Nut rage incident

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search

The nut rage incident, also referred to as nutgate or nut return (Korean: 땅콩 회항, Ttangkong hoehang), occurred on December 5, 2014, at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City, when Korean Air vice president Heather Cho, having been dissatisfied with the way a flight attendant served her nuts on the plane, ordered the aircraft to taxi back to the airport's gate before takeoff.

First-class passengers, including Cho, were given nuts bagged in their original packaging (in conformity with the airline's procedures); Cho had expected them to be served on a plate in first class. Cho questioned the cabin crew chief about the standard procedure of serving the nuts. After a heated confrontation during which she assaulted him, she ordered him off the plane, requiring a return to the gate and delaying the flight by about 20 minutes. When the incident became public, Cho and Korean Air were heavily criticized, and in the aftermath, Cho resigned from only one of her several executive positions at Korean Air. She was subsequently found guilty in Korean court of obstructing aviation safety and given a twelve-month prison sentence.

Initial incident and official report

Macadamia nuts in a bowl

On December 5, 2014, Heather Cho (Korean name: Cho Hyun-ah; Hangul조현아), a businesswoman who was the daughter of Korean Air chairman and CEO Cho Yang-ho, boarded Korean Air Flight 86 at John F. Kennedy International Airport, destined for Incheon International Airport in South Korea.[1] Prior to takeoff, she was served macadamia nuts in a closed bag rather than on a plate.[2][3][4]

Upon being served the nuts in a bag, Cho rebuked flight attendant Kim Do-hee,[4][5] and called over cabin crew chief Park Chang-jin,[5] to complain.[4] It was alleged that, under Cho's orders, the chief was forced to kneel down before her and beg for forgiveness. Cho repeatedly struck his knuckles with the edge of a digital tablet, and immediately dismissed him.[6] Cho ordered the chief to get off the plane, requiring it to taxi back to the airport's gate. Initially, the chief allegedly agreed with executives to refrain from making public statements and disclosing the incident to officials, but when he and the flight attendant heard about Cho's apparent attempts to spread false rumors of sexual relations between the flight attendant and chief, he decided to file an official complaint. The incident created a delay of approximately 20 minutes for the flight with 250 people on board.[3][4][7][8]

Korean Air issued an apology to passengers, but attempted to justify Cho's action, saying it was in accordance with her job of inspecting in-flight service and airplane safety. They apologized for the inconvenience.[3][8] Initially, the minister of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport said that the Aviation and Railway Accident Investigation Board was investigating the case.[3] An aggrieved first class passenger contacted the airline about the incident she observed, and received a model airplane and a calendar in the mail by way of apology.[9]

Controversy

Following the flight attendant's dismissal, the airline contacted him over a dozen times, pressuring him to tell the Korean transport authorities that he had voluntarily resigned. Two members of the supposedly independent investigative team assigned to the incident were former Korean Air employees.[10] According to the flight attendant, Korean Air officials were present at the investigation and were allowed to ask him questions. He believed that the government investigation would be unjust, and instead reported the incident directly to the media, initiating a public furor.[1]

After the incident was made public, it was revealed that Cho had attacked a flight attendant in 2013 after being served improperly cooked ramen noodles. This incident had been covered up by the airline, which found no wrongdoing.[11] According to the police, a company executive ordered employees to delete records of the nut rage incident.[12] It was also known that Heather Cho's representative, Korean Air, pressured the victims (flight attendant and the chief) to lie about the incident, and downplay what happened while being publicly questioned. But unaffiliated witnesses (including a first-class passenger) corroborated the victims' accounts by describing how Cho threw the packet of nuts and physically attacked the employees, and the futile plan was leaked, stirring the controversy even further.[13] Cho herself denied any such actions despite widespread skepticism.[14]

When the incident became public, there was popular indignation against Cho and Korean Air. Korean Air responded to public outrage by forcing Cho to resign from her job as vice-president. Despite the early cover-up, criminal charges were later brought against her.[15] It was thought that Korean Air could be fined around US$2 million.[16] Because of the controversy, Cho resigned her vice-presidency in Korean Air.[17][18] She initially said she would resign from all positions, but actually kept her position as chairperson of Korean Air, president of KAL Hotel Network and Hanjin Tour.[8] She attended the investigation of Aviation and Railway Accident Investigation Board on December 12,[19] saying she would issue an apology to the cabin crew chief and flight attendant in question.[7][19] Cho's father, Korean Air chairman Cho Yang-ho, also apologized for his daughter's "foolish act". Heather Cho visited the homes of the cabin crew chief and flight attendant to apologize in person, but left them notes because they were not at home.[20]

One of the reasons for the widespread press coverage of the incident, particularly in Korea, is that it illustrates the apparent widespread power (and abuse of it) held by the members of Korean family businesses (chaebols).[21][22][23] Passenger rates on Korean Air domestic flights dropped 6.6% in December 2014, compared to the previous year.[24]

Litigation

Trial

On January 12, 2015, a member of the National Assembly of South Korea released papers from Cho's indictment which showed for the first time that macadamia nuts were properly served in a bag, according to the airline's manual. Furthermore, Cho had been informed of this, and the specific reason she gave for the cabin crew chief's firing was that he had not informed her earlier.[25]

The trial began on January 19 in the Seoul Western District Court, the defendant denying all charges.[26] When Cho's father appeared in court, he asserted that the chief could work with no disadvantages. Despite a court summons, the chief has not appeared in court. The flight attendant who served the nuts appeared, and testified that Cho had pushed her and made her kneel. She also said that she had been offered a teaching position at a KAL-affiliated college.[27]

On February 12, 2015, Cho was given a one-year prison sentence for obstructing aviation safety. The Seoul Western District Court handed the sentence to Cho during a hearing,[28][29] saying she was guilty of changing the flight plan, an offense that carries the penalty of up to 10 years in prison.[30]

Civil suit

The flight attendant, Kim Do-hee, filed a civil lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in March 2015 against both Cho and the airline, seeking compensation for an alleged verbal and physical attack by Cho. She was represented by two law firms and was seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. Kim also alleged that she was pressured by the airline to lie to government investigators in a bid to cover up the incident as well as appear in public with Cho to help "rehabilitate Cho's public image".[5][31]

Television parody

A South Korean drama, airing on Mnet, included a filmed parody of the incident but, for unknown reasons, it was not broadcast. There were suspicions that pressure had been applied from the chaebol to stop the broadcast, but the producers denied this.[32]

See also

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  2. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  6. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  7. 7.0 7.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  8. 8.0 8.1 8.2 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  9. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  10. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  11. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  12. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  13. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  14. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  15. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  16. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  17. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  18. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  19. 19.0 19.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  20. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  21. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  22. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  23. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  24. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  25. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  26. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  27. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  28. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  29. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  30. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  31. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  32. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.

Further reading

  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.