Search

Notices

In the courtroom.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 11-08-2023, 09:05 AM
  #71  
That/It/Thang
 
Joined APC: Aug 2020
Posts: 2,921
Default

Originally Posted by NuGuy
I've followed a number of cases and I have to say this administration's DOJ (or FCC, or SEC, or any number of other alphabet agencies) seem to be filled with lawyers with more ideological zeal than actual legal acumen, and they get their tails handed to them fairly regularly.
Social justice warriors, fighting the bad fight, on the taxpayers dime.
CincoDeMayo is offline  
Old 11-08-2023, 09:48 AM
  #72  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2019
Posts: 246
Default

I found this interesting

DrSmacFum is offline  
Old 11-08-2023, 10:52 AM
  #73  
The REAL Bluedriver
 
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Position: Airbus Capt
Posts: 6,920
Default

Originally Posted by DrSmacFum
I found this interesting

There is just nothing verifiable to back this up. Even those of us trying to follow the trial haven't heard or seen anything about this. I hope it's true, a settlement is literally the best possible outcome, but my fear is he is full of whipped cream and trying to manipulate SAVE stock.
Bluedriver is offline  
Old 11-08-2023, 11:13 AM
  #74  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2019
Posts: 1,001
Default

Originally Posted by Bluedriver
There is just nothing verifiable to back this up. Even those of us trying to follow the trial haven't heard or seen anything about this. I hope it's true, a settlement is literally the best possible outcome, but my fear is he is full of whipped cream and trying to manipulate SAVE stock.
From what I’ve seen of the trial, seems plausible. Judge could easily say “go work this out before I rule on it”. I just can’t see how the DOJ has a case…and they sure haven’t shown it in court.
Roy Biggins is offline  
Old 11-08-2023, 11:24 AM
  #75  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2019
Posts: 246
Default

Originally Posted by Bluedriver
There is just nothing verifiable to back this up. Even those of us trying to follow the trial haven't heard or seen anything about this. I hope it's true, a settlement is literally the best possible outcome, but my fear is he is full of whipped cream and trying to manipulate SAVE stock.
he claims to be present at court but you're right. Ill believe it when I see it
DrSmacFum is offline  
Old 11-08-2023, 11:35 AM
  #76  
Line Holder
 
skitheline's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2019
Posts: 47
Default

[QUOTE=DrSmacFum;3722053]I found this interesting

/QUOTE]
Stocktwits? You'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. I'd take anything you read there with a very large grain of salt.
skitheline is offline  
Old 11-08-2023, 12:42 PM
  #77  
The REAL Bluedriver
 
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Position: Airbus Capt
Posts: 6,920
Default

Originally Posted by DrSmacFum
he claims to be present at court but you're right. Ill believe it when I see it
He would CLAIM to be in court.
Bluedriver is offline  
Old 11-08-2023, 03:03 PM
  #78  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Boomer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: blueJet
Posts: 4,536
Default

Originally Posted by Roy Biggins
From what I’ve seen of the trial, seems plausible. Judge could easily say “go work this out before I rule on it”. I just can’t see how the DOJ has a case…and they sure haven’t shown it in court.
Maybe the judge will give them a year to work on it, just like the NEA grievance.

Of course he won’t say they have a year to negotiate, he’ll just tell them “Come back in one month…” Twelve times.
Boomer is offline  
Old 11-08-2023, 03:54 PM
  #79  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2019
Posts: 1,001
Default

Originally Posted by Boomer
Maybe the judge will give them a year to work on it, just like the NEA grievance.

Of course he won’t say they have a year to negotiate, he’ll just tell them “Come back in one month…” Twelve times.
I think he said he’d rule on it by the end of the year, so I would assume he wants to wrap it up. What I don’t know is if JB wins the case outright, do they still have to divest the gates/slots they previously agreed to do. No deal was struck, so now we’re playing for keeps? Idk. The DOJ’s case sure doesn’t look good.
Roy Biggins is offline  
Old 11-08-2023, 03:59 PM
  #80  
SDQ Base Chief
 
Flyby1206's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 320 CA
Posts: 5,667
Default

Originally Posted by Roy Biggins
I think he said he’d rule on it by the end of the year, so I would assume he wants to wrap it up. What I don’t know is if JB wins the case outright, do they still have to divest the gates/slots they previously agreed to do. No deal was struck, so now we’re playing for keeps? Idk. The DOJ’s case sure doesn’t look good.
I think these divestitures have already been signed and agreed to. As long as the merger is approved those gates/slots will be divested
Flyby1206 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Halon1211
Spirit
287
01-31-2024 05:28 PM
cactiboss
American
3154
06-25-2014 10:54 AM
JetJock16
Major
334
01-25-2010 06:58 AM
vagabond
Hangar Talk
165
09-01-2006 04:40 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices