In a court of law there is what is known as circumstantial evidence.
If no conversation took place other than to determine who this individual worked for, then you got squat on the dude and have nothing other than speculative or circumstantial appearances.
In Europe and other places around the globe, no one would bat an eye.
In the old days, F/As had the After Landing drinks ready by the time we walked out of the flight deck after shutdown.
But, in Canada....OMG!!! Violation of the ops manual! Say it isn't so!!
Next thing you know the cheeky bugger's growing a beard!
Where does it end?
Good grief.
If the guy's capable of taking on the roles and responsibility of an F/O then I'm sure he had a reason or rationale for his choices and decisions. Ego? Maybe. Maybe not. Bad choice? Poor decision?
Your story didn't address that line of questionning. I don't think anyone benefits from accusations based on circumstantial evidence.
For what he's probably gone through to get to Jazz, to get that first big break, and to put up with a shitty schedule AND get paid the wages he's paid...hell, I wouldn't blame him if he strolled rue St. Catherine the full length licking an ice cream cone with his Ray Bans just soaking up the rush while debunking the 'air pocket' myth for an adoring public.
Where in your ops manual does shopping at the IGA in your pilot uniform get covered, or is that ego deal different?
Now, tell us more about the "talent" on Crescent St. He was probably just trolling for some of that talent. (can't blame a guy for trying)
Gino Under
