Actually....

What SK said was not quite that... he said that in relation to assessing SO's there are flight safety aspects, and thus having a non pilot ie AOA union rep, sit in the assessment process would be not be helpful.

It could be read/heard the wrong way, but being there i think it was just SK stringing words together to come up with an excuse and he just happened to muddle these in together.

What we should talking about is how the judge told SK off for lying to the court...

Judge: "SK would you be willing to negotiate this out of court?"
SK: "The company is always willing to negotiate."
Judge: "What are you willing to give away as part of 'negotiation'?"
SK: "Well....nothing"
Jusge: "Then dont sit there and lie to me that you are willing to negotiate....however im not surprised".
SK: grovel grovel grovel.

He was obviously worried about 70 SO's turning up like the meet and greet we had earlier as he had with him 3 other mid management cronies that sat in the gallery. Obviously scared he might get rumbled on the way out of court!

However, i would want the truth toget in the way of a good rumour.

IFP.

Ahhhhh...... it all begins to make sense now.

iflyplanes, thank you very much.

You see gentlemen and ladies, we hear a rumour and then get into a vortex of despair, when all around is calm (I said CALM not FAIR).

Think about it from another angle, arent CX now liable for knowingly allowing 'dangerous pilots' access to the flightdeck? :confused: I'm sure the pax feel they might have a duty of care in this regard? Im sure there is an ambulance chasing lawyer thinking 'class action'! They have certainly hung themselves out to dry if those pilots they have branded under oath as dangerous have an incident.