Republic update
05-05-2012, 10:58 AM
#181
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Position: EMB-145 CA
Posts: 456
I say we all table this and let lawyers who actually know what they are doing to handle it. IBT will get there day in court and its up to the company/FAPAInvest to show their deal was indeed legal in all facets of law. (Not a criminal case) even one slip up and it's probably curtains for LOA67.
05-05-2012, 12:46 PM
#183
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: A320 Captain
Posts: 641
Sorry, but I have to throw in my two cents and (maybe) that will be the end of it.
Hey Loita,
Nice to have you back in the fold. Thanks for posting something besides the complete BS non-sense your RAHBros have been throwing out about this. It's nice to see one of you actually agree that the Court chastised IBT since there is no disputing that. As far as:
I can't disagree with you on that either. One of the parties (IBT) violated a Court order and was "chastised" and the Judge would be expected to remind ALL parties of the ground rules before carrying on.
What set's you apart from your RAHBros is your willingness to state the obvious:
Instead of the smoking gun mystery evidence victory IBT achieved by forcing RAH and FAPAInvest to produce documents, the Judge spanked IBT, reminded everyone else what the rules are and then said let's move on with the 2 remaining counts. Now we get to see it all play out and let the Court decide. I think you and the FroBros can all agree that, like you said, the rest will play out in court.
Here are some interesting comments I read earlier:
Enjoy your weekend.
Hey Loita,
Nice to have you back in the fold. Thanks for posting something besides the complete BS non-sense your RAHBros have been throwing out about this. It's nice to see one of you actually agree that the Court chastised IBT since there is no disputing that. As far as:
All parties, and Interested Party FAPA, are fairly warned that any party which, in the future, violates the Stipulation and Protective Order shall be subject to sanctions.
I can't disagree with you on that either. One of the parties (IBT) violated a Court order and was "chastised" and the Judge would be expected to remind ALL parties of the ground rules before carrying on.
What set's you apart from your RAHBros is your willingness to state the obvious:
The results may lead to nothing. The Court may side with FAPAInvest and find the disclosed documents and finances legitimate. It may not, and if ruling in favor of the IBT, may set off some very interesting legal precedent.
Instead of the smoking gun mystery evidence victory IBT achieved by forcing RAH and FAPAInvest to produce documents, the Judge spanked IBT, reminded everyone else what the rules are and then said let's move on with the 2 remaining counts. Now we get to see it all play out and let the Court decide. I think you and the FroBros can all agree that, like you said, the rest will play out in court.
Here are some interesting comments I read earlier:
Great job IBT, you just litigated and filed a motion in an attempt to disclose information that you could have found on google back in March. Meanwhile, you are still negotiating a CBA that has been amendable since Oct. 2007. Nice allocation of resources!
Their CBA negotiations are going nowhere, yet they are championing the LOA 67 litigation (while the process is still just in discovery!) as some sort of "crushing victory".
Their CBA negotiations are going nowhere, yet they are championing the LOA 67 litigation (while the process is still just in discovery!) as some sort of "crushing victory".
Enjoy your weekend.
05-06-2012, 04:51 AM
#185
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Captain 121
Posts: 103
Instead of the smoking gun mystery evidence victory IBT achieved by forcing RAH and FAPAInvest to produce documents, the Judge spanked IBT, reminded everyone else what the rules are and then said let's move on with the 2 remaining counts. Now we get to see it all play out and let the Court decide. I think you and the FroBros can all agree that, like you said, the rest will play out in court.
05-06-2012, 07:47 AM
#186
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: Eff Oh Won Fo Fife
Posts: 325
Originally Posted by Ruling
As explained above, the Court has resolved the issue of the proper method for challenging a designation of discovery information as confidential pursuant to the Stipulation and Protective Order. Regarding Frontier RAH’s objection to counsel for the Teamsters Union who has not entered an appearance in this matter, the Court’s preference is that the duty to confer be undertaken by attorneys who have entered an appearance in the lawsuit at issue. However, Frontier RAH does not provide authority for their contention on this point, and their attempt to negate the conferral process by pointing fingers is juvenile and counterproductive. The Court thus rejects Frontier RAH’s arguments.
