The current libel and slander laws are iniquitous. As a journalist, I have to be very careful over what I say about anyone who's likely to be able to sue, and can pretty much say what I like about someone who's not. (These are not by any means the only lights I steer by! The majority of hacks I know are ethical and aware of their wider responsibilities.)
Robert Maxwell kept a lid on all his terrible deeds by firing off writs like an epileptic with a Sten gun, while countless innocent individuals have been shafted by a press that knows full well the victims haven't got the money to fight.
In this case, and assuming that the rumours of innocence are true, the pilot concerned doesn't prima face have a case against papers which called him 'drunk' without identifying him - if you can't be identified, you can't legally be damaged by libel, no matter what personal distress has been caused. If on the other hand he can be identified, even if not directly by the papers who wrote the 'drunk' headlines, then he has a case (although whether it's advisable that he proceed is very questionable, given the extreme expense and unpleasantness of going to court in cases like this). That means that if someone identified him on here, he'd ironically be in a stronger legal position - although such action would be utterly irresponsible in all other ways.
Virgin, however, probably would have a case - it could say that the company's reputation has been damaged by the implication that it employs drunk pilots, an implication made by any article or headline that didn't give true weight to the fact that pending test results and any court case, the pilot was innocent of the accusation. Again, whether it wants to is another matter. I'd like to think that it would make representations to any publication who ran 'drunk pilot hauled off flight deck' saying that it wants to see a decent retraction published and a contribution to an appropriate charity made, and that this would be seen as the safest way out by the publishers - but it's a tough call. You need serious legals to decide this sort of thing.
I've no doubt that a saner legal system of libel and slander would result in better journalism and fairer treatment of accused people. As it stands, it's too easy to thump the innocent and too hard to get at the guilty.
R