‘It’s well-intentioned’: Hosts debate requiring BAC tests before boarding a flight

A woman in her 20s is suing Southwest Airlines and a passenger over an alleged sexual assault on a flight from Seattle to Sacramento. Sitting in the middle seat, the woman was allegedly repeatedly groped without her consent by a man who was reportedly drunk and continuously served alcohol aboard the flight.

Ursula Reutin, co-host of “The Gee and Ursula Show” on KIRO Newsradio, asked whether the plaintiff has a valid argument to win the case, and if it is time to require blood alcohol content tests before drunk passengers are allowed to board a plane.

“I mean the main responsibility is with the passenger. Being drunk does not excuse you from groping somebody,” Ursula said. “He is responsible for his actions, but if he was obviously drunk, I mean, you know that there are people who will get on the plane, and you smell it, and they look three sheets to the wind. You definitely should not keep serving that person, so that’s where Southwest Airlines may share the responsibility.”

Tomlin pointed to the key legal term that could decide the lawsuit

KIRO fill-in host Greg Tomlin broke down the case and explained how the plaintiff could build a winning argument.

“Negligence is the key term here, and during the investigation, the plaintiff is probably going to try to prove that the airline employees, whether at the gate or during the flight itself, knew that this person was intoxicated,” Tomlin said. “It was a reasonable inference from his behavior that he was drunk, and in spite of that, continued to serve him alcohol anyway. That’s the strongest potential case that the plaintiff has.

“Also, did this man pose a threat to this woman before this happened?” Tomlin continued. “If this was a spontaneous thing, it’s a lot harder to hold the airline accountable for it. But if there was a big lead-up to it, and the employees showed negligence here, I think this could be a warranted lawsuit without a doubt.”

KIRO producer Andrew Lanier and Tomlin went back and forth debating the idea of mandating passengers, who are clearly showing signs of intoxication, to submit to a blood alcohol content test to board a plane.

“The breathalyzer at the gate idea, I mean, it’s well intentioned,” Tomlin said.

“OK, that was my idea. Why is that ridiculous?” Andrew asked. “Doesn’t the public have a right to fly without worrying about being assaulted? I’m not saying everyone on the plane. Right now it’s a judgment call, like some stewardess or gate agent has to decide whether they want to make a big stink and kick someone off the flight. It’s pretty obvious if you look impaired. Have them blow into it, and if they’re below X, then great, get on the plane.”

Debate turned to what blood alcohol level should bar a passenger

Tomlin noted that breathalyzer tests at the airport gates would be something airlines would want to avoid due to added costs and lengthy delays becoming more common.

“It would be a major cost that I don’t think airlines would want to eat,” Tomlin said. “It would lead to way more delays, right? I mean, every second counts in an airport nowadays. What would be the universally accepted blood alcohol level to not allow someone on a plane? Would it be 0.08? By the way, people handle their alcohol differently; a lot of people are very straight-laced and keep it together.”

“It should be double the legal limit, 0.16,” Andrew said. “That’s the argument why drunk driving should be legal is, ‘Well, some people have a tolerance, and they’re not actually drunk.”

“But in that situation, you’re in control of the plane, so to speak,” Tomlin responded. “You’re not a passenger, right?”

Watch the full discussion in the video above.

Listen to Gee and Ursula on “The Gee and Ursula Show” weekday mornings from 9 am to 12 pm on KIRO Newsradio.