oilhead I was told that the entire letter
was read out, so I think that paras 1 & 2 are probably there as para 1. (Actually I am repeating what I heard in a long discussion / speculation..... including costs, what FR will do next, etc.).
As for costs, etc. the (alcohol enabled) wisdom is that this is going to be interesting. Err... not much, but that took about an hour. More interesting is the "fact" that an appeal by FR is inevitable, even though they will lose it. Apparently an appeal will allow the big boss to do nothing about those executives found to be not entirely truthful. (As in he can justify inaction).
Which brings me back to the man we love to hate,
Leo H-C. He said some uncharitable things about Captain John Goss (whose innocence was well established by the judge in passing) and the captain who was demoted after the fatigue event. In each case
Leo supported and promulgated a management version of events by alluding to poor behaviour on behalf of these two
colleagues.
Any chance - fat chance? - of an apology by
Leo for adding to the Ryanair
PR push to establish that there had to be a fire if Ryanair claimed there was smoke?
Leo, if you are to have even minimal credibility you will have to face facts and show some willingness to engage with the real world - and without using poetry to obscure things.