Glad Rag

mmm, so which way are you swinging with that comment? Anyway I won't say anymore, I keep getting banned from threads and getting PM's saying 'Player, Ball, you know the rules', so I will not hit the player, infact neither will I hit the ball. However as far as 'Teddy' goes, whilst I think his albeit astute comments concerning airport security may be valid, they in no way qualify him for a term as Prime Minister, neither do they have the remotest thing to do with why Pablo lost his job.

Everybody please stop. Pablo went to court, he was judged, he lost, he even expected to lose. he did not pass GO, he did not collect £200, it is Game Over, protestations are futile, as many of the previous Pablo groupies have clearly realised by their absence on this thread since the judgement. Pablo will make a mint, he will be happy. I just hope the FO can place trust in any Captain he flys for in the future. ENDEX! The eggybakes and jam doughnuts are served.

'Everybody please stop.'

OK, if you say so Rog................

Still think Pablo's a good guy tho':D

Yorky

Yes he is. But what everybody needs to realise is he was wrong in this case. Even he knew it.

Thanks Roger, We all realise now!:E

Hellsbrink,
You make me sick :yuk:, if you can't see the wood for the trees then I'm glad you're in Belgium and not sharing air with me......don't you have a brain of your own????? :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

captjns I guess it's a good question for the sort of people who think pilots who violate any company SOP or any Civil Aviation Authority Regulation should be fired. If you do then it's black or white and not complicated at all.

Other people would take into consideration which SOP or Reg it was and the circumstances of the violation. More complicated, but some people think seeing everything in black and white is too simplistic.




B.

The hypocrisy...

The chances of you killing someone by exceeding 70 on the motorway are exceedingly higher than the chances of admitting someone who is a would-be hijacker into the flightdeck...

The rules are most certainly NOT there to be heeded without question. Anyone with good judgement (and a sense of history) knows that.

It is as indefensible to have that as an expectation as it is to follow rules without good reason for doing so...

Those who do, sound dangerously extremist to me...akin to those who we are seeking to exclude from the flightdeck in the first place!

:rolleyes:

Hypocracy...???
Would it be hypocrisy, by any chance...???
Sorry for my deficient English.
xxx
:E
Happy contrails

captjns captjns
:confused::rolleyes:

Obviously I do have a brain that is getting enough oxygen because it's pretty clear where the fault lies, and it is with PB who ignored the rules.

Now, just because you think the rules are stupid does not mean you can pick and choose which ones to obey, simple as that. This saga has nothing to do with the stupidity of not allowing people into the cockpit but is all about te stupidity of someone who thought he could get away with ignoring said rule.

Now, take some deep breaths and get some oxygen into your system, you won't feel so sick then.


Oh, SR71, CAA regulations are there to be ignored, are they? Gee, I wonder why they are called REGULATIONS if they are not something wot has to be obeyed......

The three hundred and fourteen posts on this thread boil down to two distinct camps:

Those that don't have a problem with regulation and abide by it for the greater good of themselves, their colleagues and the public and:

Those that have a problem with regulation, which is usually assessed as a personality disorder.

That's unusual !

With 314 pilots, you'd expect at least 315 different opinions :)

Never broken a rule...are you sure?
 

Parabellum,

I take it you have never broken any rule - ever?

Are you sure? as that may might make you quite unique.

It seems to me that PM was unlucky to be caught breaking said 'rule'.....

DB :ok:

OK - for all you PM supporters out there, here's a question.

You are about to get on a flight with your nearest and dearest. The airline informs you that today, the crew are going to break 4 of the rules - they won't tell you which ones, but they're going to break them. They tell you that it's up to the Captain which 4 rules he is going to break today.

So-- do you get on the flight?

I know what my answer is.

This thread is soooo boring.

How many variations on 'do we or do we not break the rules' can there be???

Yes......I would. Ask a silly question, get a si.......comes to mind!

Yorky - you would!!!!

Well, I guess there is one born every minute.

16024, (post 299)
OFF THREAD WARNING Thanks for that. :D (Loved the walloon accent;) )

Back on topic. . . . . At the end of the day, the rule he broke is, at a minimum, slightly exaggerated and perhaps needlessly inflexible. Most of us agree that it is a pain in the proverbial, and indeed probably contributes very little, if indeed anything, to the day to day security of an airline.
Most of us also agree ( I hope ) that we are expected to abide to legal, & contractural rules when we choose to be employed in this profession.

If you are unable ,or unwilling, to prioritise between your personal objections/professional obligations maybe you are in the wrong job ?

I don't think he has been found 'Guilty' of anything....The Tribunal (Not a court) found that he had been 'Fairly dismissed'. Best wait for the Tribunals full adjudication over the next couple of weeks for detailed reasons.