Thermal Image:
I know this will be a bit like tilting at windmills. Somebody with your kind of mentality would fit in real well at an airline that thinks abuse of employees is the way to good discipline. Your comments/examples below are a clear indication of that. Lets take them one at a time, shall we?
"Is it your suggestion that a "review board" is much too harsh a punishment for not wearing the reflective vest? Since there is clear proof that the event took place, it cannot be mere accusation. Was it already clear to crew that they were to wear the vest (itself a safety-based, very legitimate instruction), and that failure to do so can result in review board consequences? Or was the review board an absurd consequence / abuse of power? Why have you left out such details? You need to be more convincing."
Um, yes, a review board is way over the top. How about just mentioning to the guy that it is required to wear a vest at most international airports ? Perhaps he was from the States where it is not common practice and he forgot it. Simple and effective method to get the point across without being too draconian. The method takes all of 5 seconds and it doesn't become an example of management abuse on Pprune.
"Moving on to the cabin crew being fired for the bread: SIA has also fired crew for similar incidents. They knew it was an offence. They took leftovers, got caught, were investigated and fired, end of story. In the case you mentioned, did the crew know that they were not to do such things? On the other hand, if your company has nothing in writing that prohibits the following, do you therefore then siphon out the kerosene from your tanks if actual burnoff is less than planned burnoff "AFTER" (following your example of using uppercase) a flight?"
Taking company stores off fo an airplane is a fine line. It would depend on company policy, but most companies have the realistic attitude that if it is a perishable item and has already been opened ( such as bread ) then it is okay. Your example of siphoning fuel out of the tanks is stupid and completely irrational.
"And finally, your remarks about the 0.02 BAC limit. Sweden also has a 0.02 limit. But to say that you can trigger that with a fart reveals your attitude towards instructions, authority and discipline."
This ones a bit more tricky, I think UU was trying to say that is a very low trigger point and that something like mouthwash ( which contains some alcohol ) use could trigger a positive test. What then ?, get fired for having fresh breath ? Good digital analysers will give you accuracy to within a very impressive 0.01%.
So there would need to be a process for another confirmation test if one did indeed blow positive. I don't know the facts of any positive tests at EVA, nor the process, but one would hope they have a follow-up test and don't just rely on a single breath test that could be inaccurate. I'm sure such a process exists in Sweden.
"Since there is such an obvious mismatch of expectations, and CAL or EVA management ain't leaving, then just put your money where your mouth is and leave."
Etops did leave and I won't go, for these and other reasons.
Typhoonpilot