Can you trust your Company Training Captains ?
 

Can you trust your Company Training Captains ?

.......... Or ... Find out who your Friends are -

Judgment from a recent airline Employment Tribunal ...

In two long-running threads in this section, learned pruners discuss the benefits or otherwise of working for two and a half well-known UK airlines (British Airways, Virgin Atlantic and BA Euroflyer). Recent chat has described the questionable conduct of some training captains. Though not directly related to training, there is also worrying reference to more employment tribunals and some law-suits in the New Year.

If you want to read something more 'reliable' than anonymous scuttlebutt *1* about the nefarious workings of an airline's training department and its highly skilled and CAA-licensed trainers *2* - either dancing to some crooked management agenda *3* or NOT doing their very best for their trainees, may I recommend reading a few paragraphs of this Employment Tribunal Judgment from 2022 ? - https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribun...s-2302784-2017

For those who are not blessed with the time or mental fortitude to read all sixty pages, I have referred to a few paragraphs and you can take it from there, or not, as you wish.

There were several hearings and several written Judgments as the case developed. The final written Judgment is entitled "Corrected Judgment with Reasons"and is dated 23 Feb 2022.Even the corrected version failed to correct the claimant's given name from Mark to Mike in the link above....
The Lawson case stems from a problematic Boeing 787 flight from LHR to HKG on 25th September 2015 - (for synopsis see pages 10 -12, paras 48 -64). Presented with an unusually difficult crew situation, the Captain's choices were to return to civilisation, continue to destination or land in central Russia. After consulting with the company by sat-phone and with his crew, he decided to continue to destination. There was no dissent and no further problem.

With some evident malice, Captain Lawson was sacked on 19th May 2017. His decision to continue was, as far as I can see, never publicly criticised but unbeknown to him, a company 'Event Review Group' was critical of his actions and decisions on the event flight (para 75). More it seems, the sacking decision came from some inexplicable determinations on the part of 'Captain AA', a 'Senior Training Captain' and some management decision-makers (especially .paras 43 - 44 and 77 - 79, plus paras 266 - 271 and paras 275 - 278).

After an internal appeal and unsuccessful ACAS later in 2017 , the Employment Tribunal stewed on for over five years - from 2017 to 2022. The simple Judgment on Page 1 - " 1. The claimant was unfairly dismissed ..." and " 3. The respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant ..." (just over £90,000) barely touches the sides of this extraordinarily shameful case.

What disappoints me is the large number of individual licensed office-holders, named (or code-named) and shamed, who either took active parts in the persecution, or who failed to speak up or ask questions. Rough body count so far - eight managers, half a dozen training captains, and a training co-pilot.

Add to that the much larger number of ordinary crew (many of whom did not know Captain Lawson personally) who were willing participants in ostracising him and sharing lurid false stories (especially paras 90 and 95 - 96, and para 156) about the original event.

You have to feel sorry for the unlucky line co-pilots who were roped in for dodgy simulator chop-rides, and sorry for his supportive cabin crew from the event flight, who were subjected (individually) to threatening and hostile questioning by managers in the hope they would dish dirt on the victim (paras 83 to 87). They were also asked why they did not follow a particular checklist - (para 86) which was quietly introduced after the event. This was said to be the 'Double Pilot Incapacitation Drill' - A single page on how to fly the 787 - if there were no available pilots.

Management had plenty of opportunity to squash the false stories and support their pilot - (Does that sound familiar Pete ?) but chose to do neither (paras 88 to 91, 161 and 194.) Indeed it seems it was concerns about the untrue lurid stories surrounding the event flight and unspecified and unsubstantiated inventions of historic poor performance that drove the move to sack him. (See para 44 again).

It still took twenty months for this sorry story of prejudiced management persecution to fester into Captain Lawson's sacking,even before he had to endure the five years ET. He didn't want to leave the company and one reason he wasn't sacked earlier seemed to hinge on his refusal to sign an NDA (para 171).

Following a successful routine sim check a week after the event flight, Lawson operated his normal roster until April 2016 when he did his next LPC/OPC. This and two further sim rides were, in short, recorded as fail. (paras 98 - 107, 126 - 129 and 135 - 142). Unbelievably, one was with a Training FO who was Lawson's 'FO 1' on the event flight. You can arrange for anyone to fail a simulator ride if you are running the show and holding the bat and the balls at the same time. How many of us know about CAP 1049 ?

What was the claimant's original union doing for their member ? Very little it seems, other than trying to negotiate a severance package (paras 145 - 148) apparently without significant involvement by the claimant. The company council vice-chair at the time, who was until quite recently chair of the VACC has just taken a top management position with his grateful employer. And the Regulator ? Not a lot, as usual. Shame on you all.

Following a long period of unfitness to fly, (paras 150 - 155) the claimant was supported by the now extinct PPU (para 173) and later managed to 'mitigate his financial loss' by obtaining some temporary pilot jobs elsewhere.

In mid November 2021, just prior to the final ET five day remote videohearing, the company (having by now probably realised they were likely to lose) admitted to the 'unfair dismissal' and produced only two witnesses (para 27). They claimed (para 31) that all the real witnesses were too busy or otherwise unavailable.

First witness - a management training captain who joined the company from Monarch in May 2016 as 'Senior Manager Training of the Boeing fleet', and became involved as the airline's new 'Head of Training and Standards' in April 2017, less than a month before Lawson was sacked. He met Lawson for the very first time, four days before the sack date (para 198). The narrative of his 'evidence' took four pages (pages 38 to 41)of the Judgment.

Second - a non-pilot 'flight crew manager' with no previous airline experience, who by his own claim, joined the company in June 2021, four years after Lawson was sacked and less than six months before giving 'evidence' at the Employment Tribunal. The narrative of his 'evidence' took a further four pages of the Judgment (pages 42 to 46). He quickly moved on to pastures new and is now 'Head of IR and Flying Teams' at BA.

Given some of the remarks in the Judgment about the absence of any of the several 'real witnesses' for the respondent (page 6 para 31 - 32) one wonders if these two strangers to the case (who unfortunately would 'have no knowledge' of the events leading to the sacking, were naively reading from someone else's malicious script....
For both the Lawson and the Osborne cases, one might ask if the Regulator ever bothers to consider whether the 'named and shamed' characters meet the statutory requirement of 'fit and proper' to exercise the management or training posts they are privileged to hold.

Happy New Year, One and All.

And mind how you go.

LFH
...

My word this makes for extremely sobering reading for so many different reasons.

I am utterly flabbergasted at the sim conduct, beyond the other skulduggery. How can anyone that such an organisation operates a “just culture”. Perhaps I have lived far too sheltered a life (I’d like to think not having flown for varying quality operators in the UK, Middle East and the EU) but I am deeply depressed that such a sequence of events could have happened at a “premier” operator under UK CAA jurisdiction.

Absolutely shocking conduct , Ive been in the damned if you do ,damned if you dont scenario , its outrageous .

I was saddened listening to a vS manager saying a certain fo wasnt being considered for command because they never socialise with the crew down route and a couple of other reasons. All sounded underhand and boys club.

The claimant, Captain Lawson, won the maximum allowable amount to be awarded for unfair dismissal, but those acolytes still within the airline in question, particularly some within the training department, still readily recount his case as a "loss", because of the many wild rumours that Captain Lawson was seeking millions.

In fact, Captain Lawson primarily sought to clear his name of the assertion that he was an "unsafe" pilot. An assertion narrated until the bitter end by witnesses that were wholly unqualified to make it. Mr Lawson did clear his name. And so he won. Consequently, he now commands long haul aircraft successfully elsewhere in the UK. He was poorly represented by the national pilot union in his time of neeed. Luckily others picked up the batton in the intervening years that came to pass, and Captain Lawson won his day in court.

But sadly nothing changes. There are multiple claims ongoing in the Employment Tribunal against the airline today. BALPA have recently dropped their support for the only claimant they were funding as the final hearing date approaches. The prominent BALPA officer during the period of time in contention having just defected to a management position at the airline. Assertions of "safety concerns with individual pilots" have again being narrated, by the same manager who was the witness in the Lawson case. Careers have again been ended because of wholly incorrect assertions from an individual that had no qualified experience to make them.

Astute pilots would do well to stop reading Instagram and start reading the real stories like this one.

The truth is out there, as Mulder and Scully said. And the courts are left to uncover more of it.

In my 40 plus years in flying predominantly in the airlines and in a training capacity…yes there are some really bad TREs and TRIs and confusingly a lot of very good ones. If VS, one of my former employers was one of those that concocted a sim failure presumably with the cooperation of the TRE then they should be ashamed of themselves. Very disappointing. There are always those with the larger egos who use training appointments as a stepping stone to management. Most don’t know why but it is just ego and ambition. Unfortunately the amoral among that group do not care about collateral damage.

