Date: 201908
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: On an early originator from ZZZ with FA's (Flight Attendants) that were not ZZZ based in the middle of their trip; a ZZZ based FA Supervisor met the crew at the gate for an Audit/Inspection. One FA's EFB (Electronic Flight Bag) was only charged to 77%. The Supervisor stated that the requirement was 90%; and that we could not continue our flight according to FAA regulations. The remedy was to replace [the] EFB. The Supervisor required the FA to walk with him back to the crew lounge to sign out another EFB; preventing him from finishing his preflight duties; and preventing me from completing my preflight briefing with the entire crew; therefore I delayed boarding until the FA returned to the aircraft after retrieving a new EFB from the crew lounge. The total load on the aircraft was only 30 passengers; and ultimately we were still able to push on time.Unbelievably; I had the exact same experience the very next day during an aircraft swap/crew swap in ZZZ1 with an originating ZZZ1 FA crew. Coincidentally; the ZZZ1 Chief Pilot was present at the gate and witnessed the delay personally as he was seeing off family members flying on my flight.On two consecutive days; I have had Flight Attendant Audit Inspections interrupt crew preflight responsibilities (system checks; crew briefing) and delay boarding. In both cases one FA in the crew had an EFB that was slightly undercharged. In both cases; the FA supervisor required the Crew member to stop preflight responsibilities; leave the gate area and walk to the Base Crew Lounge to retrieve/swap-out their EFB. Both cases disrupted me from giving a crew brief to the entire crew; and delayed boarding.I always give my crews a full briefing; and believe it is an invaluable investment when and if there is an actual emergency or passenger issue. I want the entire crew to hear my brief; and I desire to gain their confidence; and of course; 'set the tone.'I also think this disruption serves as a significant distraction and hazard to flight safety. The preflight responsibilities are disrupted. The brief is disrupted. The flight attendants become distraught and distracted because they are under the threat of punishment from the FA Supervisor . . . for having a battery that is less than 90% charge . . . I have personally had more than one overnight where I thought my phone or iPad was charging only to discover that the plug I chose was connected to a room light switch. It is a good thing that both pilots and flight attendants have Company provided charging systems available for use in the aircraft.It is not in my 'field of view' to know what FAA Compliance issues are a legitimate threat to our [Company's] profitability; but as Captain I am responsible for setting; adhering; and leading my crew in [our] operational priorities.It is unfathomable to me that we are empowering the least qualified; least experienced; 'off the street' personnel who have not flown the [Company] Line as flight attendants; and have never really been indoctrinated into [Company] history; culture; or operational priorities - to delay originating departures; present a significant hazard to flight safety; militantly regulate our flight attendants; and discipline personnel that are decades their senior.How Flight Attendant Compliance to FAA regulations is enforced may not be my business; but raising a red flag when administrative malfeasance begins to violate [company] operational priorities of safety; customer service; and efficiently on-time - that IS my business - not to mention profitability; morale; and culture. If the In-Flight Leadership feels the need to tightly police regulations regarding the battery charge on the EFB; they need to implement a reasonable inspection procedure that DOES NOT IMPACT Flight Operations; Operational Priorities; especially SAFETY. If the FAA is truly hyper-focused on Flight Attendant Procedures (in-particular EFB battery charge); as both Flight Attendant Supervisors claimed; how happy would the FAA be to discover that [the Company's] official Crew Report Time (at the gate) coincides precisely with the same time that Grounds Operations policy dictates the commencement of boarding - D minus 30 minutes. SO; let's be clear; our current combined operational procedures under control of the VP of Operations allow ZERO time for federally mandated Flight Attendant Security Inspections; Safety Inspections; and the Captain's Crew Brief.And; In-Flight believes they can squeeze in an FA Audit; (including replacing an undercharged EFB with a FA trip to the Crew Lounge) into that same non-existent time period between Showtime and Boarding time??!!Limit Flight Attendant Audit Inspections to in-base originating crews on first day conducted in the lounge prior to FA's reporting to gate/aircraft. Have FA Supervisors bring spare EFB's to the gate with supporting documentation (checkout log) with them in anticipation of finding a malfunctioning EFB or low battery charge. Increase Crew Report Time from 30 minutes to 40-45 minutes.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported that Flight Attendant Audit Inspection disrupted and delayed crew briefing; preflight responsibilities; and boarding.