Just wanted to discuss the hypocrisy of this. DUI Dougie at US Airways after his failed takeover of Delta goes driving, and gets arrested. He pleads guilty, pays a fine, and spends a day in jail. Comes out fine, still has his job as CEO of US Airways, and now is currently CEO at the World's largest airline. He also has had two previous DUI arrests.

Now, if Parker was a regular employee at the airline, such as a flight attendant, ground crew, and especially pilot, he would either be out of a job or would be passed over in the interview process. He also would have a hard time getting a job at any other airline or most employers for that matter.

How is this fair?

Well, he is not employed in a position that directly affects the immediate safety of passengers.

It depends on the position, but no, in most cases DUI=/=auto termination. In fact, in almost no cases does it result in that. So... There's that.

There's no job in my company that you don't have to piss for to get hired. And I work with plenty of people who've had one or two DUI/OUIs in their past. It can make things a little harder to get hired, but once you're in, you're in.

This is not be confused with blowing (or refusing) a test on the job. That will get you fired. Possibly into the Sun. But if it didn't happen here, not our problem, as long as you can still do the job within whatever probation restrictions the state sets forth.


Just out of curiosity, why is this a thing? DUI arrests are incredibly common in America and rarely involve the stereotypical drunken recklessness we like to imagine. I get that rules are rules, but with just under a third of road fatalities caused by intox'd drivers... what the hell are we doing about sober ones?!

That Mr. Parker has more than one DUI conviction suggests a serious problem with alcohol and should have gotten consulting help after the first one. We know that has been the practice for other airline employees with alcohol/drug problems.

Parker's apparent drinking problem is serious, he is involved with managing a huge company and that is not a good mix. Drug and alcohol problems can lead to terrible judgments that could affect profits, operations and stock values. He puts himself and others at great risk of death and injury. Airlines, like any company, make major investments in senior management and needs them to be literally sober at work and show good judgment as to their personal lives. They also should consider for their investment and to limit security risks, a full time driver, even on weekends and on vacations. Alcohol abuse can also lead to criminal acts, dumb, sexist behaviors that can lead to lawsuits against the employer,

I recall 15 years ago when I was a paralegal at a law firm there was an attorney who was a full blown alcoholic, his productivity was terrible as drunk by early afternoon, he was advised by firm management to get help the firm would pay for. Finally after being substantially drunk in front of a client and the client saying 'I don't want that drunk working for me', the attorney was given 30 days off to go to rehab or he was fired. Well, he apparently never went to rehab within 30 days and his employment was terminated. Likely from his drinking related health problems, he was dead a few years later. The firm tried to be fair as possible and beyond, but after a certain point, one has to cut them out.

ltbewr wrote:

That Mr. Parker has more than one DUI conviction suggests a serious problem with alcohol and should have gotten consulting help after the first one.

From an employer’s perspective, this sentence makes no sense.

ltbewr wrote:

Drug and alcohol problems can lead to terrible judgments that could affect profits, operations and stock values.

Drugs have nothing to do with this. As for alcohol, there are countless functioning alcoholics.

ltbewr wrote:

He puts himself and others at great risk of death and injury.

Huh??? While on the job???

ltbewr wrote:

Airlines, like any company, make major investments in senior management and needs them to be literally sober at work

There is ZERO evidence that he has been inebriated while at work. But if you think that CEOs never have a three martini lunch, you just don’t know corporate America.

ltbewr wrote:

recall 15 years ago when I was a paralegal at a law firm there was an attorney who was a full blown alcoholic, his productivity was terrible as drunk by early afternoon

You haven’t offered any evidence that Mr. Parker’s productivity is low or that he is a terrible drunk by the afternoon.

Presumably the board is aware of this and is doing what is best for the company. I’m sure that, unlike you, they haven’t merely speculated as to the facts. His last conviction was in 2007. For all you know he hasn’t touched a drop of alcohol since then.

