Bulldog319

Gotta love how the IBT is taking care of the junior 80% of their list. There is absolutely nothing in the Frontier Contract that would require this, thus there is no basis for a DFR. All this does is put a small crack in any future separation arguments for the unlikely but possible future benefit of the senior 10 to 20% that might stand a chance of coming over to the Frontier side.

Pinopilot

Enter Content

Ronaldo

Nbecca:Please enlighten us. I'm very curious about what information IBT releases early. If you're going to quote the one line from the LOA 67 lawsuit where IBT released a document already available on SEC-EDGAR, Google and Yahoo searches I'm going to laugh my a$$ off. Just because FAPA/RAH leadership was to embarrassed to release the documents requested in discovery, does not mean they are appropriately labeled "confidential".

If anything, IBT waits too long to release information, and signs NDAs that are too broad in scope.

Hetman

He is weasel and a whiner, then.

nbecca

It's not called "the LOA 67 lawsuit." LOA 67 is not at issue in any current litigation and I'm not referring to that situation.

Educate yourself, it's not my job.

Ronaldo

Here's a link to a pitiful request from someone asking IBT to stop the "LOA 67 lawsuit". Petition FRONTIER AIRLINE PILOTS BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE; PLEASE DROP LOA 67 LAWSUIT!

Also here are some quotes from "Civil Action No. 11-cv-02007-MSK-KLM INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
AIRLINE DIVISION
v.
Plaintiff,
FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC.,
REPUBLIC AIRWAYS HOLDINGS, INC., and FAPAInvest, LLC,"

This is taken from PAGE 1 of the IBT motion to for summary judgement in 1:11-cv-02007-MSK-KLM:

I guess Nbecca, you need to educate me on how LOA 67 is not a matter in any pending litigation. Regardless of whether you think LOA 67 should be invalidated, you can't argue that it isn't a factor in any pending litigation that is unless you are an RAH manager, in which case carry on. I don't want to waste my time with you.

And, I am familiar with one other instance where information was said to have been released early but I haven't seen any definitive data.

RJtrashPilot

I saw this and thought you'd like it since you're an official member of the party.

3662forlife

What do you mean LOA 67 isn’t an issue? On the call the last question was about the LOA 67 lawsuit:

Q: “What are we askin’ for?” - pilot

A: “What are we askin’ for? The removal of LOA 67 and, and I think there are a couple of other LOA’s that were spawned because of that LOA and just snappin’ back everything to what it was before the LOA.” – Eboard member

Breadcrumbs, tightening nets and a cat that chases a feather? (Inside joke)

IA1125

So, based on 3662’s and other’s posts, IBT fears a possible DFR suit if they don’t represent the Frontier Pilot’s interests in bidding the 190’s and maybe the Q’s, but they aren’t concerned at all about trying to put them out of work through the FAPAInvest / LOA 67 litigation?

It seems to me the litigation represents more of a threat of a DFR suit than allowing furloughed Frontier Pilots to bid the 190’s over native RAHer’s.

In fact, it seems the native RAHer’s could make a decent DFR claim based on a conflict of interest by the IBT in working to take their upgrades and bidding positions away from them and give them to Frontier Pilots.

Have any Frontier Pilots (IBT members or not) expressed an interest in flying the 190’s or Q’s? Or is the IBT charging ahead for the sole purpose of charging ahead? As in, is there anyone asking to have their interests in the 190’s and Q’s advanced or is it all in the IBT’s head?

CFItillIdie

Breadcrumbs, tightening nets and a cat that chases a feather? (Inside joke)[/QUOTE]

D Bag move...