But it established something important.
She hadn't simply failed to notice what happened.
She noticed.
And chose not to respond adequately because the person causing the problem had influence.
Nina Reyes gave her account separately.
She described the confrontation, the spilled coffee, and her decision to notify the captain.
She also reported earlier concerns about the priority accommodation process.
The investigator asked why she hadn't filed a formal complaint before Flight 617.
Nina looked embarrassed.
"I thought I was too new."
The investigator waited.
She continued.
"Marianne had been flying for sixteen years. I thought if something was allowed by the senior crew, maybe I just didn't understand the rules."
She looked toward her hands.
Then whispered, "But when the woman grabbed him, I knew something was wrong."
The investigator asked what she did next.
Nina explained.
She contacted the captain.
Requested assistance.
And later gave an accurate description of the event.
For a moment, the investigator was quiet.
Then asked whether anyone had pressured her to change her account.
Nina hesitated.
She described a message from a supervisor suggesting that junior crew members should avoid making statements that could damage Crestline's premium customer relationships.
The investigator requested that the original message be preserved.
Nina agreed.
Her face was pale.
Then she asked something that stayed with the review team.
"Am I going to lose my job for saying what happened?"
The investigator didn't promise a particular employment outcome.
But she explained the company's anti-retaliation rules and the independent channels available if Nina experienced pressure.
The young flight attendant nodded.
Then whispered, "Thank you."
For the first time since boarding Flight 617, she felt that someone was asking what happened rather than what the company wanted the story to sound like.
The internal findings concerning Flight 617 were completed after the evidence review.
The airline determined that the seat reassignment had been improperly processed and that the voluntary designation was unsupported.
The passenger incident records established that Caroline physically interfered with my clothing and struck the cup, causing the coffee to spill.
The review also found that the senior cabin attendant failed to respond appropriately and initially minimized the confrontation.
Keating had entered an unauthorized override without verifying consent.
And the broader PCA program contained deficiencies that allowed similar problems to occur elsewhere.
The findings did not depend on my position as incoming CEO.
The audit committee explicitly evaluated the episode as a passenger complaint involving a paid reservation, an improper reassignment, and a reported physical confrontation.
I received the factual findings through the formal process, without participating in disciplinary decisions concerning my own case.