AOL update
12-01-2013, 09:39 AM
#1901
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Speaking French
Posts: 385
Between the emails passed between the AOL top people. Their concern over 10h, and how it will kill the NIC, that "Does this mean USAPA is smarter than us?"
All of this before the vote. They KNEW 10h was a possible lynchpin that would do away with the NIC.
Then hummels depo, explaining how the language of 10h came about. Where EVEN the west member of the NAC was concerned about 10h.
)
I would say it is CLEAR, the concerted decision was to roll the dice and vote in the MOU. Then quickly, before the dust was settled, to turn around and say OMG, we didn't know what we were doing. They said it was neutral.
Yes it is. It doesn't institute the NIC, and it doesn't institute DOH. It clears the plate to start from the beginning with American. They problem the west guys have is once again, nothing has changed so there is no harm. The 9th was explicit with their explanation that they will not rule on merits on anything until they see an end product.
So West guys, with the slate wiped clean. Can you please provide the 9th with the seniority list that the combined AA/US will use in order to show this harm that has been done to you?
I think that will be the bottom line if you prevail in Silvers courtroom. The 9th will simply ask. What harm has been done. Oh nothing has changed from a few years ago? Well sorry guys, judgment overturned and come back when you have the final result.
You guys remember these words???
"We conclude that this case presents contingencies that
could prevent effectuation of USAPA’s proposal and the
accompanying injury. At this point, neither the West Pilots
nor USAPA can be certain what seniority proposal ultimately
will be acceptable to both USAPA and the airline as part of
a final CBA."
"Not until the airline responds to the proposal, the
parties complete negotiations, and the membership ratifies the
CBA will the West Pilots actually be affected by USAPA’s
seniority proposal — whatever USAPA’s final proposal ultimately
is. Because these contingencies make the claim speculative,
the issues are not yet fit for judicial decision."
Plaintiffs correctly note that certain West Pilots have
been furloughed, whereas they would still be working under
a single CBA implementing the Nicolau Award. It is, however,
at best, speculative that a single CBA incorporating the
Nicolau Award would be ratified if presented to the union’s
membership. ALPA had been unable to broker a compromise
between the two pilot groups, and the East Pilots had
expressed their intentions not to ratify a CBA containing the
Nicolau Award. Thus, even under the district court’s injunction
mandating USAPA to pursue the Nicolau Award, it is
uncertain that the West Pilots’ preferred seniority system ever
would be effectuated. That the court cannot fashion a remedy that will alleviate Plaintiffs’ harm suggests that the case is not
ripe.1
Plaintiffs seek to escape this conclusion by framing
their harm as the lost opportunity to have a CBA implementing
the Nicolau Award put to a ratification vote. Because
merely putting a CBA effectuating the Nicolau Award to a
ratification vote will not itself alleviate the West Pilots furloughs,
Plaintiffs have not identified a sufficiently concrete
injury.2 Additionally, USAPA’s final proposal may yet be one
that does not work the disadvantages Plaintiffs fear, even if
that proposal is not the Nicolau Award.3
1The dissent asserts that “nothing would be gained by postponing a
decision, and the parties’ interest would be well served by a prompt resolution
of the West Pilots’ claim.” Diss. op. at 8017 (internal alterations,
quotation marks, and citation omitted). To be sure, the parties’ interest
would be served by prompt resolution of the seniority dispute, but that is
not the same as prompt resolution of the DFR claim. The present impasse,
in fact, could well be prolonged by prematurely resolving the West Pilots’
claim judicially at this point. Forced to bargain for the Nicolau Award, any
contract USAPA could negotiate would undoubtedly be rejected by its
membership. By deferring judicial intervention, we leave USAPA to bargain
in good faith pursuant to its DFR, with the interests of all members
— both East and West — in mind, under pain of an unquestionably ripe
DFR suit, once a contract is ratified.
And if you call the MOU a contract, then you must abide by that contract, in which ALL PROVISIONS of previous agreements are nullified on Dec 9th.
All of this before the vote. They KNEW 10h was a possible lynchpin that would do away with the NIC.
Then hummels depo, explaining how the language of 10h came about. Where EVEN the west member of the NAC was concerned about 10h.
