hpark21

What about using her (non-existing once plane started to move) authority to turn the plane around to kick out the crew member?

That COULD have had serious consequences in airline safety issue as well as inconveniencing hundreds of PAYING passengers for minor disciplinary issue.

Paella747

There were reports (somewhere) that she was aggressively shoving the iPad (that the FA couldn't 'unlock' to look up the regulations) into the flight attendants. Not saying it's fact, just that I remember reading it.

Either way, causing an A380 to go back to the gate for a stupid reason at JFK is enough to make me root for prison! That, and I don't think her brother served any time for punching an old lady a few years ago. That family is quality.

HMO

Some reports stated she made the purser kneel in front of her. I may be wrong, but I do believe the line between "excessive discipline" and humiliation was well crossed in this case.

But I don't know, you might find OK to kneel for your boss.

bocastephen

I wouldn't limit her authority without consulting Korean air regulations - she represents the de facto owner of the aircraft and may be within her rights to stop the flight.

I don't dispute her actions were a little bit overboard, but I do admire her passion for absolute quality.

If you think she is a bad apple, why not ask the female flight attendants what it's like working for Qatar...where not only could their jobs be in jeopardy for violating policy, but even their freedom or life.

Paella747

Errr.... just because some of us find her objectionable doesn't mean we don't think that worse things happen out there in the world...

It's a thread about the KE situation. I'm sure hpark21 (and many of us) would think that the Qatar situation isn't exactly fair either. Doesn't really have anything to do with Macadamia Nut Lady's fantastic leadership style that nepotism blessed upon her......

stargold

KE is a publicly traded company. She is certainly not the "de facto owner" of the aircraft.

And she is going to jail precisely because she didn't have the authority to stop the flight under Korean law.It would help if she was actually correct in her application of these procedures. But by all accounts the FA was correct, and Cho was the one that was mistaken herself. Unless of course, your admiration for her extends to being able to make up new procedures on the spot, and immediately finding the employee in violation.There's always an example of something worse or more extreme. Doesn't make the present case any better.

lee_apromise

The said purser has filed a civil lawsuit against Heather Cho and Korean Air in NY for $50 million dollars.

This fiasco happened whilst the aircraft was being pushed back with its door closed.

Whose jurisdiction is this? U.S or Korea? Does anyone with U.S legal background on FT know? Do you think the said purser will win?

IceTrojan

There's not really an airline version of diplomatic immunity, so while the plane may have been sealed up, it's still on US soil.

Also, a material part of the incident (kicking him off the plane into the jetway) occurred with the door open and jetway connected, so that would render the above argument moot anyway.

YuropFlyer

Lawsuit off 50 millions about being kicked from the job? Seriously? Oh wait, I forgot, it's the US

Suddenly the purser lost all my sympathy. Seems he's just greedy..

IceTrojan

It's probably the attorney who came up with that figure, and the purser is just along for the ride.

Aventine

It's also the flight attendant, as well, looking for a big payday.

Pathfinder813

It seems the purser would file suit in New York State Supreme Court, Queens County. The other flight attendant involved in the nut rage case file a civil suit in March in the same court.

Here, New York State Supreme Court, Queens County would have jurisdiction since the alleged injury took place in Queens County (JFK is located in Queens County). It doesn't matter that the aircraft was a foreign flagged carrier. I think this could also be filed in federal court but I'm assuming that a decision was made that state court filing would be better.

As for the amount of millions, it's not just about the injury to the person. The victim wants to make a statement. Let's say they sued for a million. It's actually not that much. If the FAs were fired, they have lost their pay. Because their names were plastered in the media, it could be difficult for them to get the same line of work, assuming they did no wrong, with another airline. If they could have worked another 15 years at the job, and you account for raises, a million might not be enough.

But also, the idea of punitive damages is to make a statement. Damages in the U.S. is generous and so I'm assuming that is why the FA filed suit in the U.S. If Korean gets off with a slap on the hand at a million, what's to deter Korean Air from having another exec treat an employee the same way (assuming there is no press involved)? They would just see this as a business expense. If they get hit with $50 million in damages, that makes the corporation wake up.

To a business, the strongest way to send a message is to fine them money. I'll give some examples in football. For example, look at the Patriots. SpyGate was a $250,000 fine against the Patriots so they didn't care. Now they got hit with a $1 million fine and I'm sure they still don't really care. They won a Super Bowl. That's like the government giving a parking ticket that is $30 to someone.

A lot of people think that plaintiffs in civil suits are greedy and I think some plaintiffs are greedy. But when you have a billion dollar corporation as the defendant, sometimes you have to go for a large amount to make a statement.

MegatopLover

The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States not just because our system has a broad concept of compensatory damages (not getting into punitives for present purposes, but it may be additional leverage), but also because in the United States, Heather Cho and her dad don't control 25% of the economy and enjoy Demi-God status among many (including in the political and judiciary branches). In Queens, the bench and jury don't know or care who the Cho's are, and if a jury can be convinced that she's an abusive little princess, they'll hang her out to dry. That Hanjin's shareholders will pay is beside the point. Suing in the United States is a no-brainer.

There is no apparent grounds for federal jurisdiction. Unless the plaintiff has stated a private right of action for violation of federal law (highly unlikely), there is no federal-question jurisdiction. There is no diversity jurisdiction either because you have foreign nationals on both sides of the "v.": Koreans vs. Koreans = no diversity. With neither federal question nor diversity jurisdiction, I can't see a way into federal court.

Of course, right now the defense is looking for a written arbitration agreement or some point of Korean substantive law to get the case dismissed and sent back to Seoul.

lee_apromise

Latest update:

Heather Cho received 2 years suspended sentence. She is released from the prison.

Aventine

Wondered if they wheeled her out in a neckbrace and wheelchair. Not surprised prison doesn't stick to chaebol family members.