Originally Posted by a330pilotcanada
[39] There is nothing in the record of the previous proceedings to suggest that the Tribunal, or the reviewing Judge, found that Captain Duke lacked credibility. Based on my review of his evidence, I am satisfied that he was a credible witness. Further, I find that his evidence is convincing and cogent.
Maybe the witness didn't lack credibility, but his evidence certainly did. For example, on page 1609 of the transcript (still posted on the ACPA web site) he admitted that all of his projections were based on nobody retiring in the next 10 years. He admitted that he assumed 100% of all pilots who were due to retire would stay on not only past age 60, but past age 65 and that to get the projected ages he simply added five years or ten years to the ages of all of the pilots currently at the top end of the equipment list.
When challenged as to if he did other "experiments" with more realistic numbers, such as 50% or 20% of 10% instead of 100%, he said he didn't. He said that he didn't know what the real percentage would be, so he just assumed it would be 100%! Consequently, all of the "experiments" that he did, from which he derived the cost assumptions used by the Tribunal to justify the undue hardship decision, were based on assumptions that had absolutely zero probability of ever occuring.
He even stated that he was certain that 100% would not stay past age 65. In other words, he admitted that his "evidence" was was not based on reality.
It would have been helpful if the Tribunal had considered that fact in its deliberation of the value of the entire testimony, but there is no reference in the decision to that admission or to any other statements made in Captain Duke's cross-examination.
Did the Tribunal even read the cross-examination testimony before accepting all of the speculations as fact? It would seem that fairness would demand some kind of recognition and balancing of the conficting testimony not only of this witness's testimony, but of the testimony of other witnesses that refuted many of his assertions. Nada.
I suppose that there is credibility, and then there is credibility.
Last edited by OverUnder; 2nd Aug 2011 at 19:36.