Although, I will give you credit for trying to divert attention from the real "meat and potatoes" of this thread...

 

Some of the questions were rhetorical but yes, I am another member of the oppressed regime.

Not trying to divert the attention of the "tread", just tired of the hypocrisy!

Now, I'm sure this will be just like the FAPA website where everyone else piles on!

 

I believe I'll take a pass on ZooCrew going forward and would recommend the same.

The tenor and tone of his posts are all wrong, the small amount of information he possesses too scattered.

He appears to be soliciting information he should have while hoping for a response he's not worthy of, is contrary to our best interests and could damage our cause.

He's trying to get under people's skin to elicit information and cause a negative reaction.

Sorta like 3662, except without any documents or actual information.

He displays a limited knowledge of the subject while hoping that someone will say something inappropriate or revealing.

A small slip could easily be used against the Frontier pilot group or in litigation, it's better to say nothing. Just my opinion.

ZooCrew, if you're F9, call one of the people available to you through FAPA, they'll be happy to answer your questions.

 

This is precisely my point! The IBT witness knew nothing of the illegal negotiation after IBT became the representative. That's part of the suit. Failure to negotiate with the representative union...

I think you'll be hard pressed to get any information out of an IBT national or local member that can build a defense for the remaining counts in this case. Did the LOA get split into a Commercial Agreement and an LOA? Yes. The leverage of negotiating extensions to the LOA was lost to the IBT because JT took a pay-off from BB.

I was pointing out the absurd 3662 foot-stomping because we weren't updated on ALL the developments. I don't consider anything that went on this week a development. Delay, yes...


I've read hundreds of cases in my life and I'd say that ^^^statement is completely accurate.

Agreed again.

Not hard to admit the facts. I'll admit that (I'm not a union rep though). But in admitting the facts I'd also like to point out that BB sent emails to the FAPA leadership at the time and asked them to split the LOA into a commercial agreement as well, and it was agreed that FAPAInvest would negotiate for LOA issues AFTER the representative was chosen. The emails and actions after IBT became the union, do not help the case.

 

That is an interesting perspective of reality. Interesting and COMPLETELY false....

The Company disputed the IBT's claims fourteen different times (Docket 116, A.1, A.2.a.A-G, A.2.b.H-L).

When you say that "the company does not dispute any of the evidence", are you referring to RAH?
RAH does dispute the IBT evidence in Doc 116.

Are you referring to Frontier?
Frontier also disputed the IBT's claims in Doc 106.

Are you referring to the other defendant, FAPAInvest?
Yup, they dispute the claims as well.

My point is nothing in this litigation is undisputed. The IBT threw a bunch of sh1t against the wall in the form of six repetitive Counts. Four of those were dismissed by the Magistrate. The remaining two have since been amended in an attempt to capture some of the dismissed Counts.

You actually referred to "reading the docket". Have you read all 130 Submissions (in the public domain) along with their supplements or just the IBT submissions? I think you may have read one single document, the IBT's 108. They LOVE to use the term "undisputed". The only terms they use more often are "1.4 million" and "no one will pick up the trash or deliver the mail".

The IBT titled a section of 108 "Statement of Undisputed Facts" with a footnote. A fricking footnote to justify their use of "undisputed". It is laughable, pathetic and predictable. The IBT knows the facts are in dispute, but they put a footnote on the doc in an attempt to justify the use of the word undisputed.

If the IBT labels something "illegal", it is not automatically illegal. If they use the word illegal twice, it is not twice as illegal.

If you want an honest (is this possible?) analysis of the entire litigation, try this...

Read IBT's first Motion for Summary Judgement.

Read IBT's Motion for Summary Judgement on Counts I and II of Amended Complaint.

There should be some pretty glaring problems with both of those documents.

If you still have some energy, read 116 and 106. One of the two remaining complaints is going to be dismissed.

I won't make another prediction on what the Magistrate will decide, but every day I care less and less about the outcome to this frivolous litigation.

 

Why is the LOA 67 **** on THIS thread guys???? Jeeeesus, I mean really? You people (amongst others, BB/WH) are the exact reason
I CAN'T WAIT TO GTFO OF RAH!!!

Soon my friends..., soon.

Have a nice day, If that's possible for you people. ; )