There are a couple of things that make we raise an eyebrow with this.
1. What pilot in their right mind would tell the flight attendant(s) they might be intercepted. I would only ever tell the cabin were such an event actually occurring.
2. Who was this "colleague" who told her the "intercept" could lead to a shoot-down event? Seems like a snowball effect from an over-the-top conversation. Possibly this was from someone junior.
3. "Zechel was a resident of B.C. until 2009 and moved to Manitoba where she began commuting to and from Vancouver International Airport for work, not being paid for her commute."
My formatting there.
Looks like the lawyer or the journalist is trying to add emotional support for Ms. Zechel. A lot of us commute, myself included. Deal with it. It's our choice to live away from base. You knew the conditions coming into the industry. I have zero sympathy for these types of people and group them with the same people who move near to an airport then complain about the noise. I hope this is just journalistic play at work.
4. “The decision has left a sizable percentage of the employer’s employees, who reside in provinces other than their primary place of employment, without recourse to workers’ compensation should their injury occur somewhere other than while working in or over the province.”
Correct me if I am wrong, but would applying for STD through the company not solve this problem? As we are federally regulated employees, I would think that provincial coverage would not cover us, so she should have used STD; correct or am I going down the wrong garden path?