Regardless of what one believes about what actually happened in regards to the alleged rape, it's apparently true that the captain and the flight attendant were friendly, attended a hockey game on this layover, and had socialized on previous layovers. It's completely unremarkable that 2 co-workers who were planning to get together for something like a hockey game on a layover would exchange mobile numbers. I don't think any inference either way can be drawn from this fact and I'd venture to say that there's no more significance to this than your list of room numbers from your days.

You seem to have the two incidents confused, the incident Deltasierra10 is referring to involved a flight attendant, not a "commercial pilot" and the details you cite are also from the flight attendants alleged rape. Minor point, really. But your underlying fallacy is not a minor point. The idea that someone is inherently truthful because of their job. Consider this statement:

Commercial Pilots are not in the habit of drugging and raping their co-workers. Well, there you have it. The accused pilots in both the Alaska lawsuit and the more recent Sky West lawsuit must both be innocent because they are commercial pilots, right? Ridiculous, right? Beyond ridiculous, absurd even. Yes, of course it is absurd. It is *precisely* as absurd as the claim that someone would not lie about a rape because she is a commercial pilot ...or a flight attendant. Now, I am not claiming that the flight attendant's accusations are false. I haven't assumed her accusations are true, but have no reason to disbelieve her. The reality is people do really vile things. People, rape people, and people make fabricated accusations of rape. Both are evil, but there is nothing about being employed in aviation which proves one is inherently incapable of doing either.

For what it's worth, a news article I read recently reported that the Alaska captain is no longer employed by Alaska. No details were given, and I can't seem to find the article I read that in, I think it was actually in an article about the Sky West lawsuit. Granted, this in no way proves that the rumor is true, just that it seems to have at least a kernel of fact at it's basis.

Very true, ASquared, and I thank you for the correction. We are indeed speaking of a FA here. However, my point was not about the credibility of particular occupational categories -- I have no idea whether flight attendants are more or less believable than pilots, or dispatchers than ATCOs, or Web designers than deep-sea fishermen -- than about the balance of probabilities. We simply don't see a spate of devious, Machiavellian women (or men) in commercial aviation manufacturing rape claims out of whole cloth, for fun or profit, so as to ambush hapless captains. This, you will recall, was the nightmare scenario conjured up by DS010. On the other hand, we have seen an avalanche of cases in which powerful individuals in innumerable occupational categories exploit that power so as to victimise less powerful people sexually, and do so for years or decades with impunity. Yet when it comes to sexual offences, so many of us are swift to entertain the improbable scenario rather than the likely one.

Nobody is denying the defendant in this case his day in court, with all the protections that due process can provide. But when I read of a case like this, with two possible explanations, I know in which direction the odds are pointing.

In both cases the defendant is the airline

Was this lawsuit filed in Seattle in search of a #metoo compliant jury, or was the jurisdiction in re the home of the airline company the driving factor?

SkyWest is not based in Seattle (Utah IIRC), but my understanding is the flight crew who was allegedly raped was based out of Seattle.

The US Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates the 8% of rape accusations are fraudulent. 8%. Let that sink in for a moment. Out of every 12 rape accusations, 1 of them is false. That's compared to the 2% fraudulent whcih the FBI estimates for other crimes.

Again, I am not claiming that I believe the Sky West FA's claim is made up; I have no basis for knowing. But anyone who is claiming that it must be true because rape claims are inherently true, or that women are inherently honest, or that some occupational field is filled only with honest people, has departed rationality and is simply voicing prejudice and bias.

Can you provide a cite for that statistic? Who made the estimate? Was it an official? Thanks.

The Reverend Al Sharpton made his name in New York three decades ago as a 'community activist' pushing phony rape allegations. Surprisingly, this infamous case is rarely mentioned in the #MeToo discussion.

I saw it in some third party source while I was doing some reading recently. Let me see if I can come up with a more concrete reference for that.

Here ya go:

From the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting 1995 "Crime in the United States" report




The 1996 and 1997 "Crime in the United States" reports contain substantially the same information.

