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:
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.
Oh, cool, a story from 2022… what a wild time that was then… still sorta during the pandemic recovery… yeah, a non-rev really should be on ‘best behavior’… that said, I know what the ‘frequent bathroom visits’ can feel like, regardless of drinking, alcohol or otherwise (mere water/juice can do it). Like, forget enlarged prostate, how about just light anxiety over a tight connection. $4,500 fine (and everyone’s time, effort, fees, etc.) *sigh* C’mon AA, it is retaliatory at this point; lift his ban, give the guy another chance. There’s been enough due process and time here.
What a moron. Number one if you have prostrate issues and you’re not home where you can simply use the bathroom at will, don’t drink. It will only cause a greater need to urinate. Number two, you’re on a D3 pass. The golden rule of any Non rever is never, ever make a stink about ANYTHING. Shut up and don’t confront the gate agent or crew.
Crew are usually very entuned to whose a non rev and the last thing they want is any kind of grief from a non rever. Again, what an idiot.
This is related yet slightly off topic from the article.
As a passenger, I’m in favor of complete restroom freedom. Passengers should be allowed to use the restrooms at ANY TIME. This means during take-off, landings, and high turbulence. Do we want some flight attendant saying we cannot go just because the Fasten Seat Belts sign is on???? Airlines should just amend the Contract of Carriage saying they’re not liable if the passenger injures themselves or others by not following the Fasten Seat Belt sign.
@1990:
Honestly, I’d like to see this go a step further and AA be told “Sorry, you told him you were looking forward to welcoming him on his next flight – congrats, you’ve lifted his ban”.
Given consolidation in the industry (you have about four major carriers, and not all are at all airports), permanent/long-term flight bans should probably require companies to get some sort of approval – especially given that this one seems to be a messy he-said/she-said.
(We also probably need to have a serious conversation about some crew member instructions not being considered valid for regulatory purposes, especially given the ability of aisles to get blocked. As an almost-always-F passenger, I’d be fine with a passenger with no other way to the lav who is at risk of things going horribly wrong otherwise using the front lav as long as it was clear we had some element of priority.)
@OnePatriot77
I sort of agree except during takeoffs and landings. Some pilots never turn the seat belt sign off
I’m curious why a customer would demand to do future business with a company that made it clear they don’t want his business? I’d never beg any company to take my money….
@Gray — That’s not an unreasonable interpretation. And, yeah, I wonder how much sharing of ‘ban’ lists the airlines do; like, is there so much faux-competition and regulatory capture that they do, in-fact, have a ‘secret’ list that they share? Or, is it all kept closer to themselves. As far as forward-lavs are concerned, on most narrow-body aircraft, I’d tend to agree that it’s ‘fine’ that those in the middle go to the front, even if not in F or J. For wide-body, especially 3+ class aircraft, like, Air France 773, La Premiere, no, stick to the middle of the aircraft J and back of the aircraft lavs.
@OnePatriot77 — LOL. No, not ‘any’ time, and it’s not just about passengers harming themselves, it’s about them harming the crew and other passengers when they’re ‘up’ when they shouldn’t be.
Banish him to Spirit/Spit Airlines where this pax behavior is more the norm
@OnePatriot77 – I completely agree. There are loads of U.S. pilots who either just leave the seatbelt sign on the whole time or turn it on at even the slightest vibration. Unfortunately, it seems likely that some people would still try and sue the airline if they were injured.
Passenger seems severely entitled.AA did the right thing.