And procedures being treated as optional whenever someone important became impatient.
The flight crew's communications provided the next revelation.
The captain had exchanged messages with a private contact associated with the CFO's office before the disputed departure.
One message referred to the CEO's scheduled scholarship event.
Another warned that she might arrive at the aircraft unexpectedly.
The captain had been told to prevent anyone outside the revised manifest from boarding.
That instruction, by itself, wasn't improper.
A pilot should not allow unauthorized passengers aboard.
But the messages didn't stop there.
One said:
If the founder appears, send her back to the terminal and contact the finance office before allowing access.
The captain acknowledged the instruction.
Then added a response that made the investigators pause.
Understood. She won't be a problem.
Outside counsel reviewed the context.
They couldn't conclude from that sentence alone that the captain intended to discriminate against the CEO.
But it established that he'd received information concerning her possible arrival.
He wasn't simply encountering a stranger he couldn't identify.
He'd been warned.
And instead of directing her through proper verification, he'd insulted her appearance, struck her documents, and attempted to have her removed.
The investigators then located another message.
It had been sent shortly before she reached the aircraft.
The captain wrote:
Woman matching the description is here.
The response came from the finance-side contact.
Do not let her interfere with the departure.
For several seconds, the investigation room was quiet.
Then the senior aviation executive leaned back.
He'd suspected the crew knew more than it admitted.
Now the communications showed that the confrontation had occurred against a background of deliberate instructions concerning the CEO.
The captain's claim that he had no way of knowing who she was had become very difficult to defend.
The flight attendant's messages were no better.
She had exchanged notes with the captain shortly before boarding.
One described an important woman who might arrive from a charity event in a black formal gown.
Another referred to keeping the principal passenger area ready for the CFO's group.
The attendant responded with a joke about the CEO's elaborate outfit.
Then she wrote that she would make sure any unwanted visitor remained outside.
When investigators interviewed her, she claimed she believed the CEO was an event worker attempting to board without authorization.
The interviewer asked why she didn't verify the name the woman gave.
She said the captain already made the decision.
Then the investigator showed her the message referring to the CEO's appearance.
For several seconds, she stared.
Her expression changed.
Then she argued that the message didn't establish she knew the visitor's identity.
The investigator didn't argue.