Originally Posted by Ruling
That said, the Court is cognizant that Paragraphs Nine and Ten of the Stipulation and Protective Order could be construed as inconsistent.
But the reprimand statement about RAH/FAPAInvest is an outstanding statement in the document and maybe indicative of future modus operandi of other documents submitted by the defendants. If that is the case--and I am purely speculating here, it reveals a dysfunctionality between RAH/FAPA Invest leadership and its counsel and may not bode well with this Judge.
05-06-2012, 10:28 PM
#187
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2012
Posts: 108
I love the phrase, "crushing victory." I don't think I've heard it anywhere but from crap sports announcers and the IBT including Local 357.
No "Reasonable Man" or entity would use that term unless they dismissed all humility, accountability, ego and reason. Sort of like the line in "As Good as it Gets."
I don't think normal people WANT a "crushing victory", you play just hard enough to win, without disgracing your opponent and inspiring them to fight you to the death.
Hyperbole=IBT.
How did 357 do in the golf and poker tournaments at this weekend's IBT festival? Did they have "crushing victories" and make 100k? Can we reduce the assessments off their earnings?
No "Reasonable Man" or entity would use that term unless they dismissed all humility, accountability, ego and reason. Sort of like the line in "As Good as it Gets."
I don't think normal people WANT a "crushing victory", you play just hard enough to win, without disgracing your opponent and inspiring them to fight you to the death.
Hyperbole=IBT.
How did 357 do in the golf and poker tournaments at this weekend's IBT festival? Did they have "crushing victories" and make 100k? Can we reduce the assessments off their earnings?
05-07-2012, 02:48 AM
#188
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: FO - 757/767
Posts: 1,228
I love the phrase, "crushing victory." I don't think I've heard it anywhere but from crap sports announcers and the IBT including Local 357.
No "Reasonable Man" or entity would use that term unless they dismissed all humility, accountability, ego and reason. Sort of like the line in "As Good as it Gets."
I don't think normal people WANT a "crushing victory", you play just hard enough to win, without disgracing your opponent and inspiring them to fight you to the death.
Hyperbole=IBT.
How did 357 do in the golf and poker tournaments at this weekend's IBT festival? Did they have "crushing victories" and make 100k? Can we reduce the assessments off their earnings?
No "Reasonable Man" or entity would use that term unless they dismissed all humility, accountability, ego and reason. Sort of like the line in "As Good as it Gets."
I don't think normal people WANT a "crushing victory", you play just hard enough to win, without disgracing your opponent and inspiring them to fight you to the death.
Hyperbole=IBT.
How did 357 do in the golf and poker tournaments at this weekend's IBT festival? Did they have "crushing victories" and make 100k? Can we reduce the assessments off their earnings?
05-07-2012, 06:37 AM
#189
Banned
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 1,071
I love the phrase, "crushing victory." I don't think I've heard it anywhere but from crap sports announcers and the IBT including Local 357.
No "Reasonable Man" or entity would use that term unless they dismissed all humility, accountability, ego and reason. Sort of like the line in "As Good as it Gets."
I don't think normal people WANT a "crushing victory", you play just hard enough to win, without disgracing your opponent
No "Reasonable Man" or entity would use that term unless they dismissed all humility, accountability, ego and reason. Sort of like the line in "As Good as it Gets."
I don't think normal people WANT a "crushing victory", you play just hard enough to win, without disgracing your opponent
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
05-07-2012, 02:48 PM
#190
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: Bus FO
Posts: 316
Off topic a little... sorry. I was wondering since RAH is hiring pilots, then have all the furloughed IMSL pilots (i.e. YX and Lynx pilots) been given recall? Your contract allows you to bypass as long as there is someone junior to you who is still on furlough. If RAH is hiring off the street, then have all the furloughed pilots either accepted recall or resigned?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
