WILLSFLYING seems to have missed the relevant points of the case.
Gojet illegally terminated the pilot.
Pilot goes to another regional flying 200s after a year. Has to leave his disabled child for several weeks for training.
After 3 years of fighting this, Gojet knows they are going to lose big time. The VP of ops sent out an email right after the pilot went on leave ordering the Chief Pilot Randy Bratcher and Base Manager not to communicate with him because they were going to fire him, which they did. The email was discovered and Gojet was in trouble.
Gojet wants to limit their damages so they make an offer of reinstatement after 3 years. `He asks how long he would have to go away for training. They tell him he would have to go through the "full initial training course".
He says he cannot be away again another 6 to 7 weeks for training. He rejects the offer of reinstatement.
Gojet loses the case. Gojet argues that his rejecting the offer of reinstatement was unreasonable and his damages should end there. To say that coming back was unreasonable, they change their stance that he would have to go through the entire initial course and Randy Bratcher gets up there and testifies that with FAA approval, he could have had one day of class, one sim, and a check ride. Then Bratcher would have returned him to the line. Did they talk to the FAA, no, because the FAA would never have approved that. They did not run it by the POI as Willsflying hints at.
You can be the judge. Do you really think that Randy Bratcher believed that he could get the FAA to approve his sending a pilot who has been gone from the company for 3 years, back on the line with away of class, sim and a sim check?
The pilot was away from Gojet for 3 years. He was not teaching sim for Gojet during those 3 years keeping up on Gojet procedures, GOM Changes, etc. He was flying a different model with different procedures at another carrier.