Given that these are the CAA's nominated examiners in question, the silence from the regulator is concerning if not altogether surprising. I read the entire report with increasing anger on behalf of Captain Lawson.

This also provides an interesting insight into the BALPA problems at VS, although their cosy relationship with management elsewhere is still an issue. It seems like the CC at Virgin were (are?) operating as an extension of management.

Fundamentally this highlights a major issue with training at VS. If they're deliberately failing and managing out perfectly good pilots that they don't like, it makes one wonder how many trainer's mates are being let through the process when they shouldn't be. Perhaps, like all the major changes needed in aviation, the answer will, one day, be written in blood.

Quote from the tribunal:

Not a wild rumour - the report says he was claiming this under disability discrimination legislation; when this was disallowed, he tried to seek reemployment - that would permit claiming backpay. Tribunal did not agree to enforce a re-employment order.

I am honestly in shock having read the judgement from the ET. The company and its spineless minions masquerading as various forms of managers and examiners ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Not only for how they themselves treated this poor professional, but for how they allowed him to be treated by bullies and gossips in the work place.

Examiners and instructors doing the bidding of some faceless manager to further their own career? If this in the level of integrity exhibited by instructors and examinera in the VAA pilot corps I’m seriously concerned.

It all struck me as strange and confusing until I came across this paragraph.

Monarch grifters came en masse to my airline to well and truly ruin what was previously a well functioning flight ops and training department after their own airlines demise.

Genuine question and I’m yet to read the findings which I will.

This has fully been in the public domain since March 2022 according to the link provided. Why only bring it up now?

This!^

I see it happening in my company right now.

Especially:
I am only 38 years in this business and I was a tre and tri but what is happening nowadays is disgusting.

Candidates should know (and briefed) that in case any issue comes up during a LPC, the candidate has the right to go straight to the authorities and file a complain.

If a tre cannot put the terminal on the correct side of the Rwy, in a generic airport sim scenario she/he should not be there or at least brief accordingly!

Stay safe!
​​​​​​​

I was always briefed that you could only question the conduct of the TRE during an LPC to the authority. Not just “any” issue

I have fallen foul of this - to a lesser extent.

I have been employed by four UK airlines, and my development was encouraged and nurtured in 3 of them. The other one, however, seemed to be against me almost from the start. The first TRE in that airline, and my trainer for a significant type rating, was not very good at actually training, and seemed to take a dislike to me.

Fair enough - we can't all like or be liked by everybody we work with, but I was always professional, modest; never boastful, turned up to the crew room in good time, well presented and well prepared. I was always pleasant and respectful to cabin crew and operations staff etc.

But I was doomed in that airline. I always passed my SIM exams but that first TRE poisoned most of the others against me and my career basically stopped in the RHS. I never did find out why he hated me so much, but it was very confusing that some of the line Captains were sloppy; turned up late, were badly presented, could barely fly, or barked at crew and Ops, and generally threw their weight around etc. - unlike me.

Another senior TRE, new to the company, failed to perform the proper SOP actions during an EFATO in the SIM. He was really sketchy and had clearly not prepared. I was his F/O in the SIM and I thought Uh Oh, this is going to be embarrassing, there are going to be stern words. Nope. The SIM TRE just said "ahem, yes, right, onto the next exercise".

I realised then that there was a hidden company agenda - and that I wasn't a part of it ! :) :D

Having company TREs assessing their own company pilots is open to abuse of privilege. CAA should do all SIM exams and assessments.

Hmm..
 

Having read the above I simply want to weigh in a bit of a counterweight.

I am a TRI/TRE for a legacy European carrier, and I can not recognise this type of environment at all. At my outfit, I know of no trainer at present, who bullies colleagues during LIFUS/sim and should such an individual repeatedly "show up" in the rumour mill, action would be taken promptly by our Training Management.

As been mentioned, having a TRI/TRE you represent your national aviation authority first, and your company second. Personal integrity / suitable personality / a true desire to teach and improve safety standards are the cornerstones of a Training Captain, period.


As for the CAA to conduct all checks etc, that is simply hiding the real problem, which is a toxic company culture and a bunch of no-principle individuals running the training dept. Sad story..

my 2 cents,

There will be a handful of Big Airlines 320 ‘Trainers’ who will be looking over their shoulders for the foreseeable future wary that a suit of professional mal practice is heading their way.They know who they are,so do Training Admin and the entire fleet except for the newbie Command Conversions who they have recklessly damaged.

