I don't, which is why I'm presenting these in the form of a question. Having seen how corporate America operates, it would seem a likely course of action. It wouldn't seem practical to be fighting lawsuits and getting drug through the court of public opinion when a much cheaper alternative is available. Out of court settlements are common and happen for this reason. Right, wrong, or in different, the shareholders interests come first

 

The court of public opinion is the only court that matters to Angle Lake. That's why the Captain is gone. Now they probably offered him the option to voluntarily retire versus termination.

The court of public opinion (Blue state WA/OR) is also why the F/O is still flying. The news stories would insinuate she wasn't responsible for her actions being "drugged."

Like it or not, that's SOP at Alaska. Consider it a cautionary tale, especially for the VXers who have no experience with the Angle Lake snake pit.

 

So if the captain's actions DON'T warrant firing him, why is the Union not weighing in on this? Are they complicit?

 

Stick to flying. You’d make a terrible attorney and and even worse juror.

 

But wait, isn't VX based in SFO..... I mean even OR/WA seem like purple states in comparison......

 

If you have a BETTER explanation for Alaska's actions in this case, we are just DYING to hear it...

 

Part of it is the individual's decision. The Union lawyer presents both sides. If you're terminated your chance of EVER getting another flying job are minimal. If you voluntarily retire, no future employer would ever be the wiser.

In this case, his name got publicized so that would work against him. I wouldn't say the Union is exactly complicit, but they do lay out the trials and tribulations of fighting Alaska in a termination deal. One can visualize a certain Captain who fought the Company for 8 months eventually winning in the end. However, when he came back he had a huge target on his back and the Company eventually found a reason to terminate him.

So if you're the Captain in this case and you know that story, is it better to take the retirement? If you do, you get your half lump sum, your pension (if you stayed on the A plan) and your non-rev privileges. If you get terminated you lose everything plus get the black mark on your record when it comes to your future.

What would you choose? Alaska is very consistent in treating pilots in this manner. If you're close enough to retirement, you're good. If you're a junior F/O or not close enough to retirement, you're flocked.

Again, a cautionary tale for those who remain on the property. Alaska likes to make examples of those who don't, can't or won't toe the line. In spite of their "We Are Family" B.S., they have no compunction about throwing you to the wolves, especially since there are PLENTY of eager young wannabes out there.

 

He probably paid for the drinks, so the receipts are concrete evidence of the violation. She has deniability, drugged or not.

I used to buy drinks for my fellow crewmembers, however, now I'm a slam-clicker, too much risk unfortunately.

 

Except for the part where AAG manuals apparently say the captain is your supervisor for the whole trip.

 

Unfortunately, sometimes Management assigns the CA a responsibility without giving him or her an equal amount of authority.