Yikes...
03-18-2018, 02:03 PM
#281
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,547
So what are you saying? We all know the same “guy”?!
Every company has those guys and they’re a stain on our industry.
Be honest how many times have you heard : “ I have daughters that age but she’s haaaawt”
Really dude? Seriously? Your daughters in the same sentence?
You’ve forgotten the SW pilot rant on the air?
Unless it’s a strip joint women have a right to be left alone in the workplace and not constantly be deflecting the Daddy issue types.
Every company has those guys and they’re a stain on our industry.
Be honest how many times have you heard : “ I have daughters that age but she’s haaaawt”
Really dude? Seriously? Your daughters in the same sentence?
You’ve forgotten the SW pilot rant on the air?
Unless it’s a strip joint women have a right to be left alone in the workplace and not constantly be deflecting the Daddy issue types.
03-18-2018, 02:08 PM
#282
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2017
Posts: 627
I'm curious... how are you an expert on the matter? Have the times you've been assaulted gone down in recent years?
03-18-2018, 02:10 PM
#283
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,756
Well just like every single poster who feels this Captain should be convicted as a rapist based on what this lady and her attorneys have said alone would have no problem volunteering their sons to give up their due process rights and be convicted on what one person says without any investigation or the ability to have their side of the story heard as well.
Your blaming the accused without given them their due process rights to be heard, nor even hearing the results of the investigation by Alaska or the authorities is revolting. In this country we have something called the presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty. She hasn't even sued him or demanded the authorities in Minneapolis arrest him for rape.
But we know women never lie, distort, or try to extort men in situations like this right? Go hang out around a Family Court for an afternoon and you'll find out different.
Until you hear the Captain's side of it, see what Alaska found out in their investigation, or there is a criminal investigation launched it is impossible to say what really happened here. She could be telling the truth, she may not be. However it is very curious that she has filed no criminal complaint, given the fact that she feels she was sexually assaulted and drugged. The only problem with that, is if it is found she filed a false complaint she would be in legal jeopardy for filing a false report. Also curious that her suit targets Alaska, and not the man who she claims drugged and raped her.
Unfortunately we will probably never know, as Alaska will probably pay everyone off, have them sign NDAs, and bury the whole thing to make it go away, unless the authorities get involved somehow.
Your blaming the accused without given them their due process rights to be heard, nor even hearing the results of the investigation by Alaska or the authorities is revolting. In this country we have something called the presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty. She hasn't even sued him or demanded the authorities in Minneapolis arrest him for rape.
But we know women never lie, distort, or try to extort men in situations like this right? Go hang out around a Family Court for an afternoon and you'll find out different.
Until you hear the Captain's side of it, see what Alaska found out in their investigation, or there is a criminal investigation launched it is impossible to say what really happened here. She could be telling the truth, she may not be. However it is very curious that she has filed no criminal complaint, given the fact that she feels she was sexually assaulted and drugged. The only problem with that, is if it is found she filed a false complaint she would be in legal jeopardy for filing a false report. Also curious that her suit targets Alaska, and not the man who she claims drugged and raped her.
Unfortunately we will probably never know, as Alaska will probably pay everyone off, have them sign NDAs, and bury the whole thing to make it go away, unless the authorities get involved somehow.
1. Do you really know for sure that there has been no criminal complaint filed?
2. Do you know that there never will be a criminal complaint filed? People often have years to file a criminal complaint.
3.Do you know that she will never sue him?
Maybe it is enough for her for Alaska to fire him, but not go to jail. Not everyone wants to go through the stress of a criminal trial.
But I do agree that it is unfair to presume someone guilty (even if they sound like it), without knowing everything.
03-18-2018, 02:26 PM
#285
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2011
Position: Taco Rocket Operator
Posts: 2,485
Except....
1. Do you really know for sure that there has been no criminal complaint filed?
2. Do you know that there never will be a criminal complaint filed? People often have years to file a criminal complaint.
3.Do you know that she will never sue him?
Maybe it is enough for her for Alaska to fire him, but not go to jail. Not everyone wants to go through the stress of a criminal trial.
But I do agree that it is unfair to presume someone guilty (even if they sound like it), without knowing everything.
1. Do you really know for sure that there has been no criminal complaint filed?
2. Do you know that there never will be a criminal complaint filed? People often have years to file a criminal complaint.
3.Do you know that she will never sue him?
Maybe it is enough for her for Alaska to fire him, but not go to jail. Not everyone wants to go through the stress of a criminal trial.
But I do agree that it is unfair to presume someone guilty (even if they sound like it), without knowing everything.
The other thing that is curious, is I don't see how Alaska would keep this guy around if their investigation revealed proof of sexual assault and drugging.
From the comments in the article, it seems Alaska was more interested in their state of intoxication and violations of rules regarding the use of alcohol. It sounds like they were both cleared in some way and returned to flying status. From the brief and the reporting on this, it sounds like they were probably allowed to return to duty because the Captain admitted they were not fit to fly and they didn't try to report for work the next day. Sounds like a suspension of some kind and a return to duty. But it is impossible to say for sure until you see the Alaska report and find out if they were disciplined for anything. I suspect if this isn't settled, you will see it in Alaskas response. Also hopefully the Captain and his counsel will have some kind of response giving his side of this as well.
