Replies

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.

The biggest hole in your theory, Doctor, is representated by the fact that the pilot (AND co-pilot . . . was he in on the power-trip also?) submitted themselves to drug and alcohol tests. That is hardly the behavior one would expect from someone who is merely trying to show someone else who's boss. Furthermore, consider the following:

. . . in compliance with Federal Aviation Administration guidelines.

So even in the absence of a CYA-type policy at the airline (in my opinion unlikely), there is a procedure that exists for this sort of a situation.

So basically, some dumb-arse who hasn't flown in ten years shot his mouth off where he shouldn't have . . . a scenario that even you should admit is much more likely than a flight-crew on a Christmas Eve ego-trip. (Hey Captain! I just figured out a way to delay our own flight for four hours!)