)
I would say it is CLEAR, the concerted decision was to roll the dice and vote in the MOU. Then quickly, before the dust was settled, to turn around and say OMG, we didn't know what we were doing. They said it was neutral.
Yes it is. It doesn't institute the NIC, and it doesn't institute DOH. It clears the plate to start from the beginning with American. They problem the west guys have is once again, nothing has changed so there is no harm. The 9th was explicit with their explanation that they will not rule on merits on anything until they see an end product.
So West guys, with the slate wiped clean. Can you please provide the 9th with the seniority list that the combined AA/US will use in order to show this harm that has been done to you?
I think that will be the bottom line if you prevail in Silvers courtroom. The 9th will simply ask. What harm has been done. Oh nothing has changed from a few years ago? Well sorry guys, judgment overturned and come back when you have the final result.
You guys remember these words???
"We conclude that this case presents contingencies that
could prevent effectuation of USAPA’s proposal and the
accompanying injury. At this point, neither the West Pilots
nor USAPA can be certain what seniority proposal ultimately
will be acceptable to both USAPA and the airline as part of
a final CBA."
"Not until the airline responds to the proposal, the
parties complete negotiations, and the membership ratifies the
CBA will the West Pilots actually be affected by USAPA’s
seniority proposal — whatever USAPA’s final proposal ultimately
is. Because these contingencies make the claim speculative,
the issues are not yet fit for judicial decision."
Plaintiffs correctly note that certain West Pilots have
been furloughed, whereas they would still be working under
a single CBA implementing the Nicolau Award. It is, however,
at best, speculative that a single CBA incorporating the
Nicolau Award would be ratified if presented to the union’s
membership. ALPA had been unable to broker a compromise
between the two pilot groups, and the East Pilots had
expressed their intentions not to ratify a CBA containing the
Nicolau Award. Thus, even under the district court’s injunction
mandating USAPA to pursue the Nicolau Award, it is
uncertain that the West Pilots’ preferred seniority system ever
would be effectuated. That the court cannot fashion a remedy that will alleviate Plaintiffs’ harm suggests that the case is not
ripe.1
Plaintiffs seek to escape this conclusion by framing
their harm as the lost opportunity to have a CBA implementing
the Nicolau Award put to a ratification vote. Because
merely putting a CBA effectuating the Nicolau Award to a
ratification vote will not itself alleviate the West Pilots furloughs,
Plaintiffs have not identified a sufficiently concrete
injury.2 Additionally, USAPA’s final proposal may yet be one
that does not work the disadvantages Plaintiffs fear, even if
that proposal is not the Nicolau Award.3
1The dissent asserts that “nothing would be gained by postponing a
decision, and the parties’ interest would be well served by a prompt resolution
of the West Pilots’ claim.” Diss. op. at 8017 (internal alterations,
quotation marks, and citation omitted). To be sure, the parties’ interest
would be served by prompt resolution of the seniority dispute, but that is
not the same as prompt resolution of the DFR claim. The present impasse,
in fact, could well be prolonged by prematurely resolving the West Pilots’
claim judicially at this point. Forced to bargain for the Nicolau Award, any
contract USAPA could negotiate would undoubtedly be rejected by its
membership. By deferring judicial intervention, we leave USAPA to bargain
in good faith pursuant to its DFR, with the interests of all members
— both East and West — in mind, under pain of an unquestionably ripe
DFR suit, once a contract is ratified.
And if you call the MOU a contract, then you must abide by that contract, in which ALL PROVISIONS of previous agreements are nullified on Dec 9th.
G
12-01-2013, 09:47 AM
#1902
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
Well, i just have to ask. If you guys are so full of integrity and on a quest for the golden standard, why did you have to try and trick the west? Why lie to us and try and hide sliding in 10h? Hmmmmmm, just sounds like more dfr ammo to me. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
G
G
12-01-2013, 10:53 AM
#1903
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Come on man, I've given you more credit than that. Did you read the emails entered into evidence? They clearly show that the AOL leaders knew what the MOU said. I don't know how anyone that actual read the MOU couldn't know what it meant. If someone lied to it would be AOL I'm guessing.
12-01-2013, 11:04 AM
#1904
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Between the emails passed between the AOL top people. Their concern over 10h, and how it will kill the NIC, that "Does this mean USAPA is smarter than us?"
