Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The inbound crew wrote up Brakes Sys 2 Fault ECAM. Contract Maintenance did not appear to make any effort to fix the problem; simply did a secondary check; then pulled and collared the circuit breakers. I was not comfortable with the status of the brakes and what backup systems I did and did not have; so I told the passenger agents that I needed to review the MEL and talk to Dispatch and Maintenance Control before deciding if we were going to operate this aircraft. I was concerned about our heavy takeoff weight and landing at EWR on the short Runway 29 in the rain). I recommended that they delay boarding as I was leaning toward NOT accepting this deferral.Once I got the Maintenance release I contacted our Dispatcher who was having problems with her headset. After 3-4 different calls I was able to get another Dispatcher to tie me through to Maintenance Control and we discussed the brakes and the MEL and a procedure we were going to have to complete to make sure the brakes worked on the accumulator; which was our only remaining backup brake system.In the middle of this process my First Officer and I were joined in the cockpit by a very animated passenger agent. He wanted to know 'What we thought we were doing' and that 'He had already released the airplane.' He said he had '160 people who are trying to get to Newark' (which is 40 over the capacity of our aircraft; by the way). I told him I was deciding whether or not I was going to accept the release as there were factors beyond a simple MEL deferral to be considered.He got very agitated and told us he was going to call System Operations and report this. I said that was fine with me and asked him his name. I had to ask him his name; and then his whole name; three times (he wore neither ID badge nor nametag) before he told me.I found the agent's behavior to be very unprofessional and I do not appreciate him pushing us to accept an aircraft simply on his say so. I have been given Captain's Authority for a reason and I intend to exercise it in the name of safety; in accordance with our Code of Ethics; and in compliance with SOPs. I will be very disappointed if I learn this agent is a supervisor; or perhaps even the station manager. His treatment of me and my First Officer was very unprofessional and; if he IS a supervisor; makes for a hostile work environment. I do not appreciate such histrionics and pilot pushing by Management.In the end; we flew the aircraft to EWR where it continued on without being fixed.




Synopsis: An A319 Captain--while determining the acceptability of an MEL brake system deferral for a flight to a short; wet runway--was confronted by a contentious passenger agent insisting they depart as scheduled.  The flight ultimately departed when the Captain was satisfied with the maintenance status of the aircraft.