Woman gets kicked off DL flight after accusing CA of boozing

[Whataburger]

As old as the Delta Capts are, I bet he tested positive for Viagra.

 

[GuppyWN]

Just look at the lady, tell her because she has accused you of drinking that there will be a lengthy delay, and walk off the jet.

Don't get your "feelings" hurt. Don't get pissed off. Just walk off the jet.

Gup

 

[IBNAV8R]

Not saying I fault the crew but, how exactly SHOULD a passenger voice safety concerns? Do we dismiss a lowly pax's concerns merely because they paid for a ticket? What if it were ice on the wings, a missing panel, damage not seen during a walk-around. Should they not speak up for fear of reprisal?

 

[180ToTheMarker]

I'd bet my life on it

My name is Indigo Montoya....eh nevermind

 

[SLUF4]

Not saying I fault the crew but, how exactly SHOULD a passenger voice safety concerns? Do we dismiss a lowly pax's concerns merely because they paid for a ticket? What if it were ice on the wings, a missing panel, damage not seen during a walk-around. Should they not speak up for fear of reprisal?

No-you don't dismiss their concerns. He addressed her concern and got tested. I think that goes for most anything someone says-I'm going to at least check it out for myself.

 

[Linedriver]

Ok, I think I must disagree. It sounds like the passenger did a good job about discreetly voicing her concerns. What is accomplished by kicking her off the flight? It looks more like an adolescent reaction by the captain - she is no threat.

As pilots we are trained to solve problems while maintaing composure so why the retaliation against a passenger who was doing the same thing?

Just saying it doesn't look good.

 

[DrewBlows]

Not saying I fault the crew but, how exactly SHOULD a passenger voice safety concerns? Do we dismiss a lowly pax's concerns merely because they paid for a ticket? What if it were ice on the wings, a missing panel, damage not seen during a walk-around. Should they not speak up for fear of reprisal?

All passengers should feel free to speak up but be prepared to take the next flight.

This lady was going to take the next flight if she was right about the alcohol anyway so no bid deal, in my opinion.

 

[DCMartin]

I seriously doubt this article tells the full story. She was obviously loud enough to make her voice heard through media outlets, and Id say there was a decent chance she was loud enough to cause a scene and be considered disruptive.

This "poor me attitude" from the article is most likely BS...

Any crew member who has had accusatory letters written by passengers of their flight can usually attest to major discrepancies between what actually happened and what was written by the accuser.

 

[Linedriver]

I seriously doubt this article tells the full story. She was obviously loud enough to make her voice heard through media outlets, and Id say there was a decent chance she was loud enough to cause a scene and be considered disruptive.

This "poor me attitude" from the article is most likely BS...

Any crew member who has had accusatory letters written by passengers of their flight can usually attest to major discrepancies between what actually happened and what was written by the accuser.

Yep, there may be some truth to that!

 

[Ty Webb]

Passengers have a right to make an accusation, but unfounded accusations also have consequences. I, too, doubt that she was discreet. Perhaps "White Plains discreet", or "Philadelphia discreet".

Sounds like they handled it right. I'm sure as the rest of the passengers figured out that her accusation was the result of the delay, it could get ugly enroute.

 

[Motive Flow]

And now the rest of the story:

ATLANTA - After a Southern California woman said she was kicked off of a Delta Air Lines flight in Atlanta for reporting that she and others smelled alcohol on the captain's breath, Delta corporate officials issued a statement regarding the incident.

We took these allegations very seriously and the pilot responded immediately to Ms. Angel's concerns. Consistent with our policies, the crew contacted Flight Operations and Airport Customer Service who followed company policies and engaged a trained evaluator to determine if the pilot was impaired in any way.
Following the evaluation, the pilot was cleared for duty. 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.
​

Delta officials said the passenger was removed because she continued talk about the matter even after the matter was deemed settled.
The passenger has said that she did not keep talking about it. She said that as soon as a pilot assured her that the captain had been with him for the previous several hours and had not been drinking, she went to her seat and did not mention it again. But, she said, Delta supervisors kept coming to her to talk to her about her initial concern, which she said had been answered to her satisfaction, finally removing her from the flight, without telling her why the captain wanted her off.



This was from 11alive.com (one of the local ATL TV news websites).

 

[at7driver]

won't be long and we will be locked behind the doors till its "safe" to get off the plane.. glad he left and got tested, thats the only way to go after the accusation.

 

[P38JLightning]

I hope airlines finally start aggressively suing gold digger/attention mongers like this. Yeah, it's cheaper to pay them off...right up until it becomes popular enough because of exposure more people start doing it. Heck those clucking morons on The View probably planted the idea into the heads of thousands of useless eaters as it is.

 

[john cocktosen]

What about the right to refuse service. they should have refunded her ticket and told her to have a nice day!!! I'm glad this CA had the stones to throw her off.

 

[GogglesPisano]

I'd be tempted to sue her for slander.

 

[asadonkey]

I'd be tempted to sue her for slander.

You cant sue a person for slander just because they thought they smelled something they smelled. Unfortunatly you can't just sue someone for being an idiot. Being a moron is still legal in this country. Democrats have made a damn good living from idiots. ( And new customers are pumping through the gov't skool factories by the millions)

Great job by the crew. BTW

 

[GogglesPisano]

I can't find any cases of a lawsuit like this. It would be interesting to watch unfold if it ever went that far.


http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html

What Are Defamation, Libel and Slander?
Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.

Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:

1.A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2.The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
3.If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
4.Damage to the plaintiff.
In the context of defamation law, a statement is "published" when it is made to the third party. That term does not mean that the statement has to be in print.

Damages are typically to the reputation of the plaintiff, but depending upon the laws of the jurisdiction it may be enough to establish mental anguish.

Most jurisdictions also recognize "per se" defamation, where the allegations are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:

•Attacks on a person's professional character or standing;
•Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;
•Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease;
•Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude;
While actions for defamation have their roots in common law, most jurisdictions have now enacted statutes which modify the common law. They may change the elements of the cause of action, limit when an action may be filed, or modify the defenses to an action for defamation. Some may even require that the defendant be given an opportunity to apologize before the plaintiff can seek non-economic damages.

 

[Max Powers]

You cant sue a person for slander just because they thought they smelled something they smelled. Unfortunatly you can't just sue someone for being an idiot. Being a moron is still legal in this country. Democrats have made a damn good living from idiots. ( And new customers are pumping through the gov't skool factories by the millions)

Great job by the crew. BTW

Yep your a Donkey! Where should I begin with your stupidity?

 

[waveflyer]

It's Inigo Montoya- and you keeled my father... Prepare...

And god obsessed about politics- lovely how you geeks always find some way to dig on democrats as if the GOP is less corrupt

 

[BILL LUMBERG]

For once Wave...you and I see eye to eye...

The GOP.....Funny how they brag about trying to "Protect the Constitution" when under W's watch they tried to change the constitution 6 times (such gems as repealing the 22'nd amendment, Adding a Marriage amendment......etc etc.) Now these clowns want to change the 14'th......

If any of the sheeple who follow these clowns are worried about the constitution, look no further than their own leaders....

Rant over, no more thread creep.....