All of this before the vote. They KNEW 10h was a possible lynchpin that would do away with the NIC.
Then hummels depo, explaining how the language of 10h came about. Where EVEN the west member of the NAC was concerned about 10h.
I would say it is CLEAR, the concerted decision was to roll the dice and vote in the MOU. Then quickly, before the dust was settled, to turn around and say OMG, we didn't know what we were doing. They said it was neutral.
Yes it is. It doesn't institute the NIC, and it doesn't institute DOH. It clears the plate to start from the beginning with American. They problem the west guys have is once again, nothing has changed so there is no harm. The 9th was explicit with their explanation that they will not rule on merits on anything until they see an end product.
So West guys, with the slate wiped clean. Can you please provide the 9th with the seniority list that the combined AA/US will use in order to show this harm that has been done to you?
I think that will be the bottom line if you prevail in Silvers courtroom. The 9th will simply ask. What harm has been done. Oh nothing has changed from a few years ago? Well sorry guys, judgment overturned and come back when you have the final result.
You guys remember these words???
"We conclude that this case presents contingencies that
could prevent effectuation of USAPA’s proposal and the
accompanying injury. At this point, neither the West Pilots
nor USAPA can be certain what seniority proposal ultimately
will be acceptable to both USAPA and the airline as part of
a final CBA."
"Not until the airline responds to the proposal, the
parties complete negotiations, and the membership ratifies the
CBA will the West Pilots actually be affected by USAPA’s
seniority proposal — whatever USAPA’s final proposal ultimately
is. Because these contingencies make the claim speculative,
the issues are not yet fit for judicial decision."
Plaintiffs correctly note that certain West Pilots have
been furloughed, whereas they would still be working under
a single CBA implementing the Nicolau Award. It is, however,
at best, speculative that a single CBA incorporating the
Nicolau Award would be ratified if presented to the union’s
membership. ALPA had been unable to broker a compromise
between the two pilot groups, and the East Pilots had
expressed their intentions not to ratify a CBA containing the
Nicolau Award. Thus, even under the district court’s injunction
mandating USAPA to pursue the Nicolau Award, it is
uncertain that the West Pilots’ preferred seniority system ever
would be effectuated. That the court cannot fashion a remedy that will alleviate Plaintiffs’ harm suggests that the case is not
ripe.1
Plaintiffs seek to escape this conclusion by framing
their harm as the lost opportunity to have a CBA implementing
the Nicolau Award put to a ratification vote. Because
merely putting a CBA effectuating the Nicolau Award to a
ratification vote will not itself alleviate the West Pilots furloughs,
Plaintiffs have not identified a sufficiently concrete
injury.2 Additionally, USAPA’s final proposal may yet be one
that does not work the disadvantages Plaintiffs fear, even if
that proposal is not the Nicolau Award.3
1The dissent asserts that “nothing would be gained by postponing a
decision, and the parties’ interest would be well served by a prompt resolution
of the West Pilots’ claim.” Diss. op. at 8017 (internal alterations,
quotation marks, and citation omitted). To be sure, the parties’ interest
would be served by prompt resolution of the seniority dispute, but that is
not the same as prompt resolution of the DFR claim. The present impasse,
in fact, could well be prolonged by prematurely resolving the West Pilots’
claim judicially at this point. Forced to bargain for the Nicolau Award, any
contract USAPA could negotiate would undoubtedly be rejected by its
membership. By deferring judicial intervention, we leave USAPA to bargain
in good faith pursuant to its DFR, with the interests of all members
— both East and West — in mind, under pain of an unquestionably ripe
DFR suit, once a contract is ratified.
And if you call the MOU a contract, then you must abide by that contract, in which ALL PROVISIONS of previous agreements are nullified on Dec 9th.
All of this before the vote. They KNEW 10h was a possible lynchpin that would do away with the NIC.
Then hummels depo, explaining how the language of 10h came about. Where EVEN the west member of the NAC was concerned about 10h.
I would say it is CLEAR, the concerted decision was to roll the dice and vote in the MOU. Then quickly, before the dust was settled, to turn around and say OMG, we didn't know what we were doing. They said it was neutral.