03-18-2018, 02:34 PM
#286
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,547
Just because you can find news articles about pilots who've done these horrible things, does not make their actions pervasive in our industry. To say so is to stretch reality.
03-18-2018, 02:35 PM
#287
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,756
To follow your logic, how do we know the authorities didn't look at it and conclude there was not enough evidence, after talking to witnesses, to warrant charges?
The other thing that is curious, is I don't see how Alaska would keep this guy around if their investigation revealed proof of sexual assault and drugging.
From the comments in the article, it seems Alaska was more interested in their state of intoxication and violations of rules regarding the use of alcohol. It sounds like they were both cleared in some way and returned to flying status. From the brief and the reporting on this, it sounds like they were probably allowed to return to duty because the Captain admitted they were not fit to fly and they didn't try to report for work the next day. Sounds like a suspension of some kind and a return to duty. But it is impossible to say for sure until you see the Alaska report and find out if they were disciplined for anything. I suspect if this isn't settled, you will see it in Alaskas response. Also hopefully the Captain and his counsel will have some kind of response giving his side of this as well.
The other thing that is curious, is I don't see how Alaska would keep this guy around if their investigation revealed proof of sexual assault and drugging.
From the comments in the article, it seems Alaska was more interested in their state of intoxication and violations of rules regarding the use of alcohol. It sounds like they were both cleared in some way and returned to flying status. From the brief and the reporting on this, it sounds like they were probably allowed to return to duty because the Captain admitted they were not fit to fly and they didn't try to report for work the next day. Sounds like a suspension of some kind and a return to duty. But it is impossible to say for sure until you see the Alaska report and find out if they were disciplined for anything. I suspect if this isn't settled, you will see it in Alaskas response. Also hopefully the Captain and his counsel will have some kind of response giving his side of this as well.
03-18-2018, 02:38 PM
#288
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,030
To follow your logic, how do we know the authorities didn't look at it and conclude there was not enough evidence, after talking to witnesses, to warrant charges?
The other thing that is curious, is I don't see how Alaska would keep this guy around if their investigation revealed proof of sexual assault and drugging.
From the comments in the article, it seems Alaska was more interested in their state of intoxication and violations of rules regarding the use of alcohol. It sounds like they were both cleared in some way and returned to flying status. From the brief and the reporting on this, it sounds like they were probably allowed to return to duty because the Captain admitted they were not fit to fly and they didn't try to report for work the next day. Sounds like a suspension of some kind and a return to duty. But it is impossible to say for sure until you see the Alaska report and find out if they were disciplined for anything. I suspect if this isn't settled, you will see it in Alaskas response. Also hopefully the Captain and his counsel will have some kind of response giving his side of this as well.
The other thing that is curious, is I don't see how Alaska would keep this guy around if their investigation revealed proof of sexual assault and drugging.
From the comments in the article, it seems Alaska was more interested in their state of intoxication and violations of rules regarding the use of alcohol. It sounds like they were both cleared in some way and returned to flying status. From the brief and the reporting on this, it sounds like they were probably allowed to return to duty because the Captain admitted they were not fit to fly and they didn't try to report for work the next day. Sounds like a suspension of some kind and a return to duty. But it is impossible to say for sure until you see the Alaska report and find out if they were disciplined for anything. I suspect if this isn't settled, you will see it in Alaskas response. Also hopefully the Captain and his counsel will have some kind of response giving his side of this as well.
Probably no way to prove, or disprove, drugging or assault at this point. The only thing that might be provable was the alcohol timeline, but there's no indication they even busted the ten hours (pulling them off duty after a complaint was only prudent, regardless of the timeline).
03-18-2018, 03:05 PM
#289
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,547
By the way, how are you an expert on the matter?
03-18-2018, 03:26 PM
#290
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2017
Posts: 627
So, suddenly one needs to be an expert in the subject matter to post what any normal person should know through simple observation? Is that what you’re saying? Are you an expert on everything you comment on? Or do you just make statements based on your observations? Newsflash! Just because a plaintiff in a lawsuit claims something to be pervasive, does not make it necessarily true.
By the way, how are you an expert on the matter?
By the way, how are you an expert on the matter?
Other than your simple first-person anecdotes, what are you claiming you know to back up your claims?
My theory: **** you're reacting defensively to the claim that defies your limited worldview. Egos are a dangerous thing.
I'm sorry this lawsuit hurts you so personally, maybe therapy will help?
Edit: Another point. How many incidents of sexual assault or workplace harassment need to occur in the industry, in your opinion, for "pervasive" to be an accurate term? 5? 50? 500? It's purely subjective. And it's not your place to make that judgement call. What is acceptable to you is not acceptable to others. And the fact that you're willing to accept a certain level of sexual assault as "within norms" is f&cking revolting.
Last edited by UAL T38 Phlyer; 03-18-2018 at 05:37 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
