You don't know that she "threw a tantrum". That's the word of the FA's.
And the word of the FAA, used in leveling a fine against Vicki for her actions.
Only emphasizing the fact that you are willing to make things up, since there is no such assertion in the story.
You don't know it was her intention to go to the cockpit area. She could have been headed toward the galley, where FA's can normally be found before takeoff.
Exactly, nobody knew her intentions in moving towards the front of the plane in an agitated state (There, that has to sound better than tantrum). Therefore, it makes her just as dangerous as ANY passenger heading towards the flight deck with unknown intentions.
Where does it say "she was in an agitated state? Again, you are making up your own facts.
That fact is, you have no facts at all. You've read a one-sided account, and addedd several assumptions of your own. You do not know what really happened.
Nope no facts at all, only the FAA report, Flight Attendent's account and Vicki's account. Only one account differs from the other two, guess who's that was.
You have the FAA's summation of the FA's accounts. Where did you find Mrs. Osteen's account? It's not in the story.
If FA Johnson thought she was being assaulted, why didn't she have Mrs. Osteen arrested?
Where are the assertions that Mrs. Osteen was told to remain in her seat during boarding?
Did FA's Johnson or Brown ever call the cleaning crew> Did they show up to clean the armrest?
These are facts. Deciphering intentions and using loaded language is not "a fact".