Yes it is. It doesn't institute the NIC, and it doesn't institute DOH. It clears the plate to start from the beginning with American. They problem the west guys have is once again, nothing has changed so there is no harm. The 9th was explicit with their explanation that they will not rule on merits on anything until they see an end product.
So West guys, with the slate wiped clean. Can you please provide the 9th with the seniority list that the combined AA/US will use in order to show this harm that has been done to you?
I think that will be the bottom line if you prevail in Silvers courtroom. The 9th will simply ask. What harm has been done. Oh nothing has changed from a few years ago? Well sorry guys, judgment overturned and come back when you have the final result.
You guys remember these words???
"We conclude that this case presents contingencies that
could prevent effectuation of USAPA’s proposal and the
accompanying injury. At this point, neither the West Pilots
nor USAPA can be certain what seniority proposal ultimately
will be acceptable to both USAPA and the airline as part of
a final CBA."
"Not until the airline responds to the proposal, the
parties complete negotiations, and the membership ratifies the
CBA will the West Pilots actually be affected by USAPA’s
seniority proposal — whatever USAPA’s final proposal ultimately
is. Because these contingencies make the claim speculative,
the issues are not yet fit for judicial decision."
Plaintiffs correctly note that certain West Pilots have
been furloughed, whereas they would still be working under
a single CBA implementing the Nicolau Award. It is, however,
at best, speculative that a single CBA incorporating the
Nicolau Award would be ratified if presented to the union’s
membership. ALPA had been unable to broker a compromise
between the two pilot groups, and the East Pilots had
expressed their intentions not to ratify a CBA containing the
Nicolau Award. Thus, even under the district court’s injunction
mandating USAPA to pursue the Nicolau Award, it is
uncertain that the West Pilots’ preferred seniority system ever
would be effectuated. That the court cannot fashion a remedy that will alleviate Plaintiffs’ harm suggests that the case is not
ripe.1
Plaintiffs seek to escape this conclusion by framing
their harm as the lost opportunity to have a CBA implementing
the Nicolau Award put to a ratification vote. Because
merely putting a CBA effectuating the Nicolau Award to a
ratification vote will not itself alleviate the West Pilots furloughs,
Plaintiffs have not identified a sufficiently concrete
injury.2 Additionally, USAPA’s final proposal may yet be one
that does not work the disadvantages Plaintiffs fear, even if
that proposal is not the Nicolau Award.3
1The dissent asserts that “nothing would be gained by postponing a
decision, and the parties’ interest would be well served by a prompt resolution
of the West Pilots’ claim.” Diss. op. at 8017 (internal alterations,
quotation marks, and citation omitted). To be sure, the parties’ interest
would be served by prompt resolution of the seniority dispute, but that is
not the same as prompt resolution of the DFR claim. The present impasse,
in fact, could well be prolonged by prematurely resolving the West Pilots’
claim judicially at this point. Forced to bargain for the Nicolau Award, any
contract USAPA could negotiate would undoubtedly be rejected by its
membership. By deferring judicial intervention, we leave USAPA to bargain
in good faith pursuant to its DFR, with the interests of all members
— both East and West — in mind, under pain of an unquestionably ripe
DFR suit, once a contract is ratified.
And if you call the MOU a contract, then you must abide by that contract, in which ALL PROVISIONS of previous agreements are nullified on Dec 9th.
On the 9ths requirement for a contract and final list:
A fundamental
26 assumption in the Court’s decision was that eventually there would be a finalized collective
27 bargaining agreement between USAPA and US Airways. (Id. at 8). Subsequent events,
28 however, now show there will not be a collective bargaining agreement of the type the Court envisioned
26 assumption in the Court’s decision was that eventually there would be a finalized collective
27 bargaining agreement between USAPA and US Airways. (Id. at 8). Subsequent events,
28 however, now show there will not be a collective bargaining agreement of the type the Court envisioned
For the claim the West Pilots are actually making, there are no contingent future
11 events the Court must consider. That is, USAPA entered into the MOU and the MOU does
12 not require USAPA go into the McCaskill-Bond process with the Nicolau Award. Deciding
13 whether entering into that MOU breached the duty of fair representation does not depend on
14 anything yet to happen.