I’m proud to say I work for an airline that doesn’t automatically terminate its pilots for DUIs. It all depends on the circumstances of course and if the pilot accepts the help they need.

In another industry my friend got a DUI recently. He was being considered by another company for a bigger role, well known companies, middle management. They hired him anyway, even though he got a DUI in the past few months. He is a good person and made a mistake. A DUI doesn't mean you are an alcoholic (edit: and having a substance issue doesn't necessarily mean you are unemployable. Many doctors and lawyers have these issues). Three DUI frankly does suggest a person is an alcoholic. Plenty of alcoholics (and drug users) are well functioning members of society. It is generally thought that Doug is quite talented and has done a good job managing HP, US and AA. It might be time for him to go soon, but his track record has been good. So there's your answer.

Nobody wants pilots using alcohol or drugs on the job. But otherwise, there is less stigma today than there used to be about substance abuse. It is something that happens to normal people.

Flighty wrote:

In another industry my friend got a DUI recently. He was being considered by another company for a bigger role, well known companies, middle management. They hired him anyway, even though he got a DUI in the past few months. He is a good person and made a mistake. A DUI doesn't mean you are an alcoholic. Three DUI frankly does suggest a person is an alcoholic. But as written above, plenty of alcoholics (and drug users) are well functioning members of society. It is generally thought that Doug is quite talented and has done a good job managing HP, US and AA. It might be time for him to go soon, but his track record has been good. So there's your answer. Nobody wants pilots using alcohol or drugs on the job. But otherwise, there is less stigma today than there used to be about substance abuse. It is something that happens to normal people.

Oh I agree, I don't think having one DUI should be a death sentence for future employment/being promoted and I'm glad companies are taking a more lenient approach to this. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy with everyone is like "meh" to Doug Parker's DUI's while a flight attendant, pilot, or ground crew personnel applying to the airline would have to go through some hoops and hurdles along with defending/explaining themselves. Not to mention, if the economy takes a hit again, anyone with a misdemeanor/felony charge on their record is going to have their application thrown in the trash (although this might be illegal, but they still will do it anyway?)

You really aren’t pointing out any hypocrisy since you have no idea what “hoops and hurdles” Mr. Parker has had to go through. You are also engaging in the logical fallacy of false equivalence. A CEO and a pilot do not have the same value to the company.

VTKillarney wrote:

You really aren’t pointing out any hypocrisy since you have no idea what “hoops and hurdles” Mr. Parker has had to go through. You are also engaging in the logical fallacy of false equivalence. A CEO and a pilot do not have the same value to the company.

I disagree with your last sentence. Both are easily replaceable to protect the company’s image and brand reputation.

ilovelamp wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

You really aren’t pointing out any hypocrisy since you have no idea what “hoops and hurdles” Mr. Parker has had to go through. You are also engaging in the logical fallacy of false equivalence. A CEO and a pilot do not have the same value to the company.

I disagree with your last sentence. Both are easily replaceable to protect the company’s image and brand reputation.

To protect the company’s reputation, yes. To perform their assigned duties, absolutely not.

Have you ever seen share prices go down because a pilot was fired? Just saying...

What kind of tone does this set for the rest of the company? Having a CEO with multiple DUIs? I get the rules are different between CEO and pilot for such things. But, from a PR standpoint, how does that look? The head of a transportation company is a drunk? And he drives under the influence? How can that possibly be good for making decisions for the company? That would be my concern. I don't care if a CEO does cocaine and hookers off the clock. How does that look to the rest of the industry, though? How does that look to the other employees? Does that give a sense of security in upper management and the board?

Why are we discussing a DUI from 11 years ago?

If an employee of any company was found to have gotten a DUI while performing a function for the company, that would be grounds for dismissal. In right to work states, there is no need for a grounds to dismiss someone. They can be let go at will. That Parker is still employed speaks to his value brought to the company.

Drinking at lunch is common here in France, and driving under the influence often ensues. It's bad but most people doing this aren't alcoholics. The new CEO of my company has removed wine and beer from the company restaurant, though. Not in the VIP restaurant he enjoys, of course...

