Southwest gave free training to FAA manager

On May 9, 3:12*pm, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk At Wow Way
D0t C0m wrote:

So, like, this guy got free training from the airline instead of free
training from the FAA?

What am I missing here? He saved us a few tax dollars?

A couple of things that you are missing. This person was not in a
position that required this training and it is inapropriate to recieve
gifts from a company you are charged with overseeing. Thats SWA for
ya.

On May 9, 5:30 pm, "F. Baum" wrote:
On May 9, 3:12 pm, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk At Wow Way

D0t C0m wrote:

So, like, this guy got free training from the airline instead of free
training from the FAA?

What am I missing here? He saved us a few tax dollars?

A couple of things that you are missing. This person was not in a
position that required this training and it is inapropriate to recieve
gifts from a company you are charged with overseeing. Thats SWA for
ya.

Why is SWA being blamed for someone at FAA violating their ethical
rules?

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
On May 9, 5:30 pm, "F. Baum" wrote:
On May 9, 3:12 pm, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk At Wow Way

D0t C0m wrote:

So, like, this guy got free training from the airline instead of free
training from the FAA?

What am I missing here? He saved us a few tax dollars?

A couple of things that you are missing. This person was not in a
position that required this training and it is inapropriate to recieve
gifts from a company you are charged with overseeing. Thats SWA for
ya.

Why is SWA being blamed for someone at FAA violating their ethical
rules?

Because giving gifts of value to government employees who are responsible
for oversight of the giver is generally illegal in the US.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
news
Andrew Sarangan wrote:
On May 9, 5:30 pm, "F. Baum" wrote:
On May 9, 3:12 pm, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk At Wow Way

D0t C0m wrote:

So, like, this guy got free training from the airline instead of free
training from the FAA?

What am I missing here? He saved us a few tax dollars?

A couple of things that you are missing. This person was not in a
position that required this training and it is inapropriate to recieve
gifts from a company you are charged with overseeing. Thats SWA for
ya.

Why is SWA being blamed for someone at FAA violating their ethical
rules?

Because giving gifts of value to government employees who are responsible
for oversight of the giver is generally illegal in the US.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

One word!!!! Bribery

I hard time believing that a gifts of little value, especially
intangible ones like training, could be considered bribery unless
there was a motive to influence the officers decision. Some are
friendly gestures, and some are bribes. It can't all be the same. What
about the police officers who eat free at restaurants?

On May 10, 9:44*pm, Andrew Sarangan
I hard time believing that a gifts of little value, especially
intangible ones like training, *could be considered bribery unless
there was a motive to influence the officers decision. Some are
friendly gestures, and some are bribes. What
about the police officers who eat free at restaurants?

Bad idea. Have you seen how many fat cops there are ? Seriously
though, we are at the tip of the iceburg with SWA and their lapses of
regulatory compliance. A 15K gift is not intangeble. I know an FTC
employee who has to check all of her finances and even credit cards to
make sure non of them conduct bussiness with the Banks she oversees.

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
I hard time believing that a gifts of little value, especially
intangible ones like training, could be considered bribery unless
there was a motive to influence the officers decision. Some are
friendly gestures, and some are bribes. It can't all be the same. What
about the police officers who eat free at restaurants?

Last I looked the limit was $10.

What would the training normally cost?

Local cops aren't federal, but most PDs have similiar rules.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.