Be careful of accusing your pilot of drinking

Troublemaker. Perhaps the pilot smelled alcohol on her and decided to preempt future problems.
 
Yea it would be nice to hear the rest of the story it sounds a little intoxicated, pun intended. :-)
 
I know it's the interweb, and all - but I saw a lot of reader comments about how pilots should pass a breathalyzer before they fly. Next thing you know, passengers will want their pilots to have all kinds of training and stuff.
 
They're saying things like SUE HIM for kicking you off the flight...

I guess she doesn't understand the authority over the plane the captain has...
 
A plaintiff attorney might sue, but she has suffered no real damages.....
 
bbchien said:
A plaintiff attorney might sue, but she has suffered no real damages.....
Click to expand...

I'd love to see the Captain and Delta counter-sue for the costs pf the delay and for defamation...
 
bbchien said:
A plaintiff attorney might sue, but she has suffered no real damages.....
Click to expand...


My time is worth something, and she probably feels the same way about her time. And she may have had an important agenda ahead of her in those next 24 hours. And you know it was embarrassing.

I don't see where she did anything wrong if she was discreet about it, and if so, Delta was way out of line.
 
I am missing the a+b=c part of thise statement:
"If you think someone is drunk, you owe it to yourself, your loved ones and other passengers to report it," said Aimer, who is also a retired United Airlines captain. "However, in this case, because the captain had not been drinking, Delta made the right decision by asking her to leave the plane."
Click to expand...
a = pax thinks pilot may have drunk and raises a concern
b=pilot takes test to determine if drinking occurred per airline rules
c=pax must leave because they raised a concern

Huh? Something missing there IMHO. Part of the story perhaps? If the pax was acting inappropriately I would think that would have come somewhere in the story as an allegation from Delta.

This is weird or perhaps it is part of the airline '**** down and shut up' regulations they impose upon the flying public, who have little choice in distance travel these days.
 
Here is a little bot more of a nugget about this:

"Airport Customer Service, in consultation with the flight crew, determined that because the passenger continued to express concern even after the pilot was cleared that it would be best to reaccomodate her on another flight," Elliot wrote in her email to the AJC.
Click to expand...
http://www.ajc.com/business/woman-kicked-off-delta-585104.html

Perhaps she was not dropping it and just kept going on about the issue.
 
SCCutler said:
I'd love to see the Captain and Delta counter-sue for the costs pf the delay and for defamation...
Click to expand...

Hehehe, negligence is a two-way street. :yes:

I wish we'd start seeing more of that, frankly. I'd actually buy, as a theory of a relief, a countersuit based on "plaintiff's negligence in bring a crappy claim he/she/it lost on." I wonder if anyone's tried that before....

Seriously, wouldn't you say that there's a duty not to make crappy claims in a lawsuit? If you breach that duty, I suffer damages (say attorney fees), and it results from your crappy claims, isn't that a prima facie negligence claim?

Thoughts?

[Debates whether to find a test client and take a Rule 11 risk.... :D]
 
Last edited:
funny how that inconsequential little nugget was left out of the original story.

I hope they accidentally misplaced her luggage for a few days too.
 
I wonder if Delta pulled the captain outside on the ramp and administered a field sobriety test in full view of the rest of the pax? That would be funny - like that "Man Show" bit where the guys are wearing captain's uniforms and getting drunk in the airport bar.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Hehehe, negligence is a two-way street. :yes:

I wish we'd start seeing more of that, frankly. I'd actually buy, as a theory of a relief, a countersuit based on "plaintiff's negligence in bring a crappy claim he/she/it lost on." I wonder if anyone's tried that before....

Seriously, wouldn't you say that there's a duty not to make crappy claims in a lawsuit? If you breach that duty, I suffer damages (say attorney fees), and it results from your crappy claims, isn't that a prima facie negligence claim?

Thoughts?

[Debates whether to find a test client and take a Rule 11 risk.... :D]
Click to expand...

I want Obi Heed Kenobi on the Supreme Court!
 
Yeah, sounds like she wouldn't drop it. And it stands to reason some delays were experienced as a result. I like the two way street approach to litigation. You should have to incur a cost if you cry wolf and come up short. In my book, the outcome was equitable. She pulled the trigger and missed; you miss your flight lady.

We all know the CA was ****ed and felt fronted by a false accusation. Once vindicated he felt it was just to give her some "time out" time on the ground for wasting his time. Oh well, I say that's parity of outcome. I'm with the crew on this one.
 
I think the rational way to decide it is that if she accepts the results after proper action has been taken, she rides. If not, put her on a later flight.

As for whether emotions played a role in the captain's decision, who knows?
 
Palmpilot said:
I want Obi Heed Kenobi on the Supreme Court!
Click to expand...

I have often read and admired David's keenly insightful legal and factual analysis. He is an excellent student of the law, evaluates facts in a soundly balanced way, and presents his observations and conclusions in an even-handed way.

No way he's qualified for the Supreme Court.
 
SCCutler said:
I have often read and admired David's keenly insightful legal and factual analysis. He is an excellent student of the law, evaluates facts in a soundly balanced way, and presents his observations and conclusions in an even-handed way.

No way he's qualified for the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

:D I was going to say that a Google search of David's postings would turn up those on this site alone which will show he has opinions which of course, means he could never be confirmed for the Supreme Court.

Which brings up: it's going to be harder and harder to find the required blank slate candidates in the future. Who wants a Supreme Court justice who has never posted a thing online?
 
Last edited:
SCCutler said:
I have often read and admired David's keenly insightful legal and factual analysis. He is an excellent student of the law, evaluates facts in a soundly balanced way, and presents his observations and conclusions in an even-handed way.

No way he's qualified for the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Damn, Spike, what a nice thing to say - even though it's not true! In seriousness, thank you.

The respect is mutual. :yes:
 
Last edited:
mikea said:
:D I was going to say that a Google search of David's postings would turn up those on this site alone which will show he has opinions which of course, means he could never be confirmed for the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Haha, no kidding! I try to be careful not to write things that I wouldn't say in person, or that I would be embarrassed about were someone to ask me about what I'd written. Of course, that hasn't stopped me from acting like a first-class jerk from time to time, but I never asked to be a role model. :)

Which brings up: it's gong to be harder and harder to find the required blank slate candidates in the future. Who wants a Supreme Court justice who has never posted a thing online?
Click to expand...

The internet is both a blessing and a curse (the blessings far outweigh the drawbacks). The blessing is that the amount of information available is simply astounding. The curse is that the amount of information available is simply astounding.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Yeah, sounds like she wouldn't drop it. And it stands to reason some delays were experienced as a result. I like the two way street approach to litigation. You should have to incur a cost if you cry wolf and come up short. In my book, the outcome was equitable. She pulled the trigger and missed; you miss your flight lady.

We all know the CA was ****ed and felt fronted by a false accusation. Once vindicated he felt it was just to give her some "time out" time on the ground for wasting his time. Oh well, I say that's parity of outcome. I'm with the crew on this one.
Click to expand...

Why does it sound like she wouldn't drop it? She reports that after being told by the FO that the CA was with him and not drinking, she said ok and went back to her seat. She was approaced by other company representitives and asked what she said to the FA & she reported what she told the FA, not sure if she also included the conversation with the FO and found his answer acceptable or not.

If I report a concern and several new people keep comming to ask me about what I reported, I will continue to give them the same summary of what I reported, I personally would amend it to include the last conversation I had and if my concerns had been addressed to my satasifaction.

You can't fault her for not droping it if diffrent company representatives come to her and ask her to recount her initial report of concern. From the perspective I read in the article it seemed like the company wouldn't drop it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top