He doesn't drive his car anyway so no risk of DUI for him.

Investing in a chauffeur or taking a taxi/Uber each time you have had a couple shouldn't break Parker's bank.

casinterest wrote:

Why are we discussing a DUI from 11 years ago?

Because Super80Fan was hoping that we would justify his deep seeded hatred of Doug Parker.

seb146 wrote:

What kind of tone does this set for the rest of the company? Having a CEO with multiple DUIs? I get the rules are different between CEO and pilot for such things. But, from a PR standpoint, how does that look?

99% of America don't know who Doug Parker is, and given it was 11 Years ago it could easily be spun to a positive about coming back from rock bottom.

seb146 wrote:

The head of a transportation company is a drunk? And he drives under the influence?

Ironic Yes, but it has been 11 Years since his last incident. As far as we can tell he cleaned up his act so when does the statue of limitations run out for being a dumb*** earlier in life run out. Do we really want to set a standard that no redemption is possible when so far no one was hurt.

seb146 wrote:

How can that possibly be good for making decisions for the company? That would be my concern. I don't care if a CEO does cocaine and hookers off the clock.

But if his problem is not knowing the line when partying then he's likely perfectly sober at work. Interesting you say you don't care what someone does off the clock when the previous statement just contradicted that.

seb146 wrote:

How does that look to the rest of the industry, though?

To a point results speak louder than earlier in life dumb***ry.

seb146 wrote:

How does that look to the other employees?

How would it look if a run in with the law is guaranteed termination?

seb146 wrote:

Does that give a sense of security in upper management and the board?

I would argue no because results are king in upper management. If your doing good it will afford you a chance to redeem yourself but if your under performing the board will take errors in judgement far less severe as a DUI and use that as a chance to terminate you.

Super80Fan wrote:

Now, if Parker was a regular employee at the airline, such as a flight attendant, ground crew, and especially pilot, he would either be out of a job or would be passed over in the interview process. He also would have a hard time getting a job at any other airline or most employers for that matter.

How is this fair?

Not necessarily, I knew a guy who got two DUI's within a five year time span. He kept his job.

Super80Fan wrote:

Flighty wrote:

In another industry my friend got a DUI recently. He was being considered by another company for a bigger role, well known companies, middle management. They hired him anyway, even though he got a DUI in the past few months. He is a good person and made a mistake. A DUI doesn't mean you are an alcoholic. Three DUI frankly does suggest a person is an alcoholic. But as written above, plenty of alcoholics (and drug users) are well functioning members of society. It is generally thought that Doug is quite talented and has done a good job managing HP, US and AA. It might be time for him to go soon, but his track record has been good. So there's your answer. Nobody wants pilots using alcohol or drugs on the job. But otherwise, there is less stigma today than there used to be about substance abuse. It is something that happens to normal people.

Oh I agree, I don't think having one DUI should be a death sentence for future employment/being promoted and I'm glad companies are taking a more lenient approach to this. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy with everyone is like "meh" to Doug Parker's DUI's while a flight attendant, pilot, or ground crew personnel applying to the airline would have to go through some hoops and hurdles along with defending/explaining themselves. Not to mention, if the economy takes a hit again, anyone with a misdemeanor/felony charge on their record is going to have their application thrown in the trash (although this might be illegal, but they still will do it anyway?)

Well there are always exceptions. In Parkers case his DUI(s) was/were not "on the job" which is what most airline employees who get fired are ultimately fired for. However, I am a former NWA employee and I was employed at NWA when 3 pilots flew a 727 drunk from FAR to MSP in 1990. They were all fired and did prison time. The captain Lyle Prouse sought help and was actually hired back at NWA first in the training department then flying the line he actually retired as a 747 captain. He also received a Presidential pardon. The first officer I do not know what eventually happened to him and the flight engineer was hired on at American Airlines.