"I'm saying workers reported pressure," Helena answered. "Some reports were dismissed because they were classified as customer-relations matters outside our normal grievance process. We are prepared to supply what we have, provided the employees' rights and privacy are protected."
A director from Dallas asked whether this meant the entire complaint system was invalid. James answered that an investigation was necessary before making such a claim. Certain outcomes could reflect legitimate safety decisions, some could involve misunderstandings, and others might show discrimination or improper favoritism. The task was to distinguish them using evidence rather than presuming every complaint true or every official report correct.
Danielle Brooks, an independent director from Georgia with no family connection to Ethan, spoke next. She was fifty-one and had spent her career in consumer finance. "My father stopped flying for almost ten years," she said.
"Not because he was afraid of airplanes. A carrier removed him from a business-class seat he had paid for, then told him to be grateful for a voucher. He never sued because he couldn't take time away from work. He just decided airports were places where humiliation could happen without explanation."
Danielle paused and looked into her camera. "That experience changed his life far more than the value of the ticket. If our systems are producing that kind of harm, a new customer-service script will not be enough."
The room settled into a thoughtful silence. Ethan had heard similar stories many times, but Danielle's account mattered because it came from inside the board. It made harder the easy assumption that the problem began with a viral video and would end when the internet found another subject. Some losses never appeared in a customer database because the customer simply stopped returning.
Susan introduced the first motion. An outside firm with demonstrated civil rights and aviation operations expertise would investigate passenger removals and premium-cabin seating exceptions from the previous five years. The review would have access to relevant company data under privacy safeguards, interview employees without interference, and report directly to an independent board committee rather than to the executives whose decisions were under examination. A separate operational review would examine the safety-code system, escalation practices, and records shared with airport authorities.
Martin Cole asked about cost. The company was struggling to pay routine bills, and an independent inquiry would be expensive. Ethan acknowledged the difficulty without offering to make it disappear.
"An investigation is not a luxury expense when your ordinary controls may be creating liability," he said. "Neither is credible maintenance oversight or payroll accuracy. Some costs keep you in business. Avoiding them because you're short of cash usually makes you shorter of cash later."
Martin studied him. "And your financing?"
"The twenty-five million already released remains restricted for its designated purposes. We're not asking to claw it back. The remaining ninety-five is on hold under a review process our counsel believes the agreement permits, and our own investment committee will assess the facts. The hold is temporary unless the conditions fail. I'm not promising a happy ending because the board passes one motion tonight."