...with all due respect (I know - I hate that phrase too!), but you are slightly wayward in your interpretation of events and the ET procedures in such claims.

Captain Lawson primarily sought to clear his name of a wrongful assertion of him being an unsafe pilot. He succeeded.

He also sought reinstatement from the very first moment of filing his claim at the ET, not, as you suggest, after any failed disability claim. He was prevented from being reinstated (after the airline admitted liability for unfair dismissal) at the remedy hearing. This because the company argued it was impractical for them to re-employ him due to the litigation having gone so far and all trust between parties had broken down, and therefore it should not be viable for the Judge to order it. Therefore the Judge ruled accordingly.

A schedule of loss is just that - an account of your actual losses you have suffered as a result of the detriment occuring as demonstrated to the Tribunal. In fact, it is the Tribunal that orders that a claimant must supply the schedule of loss. Those losses increase as the time passes during the litigation, as you identified. But any final compensation awarded is done so according to any statutory caps governing allowable award, and also with an eye on the amount of losses that are demonstrated in the schedule of loss. Hence Captain Lawson got awarded the maximum amount that the Judge was permitted to award due to a statutory cap. His demonstrated losses were far in excess of what the aplicable statutory cap permitted that he could be awarded. The airline tried to argue the award down, even at this stage, but the Judge declined their arguments. He won the maximum compensation he could have been awarded for unfair dismissal.

The wild rumours I refered to were with respect to the continuing inferences within the airline workforce at the time that Captain Lawson was demanding/had even been given a VAA settlement figure of many millions. Those acolytes still prefer to claim that Captain Lawson "lost" and the airline "won" on this basis.

I hope that helps interested readers. It is a sobering vindication story indeed, and one very worthy of your time to read the 60 pages.

As to naming names of those involved in the more recent ongoing events, that is best left for personal pondering personal conclusions. Nobody wants to be joining them in the High Court defamation away day!

Complaining to the CAA about the conduct of an LPC is under Regulation 6. This is fully outlined in Doc 24 the CAA document on how to be a TRE. It is unfortunate that line pilots are not familiar with this document as it forensically details TRE conduct and procedures. This includes the statement to be relaxed and professional. Ironically first written by a fierce female flight ops inspector of legendary repute who conspicuously did not follow her own advice. I digress. This is clearly guidance not followed when barking about how the ex military pilots are there to help the hapless civilians ( as quoted in the case notes). I knew many fine trainers in VS, ex military or otherwise and they would not have behaved in this manner. In a similar vein to be failed on a wind shear event is unheard of in my experience (TRE appointment 1993). If the item is failed then it needs to be retested. The retest should come at the end of the test, it should clearly be stated as a failure and retraining should be offered prior to a retest. 2 fails in one item is a test failure. It does not appear to me that procedure was followed correctly nor communicated unambiguously to Captain Lawson. It would appear that there were clear grounds for a Reg 6 appeal. It would also seem that Virgin Atlantic’s training department has appointed some seriously rotten apples with skewed moral compass.

I have read all 60 pages of that report, and my reaction is wow! Just wow!

I am utterly shocked that trainers at Virgin Atlantic can operate in this way.
I have had a Virgin trainer conduct an LPC/OPC on myself via a third party and found him very fair, and informative, with some really useful training points. Which makes reading this judgement even more shocking.

A reality check for aspiring Virgin pilots I think.

Have also plowed through all 60 pages and it was riveting reading, albeit for all the wrong reasons. Having extensive insight into union work in a different field, I'm completely and utterly disgusted at the lack of help and support from BALPA. Moreover, has this led to any changes in the VS training department? The lack of moral fibre among the involved trainers is beyond belief... I'm surprised this has received so little attention, when searching for the case online, there are some lurid headlines mainly from the tabloids, there's virtually no coverage from industry sources. VS have gotten away far too lightly IMO.

Taking those sixty pages at face value, the immoral and patently dishonest behaviour of these egotistical and authoritarian individuals seems increasingly to be a reflection of a society where such conduct is dispensed seemingly without consequence. Reminds me of the behaviour of the 2001 Cathay Pacific Star Chamber members who also ruined lives with impunity.