11 events the Court must consider. That is, USAPA entered into the MOU and the MOU does
12 not require USAPA go into the McCaskill-Bond process with the Nicolau Award. Deciding
13 whether entering into that MOU breached the duty of fair representation does not depend on
14 anything yet to happen.
The text of the MOU supports the position adopted by the West Pilots, US Airways,
17 and AMR: that it is a collective bargaining agreement. The MOU states that once the merger
18 is complete, the pilots currently at US Airways will, without any further ratification vote,
19 become subject to the terms of the AMR collective bargaining agreement.
17 and AMR: that it is a collective bargaining agreement. The MOU states that once the merger
18 is complete, the pilots currently at US Airways will, without any further ratification vote,
19 become subject to the terms of the AMR collective bargaining agreement.
12-01-2013, 11:04 AM
#1905
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Position: Done with that
Posts: 191
Sorry to drive someone nuts, BUT, one small question. Who had a LEGAL responsibility to report what Sec10 stated? The west BPR reps had NO legal responsibility to report to the west voters. So anything about them is immaterial and not allowed in trial. Only USAPA held that LEGAL responsibility. Did USAPA tell the west voters what was in Sec 10? Not from what was reported in open testimony. The Company will use you against yourselves.
What matters -----> The Company and Siegal won this case. Read the Siegal's filings and you will know what is going to happen. You people are just along for the ride with no real say in the outcome. MB will decide. The east will not be "punished" in MB. The west will get slotted close to NIC. Letting this go to MB will solve the Company's legal responsibility. They got their cake (seven years of idiot pilots fighting while getting paid table scraps) and no legal jeopardy. Thats a win in anyone's book. Those that can pay the best, wins. Not to rub salt into wounds but I believe if the east had kept Seham and LISTENED to his advice the east would have pulled this off to the end. Too bad there are too many "legal experts" on the east. He who represents himself has a fool for a attorney. Happily retired (from flying in 1983)
What matters -----> The Company and Siegal won this case. Read the Siegal's filings and you will know what is going to happen. You people are just along for the ride with no real say in the outcome. MB will decide. The east will not be "punished" in MB. The west will get slotted close to NIC. Letting this go to MB will solve the Company's legal responsibility. They got their cake (seven years of idiot pilots fighting while getting paid table scraps) and no legal jeopardy. Thats a win in anyone's book. Those that can pay the best, wins. Not to rub salt into wounds but I believe if the east had kept Seham and LISTENED to his advice the east would have pulled this off to the end. Too bad there are too many "legal experts" on the east. He who represents himself has a fool for a attorney. Happily retired (from flying in 1983)
12-01-2013, 11:31 AM
#1906
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Sorry to drive someone nuts, BUT, one small question. Who had a LEGAL responsibility to report what Sec10 stated? The west BPR reps had NO legal responsibility to report to the west voters. So anything about them is immaterial and not allowed in trial. Only USAPA held that LEGAL responsibility. Did USAPA tell the west voters what was in Sec 10? Not from what was reported in open testimony. The Company will use you against yourselves.
What matters -----> The Company and Siegal won this case. Read the Siegal's filings and you will know what is going to happen. You people are just along for the ride with no real say in the outcome. MB will decide. The east will not be "punished" in MB. The west will get slotted close to NIC. Letting this go to MB will solve the Company's legal responsibility. They got their cake (seven years of idiot pilots fighting while getting paid table scraps) and no legal jeopardy. Thats a win in anyone's book. Those that can pay the best, wins. Not to rub salt into wounds but I believe if the east had kept Seham and LISTENED to his advice the east would have pulled this off to the end. Too bad there are too many "legal experts" on the east. He who represents himself has a fool for a attorney. Happily retired (from flying in 1983)
What matters -----> The Company and Siegal won this case. Read the Siegal's filings and you will know what is going to happen. You people are just along for the ride with no real say in the outcome. MB will decide. The east will not be "punished" in MB. The west will get slotted close to NIC. Letting this go to MB will solve the Company's legal responsibility. They got their cake (seven years of idiot pilots fighting while getting paid table scraps) and no legal jeopardy. Thats a win in anyone's book. Those that can pay the best, wins. Not to rub salt into wounds but I believe if the east had kept Seham and LISTENED to his advice the east would have pulled this off to the end. Too bad there are too many "legal experts" on the east. He who represents himself has a fool for a attorney. Happily retired (from flying in 1983)
" this panel can not presume to know better than the fair and equitable list produced by Arbitrator Nicolau, that list fairly balances out the inequities caused by forced separate operations"
12-01-2013, 11:33 AM
#1907
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
Sorry to drive someone nuts, BUT, one small question. Who had a LEGAL responsibility to report what Sec10 stated? The west BPR reps had NO legal responsibility to report to the west voters. So anything about them is immaterial and not allowed in trial. Only USAPA held that LEGAL responsibility. Did USAPA tell the west voters what was in Sec 10? Not from what was reported in open testimony. The Company will use you against yourselves.
