Eh,
How did Paul's action save the company money? Moreover, there's a world of difference between a Captain acting beyond the scope and remit of SOP's to deal with a once in a lifetime, life-threatening situation (Capt. Sullenberger, for example) and choosing to ignore a rule that is exceedingly well publicised, and by abiding by did not lead to the safety of the flight being compromised.
As an FO, guys like this can be a bloody nightmare unless you're fortunate enough to be able to second guess them, or see the world their way to start with. The pressure his grandstanding places on subordinate crew members is unfair and ill-considered.
Many on here seem to be applauding the fact that this man "stood up" to the security regime. We don't get to pick and choose what we do and what we don't as contracted airline employees except when to not go outside those rules might lead to an accident - and here I think is the nub of this particular incident - Savage, in the flight deck was not demonstrably necessary to the safe conduct of this flight. Chesley Sullenberger's actions saved an entire aircraft full of people. To compare the two is, to my mind, to thoroughly insult (or sully, if you will), the profound achievement made by Sullenberger when he was forced to operate outside the scope of the normal operation.
I suspect that it's merely because we're all a bit ticked off to say the least with the apparently mindless security procedures in place at the moment, especially it seems in the UK, that we're applauding to some extent this man cocking a snook at things but the fact remains, he knowingly broached those rules, seems to think of himself of something a bit special to say the least and might be better suited to single pilot operations from what's been said.
To quote Douglas Bader's famous and hackneyed maxim in support of this action is lazy and not germane to this particular event.
I'm awfully glad that the Captains in my airline don't choose to put us first officers under the pressure of having to deal with such a situation to satisfy the ego of a man who seems to think he is above the law and the terms of his contract.
Notwithstanding anything, this tribunal is about whether or not he was unfairly dismissed, not whether his thoughts towards the UK security situation were apt or not. On that note, and with himself as his lawyer, I suspect it might just be another attempt to ratchet up the self-fulfilling publicity machine that is Paul Mason.