8% is not "improbable". One out of every 12 is far too frequent to be dismissed as something that isn't worthy of consideration.

Presumably lack of evidence required to convince a jury so they were sure that the statutory offence was made out. In UK we require a greater than 50% probability of conviction for prosecution to proceed. Likley to be similar in othe 'common law' jurisdictions.

OTOH the standard required to find an employer liable of failing in duty of care is lower, balance of probability instead of 'sure'.

The alleged rape was in Canada, so I don't know how prosecutors do things there, but in the US I don't think it is quite as formal as assigning a probability, but there is still a judgment made on whether a conviction is likely and in some jurisdictions that is determined by a grand jury. cases which might not prosecuted could range from: "complete lack of evidence the allegations are true" .. to; "It almost certainly happened as alleged, but insufficient evidence exists to have much chance of a conviction". Beyond that, you're correct about Criminal vs Civil decisions. To get a criminal conviction the state much prove it's case "beyond a reasonable doubt" whereas in a civil case the two parties are (theoretically) appearing before the court on an equal footing so it's an either/or proposition with the decision going with the side favored by "The preponderance of evidence". A classic example of the is the OJ Simpson case. The Prosecution could not win a conviction in the criminal case, but the family of the murder victims were able to get a civil judgement in a wrongful death lawsuit for the same murders.

In UK best practice would be to hold an investigation in accordance with ACAS Guidelines. Where the offence alleged is as serious as this it would probably be carried out by HR or a senior manager rather than immediate line management.

Investigation would take statements from complainant and alleged offender and from any witnesses as to parties' behaviour eg at hotel diner, bar etc in period preceding. If there is, as suggested in other similar case mentioned on this board, hotel CCTV then I guess that could be seen too. Investigator will report to Management on his/her finding as to facts based on credibility of accounts and on balance of probability. If offence is proven employer will take action up to and including dismissal.

Employee can appeal internally and if that fails to an Employment Tribunal - effectively a court.

MAy be different in Canada or US depending on Federal or State law*.

Having recently witnessed a serious disciplinary at my own place of work around bullying and inappropriate behaviour (non sexual) the investigating officer needs to be somebody at the top of their game and be prepared to be totally independent regarding both the investigation and reputational damage to the employer.

EDIT * In originally posting I was unclear as to how far Canadian angle on this went. Now see clearly it's a US airline with local staff based at Seattle/Tacoma but alleged offence took place in Edmonton Alberta. Thus one assumes criminal investigation was in hands of Canadian city/territory or federal police. Employer investigation/discipline and Civil Action against airline as employer follows rules for appropriate State as influenced by any Federal provision.

As I say, it's a long time since I was in school. But when I was there, they taught me that 92 > 8. More than ten times as great, in fact. I believe they mentioned it in the context of a discussion of...ah yes, probabilities.

Uhh, yeah, obviously 8 percent is less probable than 92 percent. Nobody claimed anything different. However, what you have claimed is that the possibility that she is lying is too improbable to consider, which is horsecrap. 1 in 12 is not too improbable to consider.

Let me use your identical reasoning to construct "proof" the accused guy is innocent. This will help illustrate just how inane your reasoning is. The incidence of rape in the US is about 30 per 100,000. That's 0.0003% In other words, really "improbable", far less probable than 8%. For the sake of the example, if we assume that each rape is committed by a single perpetrator and each perpetrator commits only one, and half of population is men, that means that there's a 0.0006% probability that any one man is a rapist, which is still *very* improbable. So, according to your defective reasoning, we must assume that the accused is actually innocent, because there is only a 0.0006% probability that he is a rapist, far too improbable to consider. Nonsense? Yes, of course it is. Absurd? Yes, beyond Absurd. Completely devoid of logic? Yes. All that it true, it's absurd, illogical nonsense. But it also the *identical* rationale you have used to claim that we know the Flight Attendant is not fabricating her accusations.