<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by DallaStarwooDelta:
I've been following this thread for some time. Is it just me or are we missing the bigger issue here.
This agent would have flown on this flight without the captain reviewing his paperwork at all if he had never left the plane to retrieve something. If you want to point the finger at the agent then do so for being foolish and forgetting something at the gate. </font>
The AA statements and the statements of the Secret Service Agent and his seatmate disagree on this point. The agent and seatmate say that he was asked to leave his seat to answer questions. The AA statements don't say why he left his seat at all, actually; just that he left the aircraft.
But I think
DallaStarwooDelta is correct in highlighting this issue. If the agent left his seat without being requested to do so and left the aircraft of his own volition, I'm far more inclined to cut the crew more slack on their suspicions. If the crew or ground staff requested that he deplane for additional questioning, it seems like a deliberate CYA to leave that out of the filed reports.
There are some discrepancies on details between the pilot's statment and the SCOC's, but things get lost in conversations (people's memories are rarely perfect when it comes to precise chronologies or word for word retelling of a conversation after all). I'm willing to chalk up the differences to the frailty of memory unless the crew or ground staff requested the agent to proceed to the jetway for questions. Then I admit I'd view the pilot's statement with a bit more critical eye.
I suspect the truth of the matter once tempers flared is somewhere between the two accounts. In other words, both men were nervous and became short tempered and unprofessional. While that reflects badly on both men, given their professional positions, I think most of us can recall situations in which we wish we acted more professionally in our own lives, too.
After reading all of the accounts so far, I think probably both men owed each other an apology. I can give them both some latitude for not handling the situation as best as they could have. But it appears that these men are unable or unwilling to see things from the other's perspective. Now that lawyers are involved, I doubt a mutual apology will be in the offing. My guess is that AA will ultimately want to avoid more negative publicity and will settle, which will effectively prevent us from ever getting a clearer picture of what transpired.
P.S. Note to attorneys on both sides: presumably, there were other pax within hearing distance who might be able to confirm one side of the story or the other?
(Edited to correct a typo)
[This message has been edited by HollyHP (edited 01-03-2002).]