What matters -----> The Company and Siegal won this case. Read the Siegal's filings and you will know what is going to happen. You people are just along for the ride with no real say in the outcome. MB will decide. The east will not be "punished" in MB. The west will get slotted close to NIC. Letting this go to MB will solve the Company's legal responsibility. They got their cake (seven years of idiot pilots fighting while getting paid table scraps) and no legal jeopardy. Thats a win in anyone's book. Those that can pay the best, wins. Not to rub salt into wounds but I believe if the east had kept Seham and LISTENED to his advice the east would have pulled this off to the end. Too bad there are too many "legal experts" on the east. He who represents himself has a fool for a attorney. Happily retired (from flying in 1983)
What matters -----> The Company and Siegal won this case. Read the Siegal's filings and you will know what is going to happen. You people are just along for the ride with no real say in the outcome. MB will decide. The east will not be "punished" in MB. The west will get slotted close to NIC. Letting this go to MB will solve the Company's legal responsibility. They got their cake (seven years of idiot pilots fighting while getting paid table scraps) and no legal jeopardy. Thats a win in anyone's book. Those that can pay the best, wins. Not to rub salt into wounds but I believe if the east had kept Seham and LISTENED to his advice the east would have pulled this off to the end. Too bad there are too many "legal experts" on the east. He who represents himself has a fool for a attorney. Happily retired (from flying in 1983)
Okay, but anyway, they are not the ones that filed the lawsuit(directly). The Addington plaintiffs did. How can they claim to not realize the Nic was done away with, only to file a lawsuit right after the vote because..........the Nic wasn't included? I have a hard time with that.Anyway, you may be right. Judge Silver seems to be enamored with Siegal and I have no idea how she will rule. But, if they west doesn't start with the Nic, how are you seeing that they will come out close to the Nic in MB? Serious question and not driven nuts at all by your comment. When people whine about the thread is when I'm driven nuts.
12-01-2013, 11:34 AM
#1908
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
You aren't far off. The airways pilots will be integrated via the Nic. exactly. You can mark this post and come back to it when the final list is published. The MB arbitrators will say something along these lines
" this panel can not presume to know better than the fair and equitable list produced by Arbitrator Nicolau, that list fairly balances out the inequities caused by forced separate operations"
" this panel can not presume to know better than the fair and equitable list produced by Arbitrator Nicolau, that list fairly balances out the inequities caused by forced separate operations"
12-01-2013, 11:38 AM
#1909
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
Why do you listen to the liars known as usapa? Everything you say is completely wrong. Do you even know wha this suit is about? Don't listen to east or west, listen to the judge. As usual the east holes lie to their members and don't explain what is really going on. Here's what judge silver had to say when she ordered the current trial (doc 122):
On the 9ths requirement for a contract and final list:
On ripeness
On the mou being a jcba
So compare what a federal judge says to the crap you write.
On the 9ths requirement for a contract and final list:
On ripeness
On the mou being a jcba
So compare what a federal judge says to the crap you write.
So, if the POR goes on the 9th, will the NIC become effective that day since the MOU made your case ripe and it is a jcba that completes the TA? Just want to put that in my notes.
12-01-2013, 11:40 AM
#1910
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Paragraph 4 does on the 9th of December, and some of Leonidas leaders knew it. Some thought Marty was "dead wrong." Nevertheless, Leonidas LLC evaded any liability by plainly telling you all to vote for the MOU if you wanted to see a merger with American "according to the terms of the MOU."
The courts will enforce the terms of the MOU. They can do no other.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
