5 weeks in court
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Tung Chung
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A judge has been libeled by The Management. Il-thought out, shooting from the hip, insensitive, without legal cross checking, ruthless and defamatory.
He really is a pilot manager.
He really is a pilot manager.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very well indeed Mr Grossman
Mr Grossman represents 18/49 and is speaking to Nick Rhodes.
MR GROSSMAN Well, yes. This is what this case is about, isn't it?
What you decided to do was, because there was threatened industrial action, to get rid of a whole lot of people, shoot the hostages, as it were, to encourage the others not to participate?
HIS LORDSHIP: I think you can make that submission, Mr Grossman.
MR GROSSMAN: Very well.
HIS LORDSHIP: You have effectively put the point.
MR GROSSMAN: Very well.
Chaps, The Management's post may be offensive to you but I believe it to be one of his best posts. He most certainly is not a Pilot Manager and I invite you to study the final paragraph of his post. Whilst the above attack by Mr Grossman hits hard, The Management's final paragraph is brutal and, sadly, poignant.
MR GROSSMAN Well, yes. This is what this case is about, isn't it?
What you decided to do was, because there was threatened industrial action, to get rid of a whole lot of people, shoot the hostages, as it were, to encourage the others not to participate?
HIS LORDSHIP: I think you can make that submission, Mr Grossman.
MR GROSSMAN: Very well.
HIS LORDSHIP: You have effectively put the point.
MR GROSSMAN: Very well.
Chaps, The Management's post may be offensive to you but I believe it to be one of his best posts. He most certainly is not a Pilot Manager and I invite you to study the final paragraph of his post. Whilst the above attack by Mr Grossman hits hard, The Management's final paragraph is brutal and, sadly, poignant.
I think we have seen the last of The Management for a while...
Having read the transcripts, I take my hat of to NR for at least being honest in describing what was done.
The thing that troubles me however is that he used probability theory as his key defence.
What then is the probability of JSW being fingered after he appeared as number 180 on a Star Chamber list of 184 with a score of 2
As to the hand-written CCList at the bottom...
His Lordship is remarkably well informed on the whole sad saga and I would be extremely surprised if he doesn't use his own probability theory model on the 'cull' to flush out the key issues and reach a fair conclusion, although it is likely to be fish heads and rice and not the filet and cab sav appropriate for ex-Brittania F/O's.
Having read the transcripts, I take my hat of to NR for at least being honest in describing what was done.
The thing that troubles me however is that he used probability theory as his key defence.
What then is the probability of JSW being fingered after he appeared as number 180 on a Star Chamber list of 184 with a score of 2
As to the hand-written CCList at the bottom...
His Lordship is remarkably well informed on the whole sad saga and I would be extremely surprised if he doesn't use his own probability theory model on the 'cull' to flush out the key issues and reach a fair conclusion, although it is likely to be fish heads and rice and not the filet and cab sav appropriate for ex-Brittania F/O's.
Last edited by VR-HFX; 26th Oct 2009 at 00:06.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this true... Flight Deck conversations recorded???
Huggins to Rhodes, Day 6 Page 183
Huggins. Finally, subject to any reminder that Mr McLeish may give to me about anything I have left out, tape-recordings on the flight deck: was there a routine whereby flight decks were recorded? Crew control --
there were tape-recordings, were there not, of exchanges between crew control and individual pilots?
Rhodes. Yeah, I was going to say there are tape-recordings on the flight deck, but the tape-recordings in crew control, we tape every conversation between the pilots and the crew controllers, and those tapes are discarded after nine months to a year, I believe.......
My understanding of the CVR is that it is voice recording on a special device that can only be interogated by a special machine and there are limited machines in the world. I further understand CVR's are not routinely interogated, only when a serious event has occurred. I therefore don't believe Rhodes is referring to the CVR; what is he referring to or is this a typo?
Huggins. Finally, subject to any reminder that Mr McLeish may give to me about anything I have left out, tape-recordings on the flight deck: was there a routine whereby flight decks were recorded? Crew control --
there were tape-recordings, were there not, of exchanges between crew control and individual pilots?
Rhodes. Yeah, I was going to say there are tape-recordings on the flight deck, but the tape-recordings in crew control, we tape every conversation between the pilots and the crew controllers, and those tapes are discarded after nine months to a year, I believe.......
My understanding of the CVR is that it is voice recording on a special device that can only be interogated by a special machine and there are limited machines in the world. I further understand CVR's are not routinely interogated, only when a serious event has occurred. I therefore don't believe Rhodes is referring to the CVR; what is he referring to or is this a typo?
Last edited by Liam Gallagher; 19th Oct 2009 at 12:15.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: somewhere above the sea
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STP
the only thing you're missing is that apparantly half the people on this forum can't understand sarcasm, even when nearly 4 years of posts by a certain author are dripping with it.........
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Ron, how's the weather in "Whale's Vagina"? 
I can't believe that people still don't get the management. I think they understand that it is meant as satire, I don't think anyone here is stupid enough to think it is actually Cathay Management making these posts.
My opinion is that the truth hurts, and people like Calibre Hily wear their heart on their sleeve. Grow some skin Calibre, instead of getting angry at the truth, try and redirect that anger were it really belongs.
I can't believe that people still don't get the management. I think they understand that it is meant as satire, I don't think anyone here is stupid enough to think it is actually Cathay Management making these posts.
My opinion is that the truth hurts, and people like Calibre Hily wear their heart on their sleeve. Grow some skin Calibre, instead of getting angry at the truth, try and redirect that anger were it really belongs.
The Management
You were wise to edit. Satire it certainly was but if you rely on what 'right thinking people' make of it, then it pays to be a bit more circumspect in a public forum.
DEFAMATION:
Defamation is an injury to a person's character or reputation such that a right thinking person would think less of the injured person as a result of the injurious act. For there to be a defamation, the person injured must be living. There are two types of defamation, libel which is a defamation which is written down and slander which is a spoken defamation. It is a defense to an action for defamation that the words said or written were true.
SATIRE:
1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
SARCASM:
1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm
You were wise to edit. Satire it certainly was but if you rely on what 'right thinking people' make of it, then it pays to be a bit more circumspect in a public forum.
DEFAMATION:
Defamation is an injury to a person's character or reputation such that a right thinking person would think less of the injured person as a result of the injurious act. For there to be a defamation, the person injured must be living. There are two types of defamation, libel which is a defamation which is written down and slander which is a spoken defamation. It is a defense to an action for defamation that the words said or written were true.
SATIRE:
1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
SARCASM:
1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Israel
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
7700,
I don't for one moment believe The management is CX management and frankly, even if he were management, it wouldn't make any difference to me.
For the record I use to find his posts quite incisive, but since returning from his self-imposed exile, he has lost his edge and sounds more like the shadow of his or her former self - a bit like a 10th re-run of Friends - not that witty or clever anymore.
My objection is not that 'the truth hurts' or other such like rubbish you claim. I object to him libelling a High Court judge in a public forum.
He/she has wisely censured himself since, quite obviously, he couldn't stand by 'the truth' of his allegation.
In the process of this - his very first climb down on Pprune - he has, once and for all, demonstrated that he has very little else to contribute to this forum in the name of veracity, sarcasm or irony.
Sad self-destruction, in some ways, but he he was waning anyway.
HC
I don't for one moment believe The management is CX management and frankly, even if he were management, it wouldn't make any difference to me.
For the record I use to find his posts quite incisive, but since returning from his self-imposed exile, he has lost his edge and sounds more like the shadow of his or her former self - a bit like a 10th re-run of Friends - not that witty or clever anymore.
My objection is not that 'the truth hurts' or other such like rubbish you claim. I object to him libelling a High Court judge in a public forum.
He/she has wisely censured himself since, quite obviously, he couldn't stand by 'the truth' of his allegation.
In the process of this - his very first climb down on Pprune - he has, once and for all, demonstrated that he has very little else to contribute to this forum in the name of veracity, sarcasm or irony.
Sad self-destruction, in some ways, but he he was waning anyway.
HC
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, the AOA membership majority voted in favour of withdrawing financial and legal aid to the 49ers. Despite 90%+ of them telling us NOT to accept the interview deal for a position at the bottom of the seniorty list in return for dropping all legal challenges. Most of the 49ers were then forced to capitulate and it was only the determined 18 which brought about the court case these last few weeks. A grand total of three CX pilots turned up to hear any of the case - outnumbered by FAU members! Shame on us.
Anyway, back to more brave talk about current trivia.
Anyway, back to more brave talk about current trivia.
Does one need to be present to be supportive? After all, the Court case will proceed whether one or one thousand people attend. I'm quite certain the outcome will be the same.
I also don't appreciate your suggestion that the AOA as a whole, didn't support the 49ers. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm quite certain that I contributed a sizable sum of my monthly salary, as did every AOA member, to help support the 49ers for a number of years. I have no qualms with that at all.
You may also recall, the first vote to withdrawal financial support was voted down by the AOA membership. The President at the time elected to hold a second vote, something which should never have happened. Personally I voted 'no' on both counts.
What tarnished my perception, was the hostility displayed by a number of 49ers towards colleagues, including myself, who had unquestionably displayed support morally, politically, industrially and financially but where labeled 'screw you Jack', simply by execution of the final vote. Very similar I might add, to what N.R. stated in day 7 when a number of 49ers where terminated, simply due to the unjust reason of 'guilty by probability'.
In summary, please don't misconstrue my words here. To this day, the 49ers have my full support, but please don't state the the AOA wholeheartedly abandoned them. We are a democracy and unfortunately the voting margin, on the second vote, tipped the way it did. It certainly was not a landslide vote and as such, clearly no reason to tarnish everyone with the same brush.
I also don't appreciate your suggestion that the AOA as a whole, didn't support the 49ers. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm quite certain that I contributed a sizable sum of my monthly salary, as did every AOA member, to help support the 49ers for a number of years. I have no qualms with that at all.
You may also recall, the first vote to withdrawal financial support was voted down by the AOA membership. The President at the time elected to hold a second vote, something which should never have happened. Personally I voted 'no' on both counts.
What tarnished my perception, was the hostility displayed by a number of 49ers towards colleagues, including myself, who had unquestionably displayed support morally, politically, industrially and financially but where labeled 'screw you Jack', simply by execution of the final vote. Very similar I might add, to what N.R. stated in day 7 when a number of 49ers where terminated, simply due to the unjust reason of 'guilty by probability'.
In summary, please don't misconstrue my words here. To this day, the 49ers have my full support, but please don't state the the AOA wholeheartedly abandoned them. We are a democracy and unfortunately the voting margin, on the second vote, tipped the way it did. It certainly was not a landslide vote and as such, clearly no reason to tarnish everyone with the same brush.
