<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by acvitale:
Platos90, whomever you are...
A blunt question.. Do you work for AA?
It sure seems like you have the mentality that no matter how many witnesses (Pax, Police) and how the facts (No paperwork goof, profiling, rifiling of papers) add up against AA you seem to always find a way to stand behind the AA lies.
AA has changed it's story 3 times
1. The agent had bad paperwork (Turns out it was fine except the crossed out flight number changed by the AA gate agent when the original flight cancelled)
Besides the initial crossout, he also filled out the form incorrectly 2 more times, including failing to initial the final form.
2. The agent was not verifiable. (Maryland police verified him but, the pilot was not good with that.. The ticket was issued by the White House for that matter)
The pilot said he wasn't sure of it, because of the repeated paperwork errors. The only people who claimed the agent wasn't verifiable were reporters, not AA's spokesman.
3. Now the latest.. The agent was abusive.. Really, Now the man seated next to him and a women in the gate area dispute that claim and you go with the continued lies..
Neither of the witnesses saw the confrontation. Did you know that?
Heck AA claimed the police backed up the pilot but, the Maryland Police quickly said that was untrue...
I think you better pick a different corner... You are backing and betting on the sure loser if this makes it to court.
</font>
Are you a law clerk for the firm defending this guy? Or maybe the agent's cousin?
Is it impossible to disagree with you without having ulterior motives like being an employee of AA?
None of your three discrepancies were part of AA's statements, since AA only made one (1) statement so far. You're finding discrepancies within reporters' stories, which are based on their guesses and innuendo. Big surprise that those reporters made mistakes.
Personally, I'd love to see this thing go to court. Regulation and law is clearly on AA's side, which is why they will vigorously defend this charge.
[This message has been edited by Plato90s (edited 01-05-2002).]