Turn and burn,
With regard to this case and the AOA's choice, I have a feeling that George Crofts is now the only UK VETA employee left taking action against Cathay Pacific/VETA (no doubt someone will correct me if I am wrong).
I also think that it is correct that the AOA is no longer supplying funds to this case. Nor are they funding any other legal action by the 49ers. This is as a result of deal struck between Cathay management and the AOA.
It amazes me that when faced with the enormity of a case such as this, all some pilots want to do is talk about the failings of an individual.
Cathay formed VETA so that they could have aircrew work more cheaply than if they had been hired by Cathay and been based in Hong Kong. Even though these aircrew were based overseas, Cathay had their contracts drawn up under Hong Kong law. Then, in 2001, they terminated the contracts of 50 pilots rather than come to an agreement about rostering - an agreement had been promised in 1999 during the 'sign or be fired' negotiations that went on to introduce three years of pay cuts. A small number of those pilots are now back working for Cathay - which begs the question: What were they terminated/fired/dismissed for that would make them acceptable to be re-employed 4 years later?
We could go on and discuss what Cathay did and how it affected the individuals, how Cathay continued to intimidate the aircrew body after the terminations or even how this case affects the contracts of other workers in the UK on 'overseas' contracts.
Maybe those of you who feel that these issues are not important could leave this posting and start another called 'What I think of George Crofts.' where you could amuse each other with great stories about what he might or might not have done. Maybe you could also post under your real names so that those that know you could add stories about what you might or might not have done - get my drift?