Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: dark_lord
On a slow day, we would not have required to get to reply #74 before someone nailed it the way you did. This is less about a rapidly-approaching police state, and more about a (potential) deep-pockets plaintiff covering its butt in our overly-litigious society. I'm surprised that more people don't understand that simple fact.
80 posted on 12/25/2002 1:54:43 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies ]


To: 1rudeboy
This is less about a rapidly-approaching police state, and more about a (potential) deep-pockets plaintiff covering its butt in our overly-litigious society.

Codswallop. The pilot made the decision, and he was at no risk of being sued, even if the airline was (extremely doubtful). I'd say that the airline faces at least as much risk of litigation because contracted service was not delivered as promised for an entirely frivilous reason. The sole issue here is that the pilot was offended and thought he'd prove to everyone he was King S--t of Turd Mountain.

Even a direct accusation of inebriation would in no way have endangered the flight or interfered with the flight crew. The pilot only had to say, "no, I haven't been drinking; in fact, I've just been tested," and that would have been the end of it. In a worst case scenario (say, a drunken passenger making the accusation in a threatening manner), the problem could have been solved by removing that passenger from that flight.

81 posted on 12/25/2002 2:20:08 PM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson