Doogie gets arrested
- Thread starter 700UW
- Start date
- Status
Awa Contract
Veteran
- Oct 3, 2005
- 820
- 1
I still say Keel Haul the bugger. He'd do it to one of us in a heartbeat!!!
Yes, he should lose his job if guilty. According to our ethics and policy and procedures manuals as employees of USAirways/America West we have a certain image to up hold. I would be fired if I was found guilty of DUI and it made national news.....the same should happen to him!
hp_fa
Veteran
- Feb 19, 2004
- 3,290
- 178
It is my opinion that some of you are quite happy that this occurred and are making the most of it. However there are some interesting thoughts, at least to me, that arise.
First, the FBR Open is a very unique event both for the golf pros and the local community. It has the largest crowds on the tour and has the reputation of being a nonstop party. It is also the largest yearly event in the Valley and generates tremendous marketing opportunities for Phoenix businesses. It surpasses NASCAR and their races at PIR for marketing opportunities in a business environment.
It is no secret that the local DUI taskforce is out in force in the NE part of the Valley during this event. That taskforce draws officers from all around the Valley for events such as this, the Christmas party season, New Years, etc. Enforcement opportunities are higher because it is a target rich environment. It appears that Doug got nailed mostly because he was doing 65 in a 45 zone. Frankly, I have a hard time figuring out why he was doing freeway speeds on local roads. It probably was caused by the effect of the alcohol on his judgment.
Now, what I do find interesting is the dichotomy of the corporate rules regarding drinking on the job and when does the job start and stop.
The company has rules about drinking while on duty. Was Doug "on duty"? He was at a locale where it is common practice to conduct business, even if that business is strictly PR. It is also common for business folks to discuss business over restaurant meals and drinks. To me, on a business basis, the question is should executives and marketing employees be exempt from drinking during the periods of time when they are working within the scope of their jobs, and meeting with clients and other business-related people to me falls within the scope of their jobs.
As folks have pointed out, the company would fire a non-executive employee at their first opportunity for drinking within their "on duty" period. A lot of the reasons for enforcing those rules stems from the potential liability to the company if an employee, who is or had been drinking, is involved in any accident or incident which could open the company to legal liability for damages. To me it seems that policy should not be exempted for executives or any other group of employees. Good policy is good policy without regard to employment status.
Had this unfortunate incident occured clearly outside of the scope and duties of his job I would be arguing that this information was totally outside the rightful scope of what is discussed on this forum. However I think that this incident fell within the scope of his job and the allegation that the vehicle he was driving had been purchased for him by the company.
Lastly, I do find it tasteless that some folks seem to be gloating over this incident. I believe that it is proper to discuss the incident, but I also believe that the tone of the discussion should not be one of gloating.
First, the FBR Open is a very unique event both for the golf pros and the local community. It has the largest crowds on the tour and has the reputation of being a nonstop party. It is also the largest yearly event in the Valley and generates tremendous marketing opportunities for Phoenix businesses. It surpasses NASCAR and their races at PIR for marketing opportunities in a business environment.
It is no secret that the local DUI taskforce is out in force in the NE part of the Valley during this event. That taskforce draws officers from all around the Valley for events such as this, the Christmas party season, New Years, etc. Enforcement opportunities are higher because it is a target rich environment. It appears that Doug got nailed mostly because he was doing 65 in a 45 zone. Frankly, I have a hard time figuring out why he was doing freeway speeds on local roads. It probably was caused by the effect of the alcohol on his judgment.
Now, what I do find interesting is the dichotomy of the corporate rules regarding drinking on the job and when does the job start and stop.
The company has rules about drinking while on duty. Was Doug "on duty"? He was at a locale where it is common practice to conduct business, even if that business is strictly PR. It is also common for business folks to discuss business over restaurant meals and drinks. To me, on a business basis, the question is should executives and marketing employees be exempt from drinking during the periods of time when they are working within the scope of their jobs, and meeting with clients and other business-related people to me falls within the scope of their jobs.
As folks have pointed out, the company would fire a non-executive employee at their first opportunity for drinking within their "on duty" period. A lot of the reasons for enforcing those rules stems from the potential liability to the company if an employee, who is or had been drinking, is involved in any accident or incident which could open the company to legal liability for damages. To me it seems that policy should not be exempted for executives or any other group of employees. Good policy is good policy without regard to employment status.
Had this unfortunate incident occured clearly outside of the scope and duties of his job I would be arguing that this information was totally outside the rightful scope of what is discussed on this forum. However I think that this incident fell within the scope of his job and the allegation that the vehicle he was driving had been purchased for him by the company.
Lastly, I do find it tasteless that some folks seem to be gloating over this incident. I believe that it is proper to discuss the incident, but I also believe that the tone of the discussion should not be one of gloating.
Art at ISP
Veteran
Jmm,
Yes but if it were YOU it wouldn't make national news......
So the double standard runs two ways.
I understand where some of you are coming from, and I am not going to judge anyone, but I am not going to comment on this issue any more....
Yes but if it were YOU it wouldn't make national news......
So the double standard runs two ways.
I understand where some of you are coming from, and I am not going to judge anyone, but I am not going to comment on this issue any more....
Alcoholism is covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Doogster is eligible for help under EAPYes, he should lose his job if guilty. According to our ethics and policy and procedures manuals as employees of USAirways/America West we have a certain image to up hold. I would be fired if I was found guilty of DUI and it made national news.....the same should happen to him!
Crzipilot
Veteran
- Mar 23, 2004
- 906
- 254
those that have defended these actions, and used the excuse that "The PBR is a non-stop party" the cops are out in force, blah blah blah. Well then, would he NOT know this too??? And with his millions that he has banked, would a person of sound mind, not possible arrange for a driver to be available??? I'm sure some of the other bigwigs at this event had transportation available or arranged for them, and were not drinking and driving themselves and 2 drunk friends around at 30+ over the speed limit at 1130pm at night.
Hmmm...actually US was a sponser there??? Maybe if they served drinks he can turn around and sue US for enableing him to consume the drinks that led to him being pulled over. Now that would be fitting....
Hmmm...actually US was a sponser there??? Maybe if they served drinks he can turn around and sue US for enableing him to consume the drinks that led to him being pulled over. Now that would be fitting....
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #99
I'll admit to mixed feelings on this one....
On the one hand, anyone can screw up. Thankfully, nobody was hurt and maybe Doug will learn something - next time either don't drink or get a cab.
On the other hand, if one of the pilots had been commuting in uniform to a crash pad for a trip the next morning, been given an alcohol test because the TSA suspected he'd been drinking, and blown a 0.04, I wonder if Doug (or Elise) would be saying "It's no big deal, anyone can screw up."
Jim
On the one hand, anyone can screw up. Thankfully, nobody was hurt and maybe Doug will learn something - next time either don't drink or get a cab.
On the other hand, if one of the pilots had been commuting in uniform to a crash pad for a trip the next morning, been given an alcohol test because the TSA suspected he'd been drinking, and blown a 0.04, I wonder if Doug (or Elise) would be saying "It's no big deal, anyone can screw up."
Jim
BuffaloJoe
Veteran
- Aug 17, 2005
- 2,873
- 18
I only drink two beers a night. The First and the Last, the Ones in-between are extensions of the 1st beer.
Now in all seriousness, if it was three beers in two hours, he'd be close to the limit. It does not give him the right to drive home. How many of us had a few beers over the holidays at a friends or a relative then drove afterwards? If he was over the limit, then he should get charged, if not, then it should be gone. As for slurred speach, a cop can say that cause there is NO evidence that can support it or deny it. It just sways the cops way. The only way he could prove it was that it was recorded, but then legality stuff steps in. I wouldn't trust a cop on stating a person slurred. I seen it happen way to often where a cop entices a situation too. But I seen it the other way too if someone would just keep quiet, but couldn't. Things will come out, his Blood Alcohol Level. if it is over the limit then he deserves to be charged. But by the way that it took awhile to become exposed, I would think that he fully co-operated and didn't make any problems. WE all are not perfect, we all make mistakes. The most important thing here is, that there was no injuries or fatalities. It's a mistake that we can forgive him for and we can all pray that he has learned from his mistake.
Oh really? Have you ever blown a .20? If you did, you probably have a hard time remembering. Do you have any idea how severly drunk a .20 person is??? It's way beyond just buzzed, that's for sure.
The police report said that Doug claimed to have drank 3 beers in a 2 hr period. Now that the tox report is back and says he was .096, that changes things a lot. a.) it's over the legal limit and he should face charges like anyone else would. He not only endangered his passengers, but anyone else on the road that night. b.) he was lying. While they have no way to actually prove he drank more than 3 actual beers, it doesn't matter. That's what a BAC test is for. It doesn't really care how many drinks you had, but it DOES tell the cops that you drank too much, regardless if it was 1 beer or 5.
The only saving grace to this guy is that he DIDN'T kill someone. Hopefully he has enough $$ to pay the fine and get a ride to work for the next month or two.
jimcfs
Veteran
Here's the police report/mug shot from The Smoking Gun.
Crzipilot
Veteran
- Mar 23, 2004
- 906
- 254
Had a friend out in Scottsdale, had the same problem. Forget all the details, but I do remember he had to serve some time in Jail. In addition, to the loss of liscense, counsling, fines. etc etc. So doug should get the same right? No special treatment for whom he is.
Another question, has he normally driven himself to work??? If he did, and he looses his liscense, Does that mean US is now going to start paying for a limo /car driver/ to pick him up??? aka. Wolfie?
Another question, has he normally driven himself to work??? If he did, and he looses his liscense, Does that mean US is now going to start paying for a limo /car driver/ to pick him up??? aka. Wolfie?
Sally4th
Veteran
We have a press release:
- Status
