OPS. I TOLD HER I WOULD. I WAITED; UNTIL THE DOOR TO OPS WAS OPENED; AND AT THAT TIME I MET THE CAPT OF THE OTHER FLT. STARTING TO PUT THE PIECES TOGETHER; I REALIZED THAT THEY MAY HAVE BEEN A SUBTLE ATTEMPT TO HAVE ME FLY THAT AIRPLANE WITHOUT THE FULL PICTURE; THAT ANOTHER CREW REFUSED IT. NOW I DO REALIZE THAT CERTAIN DEFERRALS MAY AFFECT DIFFERENT OPS IN MANY WAYS. THE POINT OF THIS NARRATIVE IS THAT IF A CREW REFUSES THE AIRPLANE DUE TO SAFETY CONCERNS; SPECIFICALLY REGARDING THE DEGRADATION OF FLYING CHARACTERISTICS WITH THE SUBSEQUENT FAILURE OF A REDUNDANT PIECE OF EQUIP; THE AIRPLANE SHOULD NOT BE SHOPPED AROUND TRYING TO FIND A CREW WHO WILL TAKE IT.