Some points to bear in mind for context, and also to prevent many honourable trainers being tarred with the wrong brush in the court of public opinion :-

• There were many people involved in this chain of events - not only trainers.
• There are/were many excellent trainers at the airline.
• None of those individuals actually involved in the defining events were forwarded by the airline at the ET proceedings for cross examination, even though they could have done so, as noted by the Judge.
• BALPA did not ultimately support the claimant - but another union did.
• Officers of the "other" union were denied re-employment after their Covid redundancy. (Captain Lawson's case evntually came to court post Covid redundancies but prior to re-employment "interviews")
• BALPA officers now hold management/office positions at the airline.

1. As has been well put above, many more people were involved in the process in addition to the training department. However, I still don't quite understand their motivations for doing so. It seems plausible that the chain of events started with the "HK incident", as the claimant had hitherto been flying the line without incident. Would this incident have started a similar response at other carriers?
2. Has the judgement had any consequences for the training department and/or management at VS?
3. I interpret the lack of forwarding the appropriate witnesses as an admission of at least partial guilt by the company (as did the tribunal) and also, to avoid further embarrassment as it might have brought forward even more unsanitary details. Has the regulator stayed entirely mumm about what went on during the LPC/OPCs in question? Has the claimant subsequently lodged any complaints to the regulator as would be in his right?
4. Is the demise of the other union a (partial) result of discriminatory behaviour by the company during Covid redundancies? If so, has that been challenged legally?

Interesting ! I have long suspected that BALPA and its Company Councils have been 'nobbled' by some airlines.

Compared to, say, the rail unions, and the television broadcasting union; BALPA does not seem to actually do very much to improve our working conditions.

Could have told you that a decade ago or more. BALPA - a complete and utter joke.

Could not agree more. Balpa an utter joke and not fit for purpose. Too often hijacked by unscrupulous individuals to machete their way into airline management. Woke protocols embraced to virtue signal but genuine injustice unsupported.

Has any company or post holder been sanctioned ?
 

Someone asked if any company or managers had been sanctioned for improper or illegal conduct, as evidenced in Employment Tribunal Judgments.

Short answer - NO - Not Captain Lawson's, not Captain Osborne's - nor Captain Simkins' employer from 2015 as a result of 'Illegal rostering' - except publication of Vols 2 and 3 of his book is currently " ... Delayed until result of police investigation." viz - https://pullingwingsfrombutterflies.com/arr-bishto

From Captain Osborne's 3301841/2020 'Judgment with Reasons' dated 02 March 2022 (21 pages) and 'Remedy Judgment' (13 pages) dated 5th June 2023 - see https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribun...841-slash-2020

"It is the unanimous judgement of the Employment Tribunal (02 March 2022) that:
...

1. The claimant was subject to an unauthorised deduction of wages, pursuant to s13 Employment Rights Acts 1996.
2. The claimant was subject to detriment on grounds related to trade union activities in breach of s146 Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
3. The claimant was subject to detriment contrary to regulations 3 and 9 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010".

.
The Remedy Judgment dated 5th June 2023 awarded the claimant some £630,000. Before you all get excited, most of this was loss of earnings and pension over three years. He wasn't actually sacked, but he wasn't paid either. See Remedy Judgment (13 pages) dated 5th June 2023

In simple clapham language, it would seem from the text of the Judgments that:
...

• The company faked his medical record (when he was legally unfit to operate) to show he was fit, so they could put him and a number of other union reps on a fake flight that the company had no intention of operating, so they could all be deemed to be on strike and 'punished' accordingly.
• He was 'punished' because he was a union rep - in breach of the TULRA and ER Acts
• He was black-listed contrary to the Blacklists Regulations 2010.

Those judgments suggest significant illegalities in the Osborne case, none of which seem to operate in the Lawson case. Lawson was merely sacked via some prejudice and dodgy simulator rides.

It does not appear from public record that Osborne's employers were in any way bothered by the Judgment - no one lost their jobs or was demoted. Nor were the Information Commissioner and the CAA visibly interested.

And guess what ? ... Despite being a union rep, Osborne's union declined to support him. Sound familiar ?

LFH

Like I said - nothing changes.

More union detriment cases are in the ET system currently. Balpa officers figure in complained of events, as well as the airlines. So do some prominent trainers. There is more to come.

