She simply asked why the attendant hadn't followed the company's documented passenger-verification and respectful-conduct procedures.
The woman had no convincing answer.
The first officer faced a different set of questions.
He admitted he saw the captain strike the documents and heard the insults.
He also acknowledged receiving the revised manifest.
But he maintained that he believed the authorization had been approved by the appropriate corporate department.
Then the investigators showed him an earlier message.
In it, he'd asked why the CEO's name had disappeared from the passenger list.
The captain replied that finance had approved the change and instructed him not to complicate the departure.
The first officer didn't challenge the explanation.
He proceeded.
The investigators considered the pressure he faced.
But they also examined his own responsibilities.
He'd noticed a discrepancy.
He'd failed to report it through the available channels.
And when the CEO offered legitimate verification, he remained silent while the captain denied her access.
His conduct wasn't identical to the captain's.
But it couldn't be dismissed as something he had no power to influence.
The CEO reviewed the preliminary findings with outside counsel and the aviation company's regional director.
They met in a conference room at Meridian Atlas headquarters overlooking the Hudson River.
The CEO wore a dark tailored suit rather than the black evening gown.
Her hair was pulled back neatly.
The diamond Rolex remained on her wrist.
For several minutes, she listened while the investigators explained the records.
She didn't interrupt.
Then she asked whether any material evidence remained unreviewed.
Outside counsel described several outstanding interviews and financial documents.
The regional director explained the crew's contractual status and the company's disciplinary procedures.
The CEO nodded.
Then asked whether the evidence established deliberate misrepresentation concerning her arrival.
The counsel answered carefully.
The communications supported the conclusion that the captain had been warned of her possible presence, failed to follow proper verification procedures, and made false or misleading statements during the confrontation.
The flight attendant had engaged in inappropriate conduct and participated in the exclusion.
The first officer had knowingly failed to escalate the manifest discrepancy despite recognizing it.
The CEO looked toward the director.
"Are they still assigned to the aircraft?"
"No."
"Could they be reassigned to another Meridian Atlas flight before the review is complete?"
"No."
She nodded.
Then asked what employment action the operator intended to take.
The director explained that the company was completing the necessary procedural steps, including opportunities for the crew members to respond.
The CEO listened.
Then said something that made everyone in the room pause.
"I don't want them removed because they offended the owner."
The director looked surprised.
She continued.
"I want the company to address what they actually did."