An elite frequent flyer was traveling on American Airlines as a ‘nonrev’ family member of a retired employee, got into an altercation with flight attendants over his need to use the bathroom, forcing the captain to divert the aircraft. He was banned by the airline, and now he’s suing to get his ban lifted saying the whole thing was a misunderstanding.
John Nunez was a passenger on American Airlines 1124from Barranquilla to Miami on June 3, 2022. He was seated in 17C in the main cabin and was traveling as a non-rev (“D3”) passenger via his father’s American Airlines employment.
He was suffering from an enlarged prostate and kidney stones, causing urgent, frequent needs to urinate. After takeoff, he tried to use the business class lavatory. The purser told him he could not because he was seated in coach.
He went to the rear and – according to an administrative law judge – yelled at the two main-cabin flight attendants while they were seated in the jumpseats, including saying “nobody treats me like shit.”
Later, when he went back again, the judge found that a flight attendant placed a beverage cart across the aisle to block him, denying him access to the rear lavatory, after which he yelled again, calling one crewmember a “f’ing idiot” and “stupid.”
The judge also found that he requested an alcoholic beverage and the crew refused because they suspected he “may have been intoxicated due to his level of agitation,” and that the denial contributed to further conflict. Flight attendants opted not to complete beverage service due to the issues with this passenger. The captain diverted the aircraft back to Barranquilla.
The passenger deplaned with an American employee, said to the captain “I’m a non-rev who wanted a coke,” and requested a breathalyzer. He was not intoxicated when he deplaned.
The Washington Operations Center notification described the flight as returning after a “LVL 2 DISTURBANCE” due to a “DISRUPTIVE INTOXICATED PSGR,” with law enforcement to meet the flight at the gate. American’s ground-side account said that:
- Crew reported the passenger in 17C was verbally assaulting flight attendants, refused to remain seated, and threatened a formal complaint “due to his advantage status.”
- Police boarding to remove him was requested, but “there was no need” because he deplaned on request. He was “not displaying any sign of intoxication” and no airport personnel identified intoxication.
American opened an investigation. The FAA sent a request for information via American Airlines Regulator Affairs. American returned a package and sent a letter of investigation. The passenger, though, told the FAA:
- He wasn’t intoxicated (per the field sobriety and breath tests) and was suffering medical issues.
- He said he was a D3 passenger, denied the crew allegations, and emphasized a negative field sobriety/breath test and medical issues. He described the video going viral, claimed cyberbullying, and stated he’d already been told by corporate security he was “banned permanently.”
The passenger was given a proposed civil penalty of $10,500 for crew interference. He requested a hearing, and the judge found that he wasn’t intoxicated and also that statements by one of three crewmembers were not credible. And the judge determined that the passenger did interfere with crewmembers duties (through loud, profane, distracting conduct and underscored by the cancelled beverage service). However, the FAA failed to prove he threatened any crewmember.
According to the Administrative Law Judge,
- crew could have de-escalated better,
- crew “made matters worse,” including denying lavatory access despite urgent need, and
- the passenger was in excruciating pain when denied the lavatory
As a result, the judget ordered a smaller civil penalty of $4,500.
The passenger wanted American to lift their ban. The judge made clear this was outside their jurisdiction. According to the passenger,
I was not profane. Period. That allegation was fabricated, and the record contains no contemporaneous documentation—no incident report notation, no witness statement specifying what was allegedly said. It was a post-hoc embellishment to justify their actions.
Second, the “loudness” characterization is misleading. We were on an aircraft—ambient noise requires elevated speech just to be heard. I wasn’t yelling or causing a disturbance; I was speaking at a volume necessary to communicate on a plane.
Here’s what’s critical: the flight attendants only called the captain after I informed them I intended to report their conduct to personnel. That’s not a safety response—that’s retaliation. They escalated precisely because I asserted my right to file a complaint.
American Airlines Customer Relations followed up on the case, stating that crew followed policies on lavatory access and beverage service for non-revenue passengers, acknowledged the breathalyzer-confirmed sobriety, denied compensation, and closed with: “look forward to welcoming you on board your next American Airlines flight.”
Oops. The passenger thought their ban was lifted! They bought a ticket on American Airlines, but they were denied travel.
The passenger is still suing in federal court, seeking full disclosure of the administrative record in his case – some of which has been withheld as privileged deliberative material, and redacted for privacy. The most recent complaint was filed last week.
So as of late 2025, the nonrev passenger’s fight has shifted to (1) American’s ongoing ban status and (2) a FOIA suit seeking unredacted FAA investigative records.
More From View from the Wing
Link da fonte