Nowt new..happened to George Childs who criticised management in the Lane inquiry after the staines disaster..following that we had a **** who we voted as union rep..sold us out on a pay deal then went straight into management..useless article went onto BA management along with his other BEA Funny handshake brigade..flew with him on one of my first trips after P2 only flight training..wouldn't let me disconnect the autopilot.. obviously couldn't cope.
Whole list including a mate who was sacked after a contratemps with a security guard..Glen Stewart..Peter Berkal? Not forgetting droop snoop flight manger who was only sacked because of a posse of co pilots threatened management..but no different to some things that happened in Switzerland where a local pilot to the company to court as he hadn't had legal minimum leave and won but even dispatch knew that he would be failed on his next conversion course.

Yes, no need - I did say 'long suspected', and I was being polite - not putting the boot in. Not sure why though - they probably owe me a marriage and a divorce settlement.

But olster, it is not so much BALPA reps macheteing their way in, it is more likely to be airlines neutralising their Company Councils. Free family long-haul tickets. bespoke rosters, time off, preferred destinations. And Commands, management positions, etc., etc; if you could "help" us explain our "vision" to the pilots.......All that went on, I imagine.

Can you trust your Company Training Captains ?
 

The omission of telling Captain Lawson of his right to appeal to the CAA is another serious shortcoming of the examiner (and training management). Yes, any appeal should be lodged with the CAA within 14 days but they have never used this as a reason not to hear an appeal. They think it would not be fair as it is entirely feasible that a candidate who has been treated in such a way as Captain Lawson would be entirely focussed on all the events surrounding the LPC/OPCs and having not been informed of his right to appeal the conduct of the sim in the first place.

It’s important to note that the CAA hate Reg 6 (CAA appeal of the sim conduct) hearings take up a phenomenal amount of time and manpower and the CAA will try and avoid them if they possibly can. However, appeal to the relevant company flight ops inspector and tell them there is no option but to raise a Reg 6. If they says it’s too late I would argue the above points and say you’ll file one anyway.

The collusion among the TREs implicated and the Virgin management, including anyone in the training department who read Captain Lawson's reports without speaking up, particularly the Standards Captain—who would have been the first to read these disturbing simulator reports—along with BALPA officials, is evident. The CAA was aware of the situation but has chosen to turn a blind eye.

With this evidence now available to all, it is imperative for the CAA to take prompt action to preserve its reputation, especially as this story gains traction.

Perhaps they will be more inclined to take a look when the next trainer appears in court this February?

Interesting, please do elaborate!

The place to elaborate is in front of the High Court Judge, not here.

Suffice to say that the principles of our open justice system mean that hearings like this one are open to the public (and hence also interested parties from the media), and also that court judgements/orders, like the one won by Captain Lawson, are also matters of public record.

Anyone can attend an open hearing to observe - even ones in the High Court.

....the Monarch management cockroach involved in the Simkins case also popped up in the Osborne case at the CAA. He's in the whistleblowing department. He refused to investigate the admitted negative safety culture at BA (BA admitted in closing statements in open court that no BA manager will ever be the subject of disciplinary investigation --> i.e. no safety culture, no grievance process = pilots being bullied without redress & potentially still flying in such circumstances). The CAA have been forced to properly investigate by the government ombudsman but the whole thing has been swept under the carpet again with no level 1 or level 2 findings i.e. no substantive action.... that's back with the ombudsman now....

Thats not surprising.

His fine colleagues are failing SAS ireland pilots with years of experience if they dont keep their hands on the thrust levers below 20000 ft or for any other of their pointless made up reasons.

They **** themselves during winter ops and have somehow been given the keys to this once scandinavian airline.

Some company culture coming out of that place!

Vacancies at BA for Chief Pilot Airbus/Boeing ,Head of Flight Training,Flight Training Manager A320.

The ET report makes for shocking and rather depressing reading. Whilst there are always two sides to a story, I am still struggling to understand why the VS management undertook their campaign against Lawson.

Fear of the HKG flight story hitting the papers? Seems to me that it would have been far easier to a) quash the unfounded rumours within the company and vindicate the actions of Lawson on that flight, and b) just move on. Instead, they embarked on a long-winded journey to oust him that took them a lot of time and effort, and which is now readily available in the public domain to read all about.

Must be something they put in the management coffee. Doesn’t seem to be limited to Virgin. Maybe it’s a British thing?

You know, I think it might be (including big UK airline TREs who retired into old boy cabals within training management of airlines around the world; thankfully less common nowadays).