UhhhKhakis

I was agreeing with you. I was just disagreeing with your comment about the comparison to military delayed contracts because until you get on the plane to go to basic you can get out of it with no penalty.

ImSoSuss

So you were just spouting off dumb APC cliche's and providing nothing of value? "those fat cats never follow the contract any ways!!" *shakes fist


You don't know whether I am a Lawyer or not, many pilots were Lawyers at one point. Any ways you don't need to be a lawyer to spot a dumb argument.

JohnBurke

You do not understand the difference between identifying the guilty party, and defending another. No one here has defended Republic; such would be irrelevant. At issue is pilots who failed to abide the contract they signed. They got what they wanted, and walked away. They welched on their bet. They failed to act honestly. They broke the terms of their contract. This isn't about Republic. This is about the pilots who failed.

When a contract is arranged; both parties make agreements; that's what the contract is. The bad actor is the one who fails to deliver.

If the students claim that Republic didn't give them a job fast enough, in an industry that has traditionally held pilot applicants "swimming" in the hiring pool for extended periods due to training, need, openings, sim availability, etc, They will need to show that they have been harmed to a greater extent than highly qualified individuals who came to the table with a lot more to offer, who were made to wait for their slot; the students will have to show that somehow the industry standard does not apply to them. The students must show that they are special, entitled. They have a steep hill to climb.

Recognizing the students culpability and dishonor is not defense of Republic. Republic doesn't not need defending. Republic has given the student what the student wanted, and what the student was willing to sign for. Republic gave the money, the discounts, the training, and has not refused the students employment. The students are not suing Republic. This is not about republic, nor is Republic's honor in question here. Republic is not accused of contractual violation (rather, the students have alleged that as an excuse for their failure to abide the contract). You don't seem to understand this. The bad guy here isn't Republic. It's the student.

Clearly.

"Precedent?" What has set precedent?

Where has Republic attempted to "indenture" anyone? Republic has not. A contract has been signed.

Where has Republic attempted an "indefinite" employment term? You've invented this. You've lied. No such term has been presented, requested, demanded, or has been part of a contract. Why do you make up lies to muddy the water? Can you not have an intelligent conversation with facts or truth, rather than pulling falsehoods from your backside and presenting them as anything but lies?

Irrelevant.

Moreover, if other operators haven't hired in an extended period, this does not hurt Republic's position, but helps it. You don't understand why, do you?

If other operators keep pilots floating in their pool and do not offer immediate employment, or if other operators don't hire for extended periods, one cannot expect Republic to do any differently. Republic is not obligated to create an immediate opening, simply because a student wants it. When the student cries "jump," Republic is not obligated to ask "how high?"

The student has simple recourse: honor the contract or pay up. The student chose to do neither. Hence, the legal action.

Irrelevant.

The only thing they can expect to do is honor the contract.

If they find some income until they are called to employment, so be it . But tha'ts not what has happened here. The students refused to fulfill the contract: they have options. Pay up, or give the service to which they agreed. Again, they chose to do neither.

If the student wishes to take employment elsewhere, they pay up. If the student wishes to engage in temporary employment until their number comes up at Republic, then do that.

If the student wishes to accept the agreed term of employment, all is well.

If the student wishes to accept employment with Republic and walk away before the term is complete, then face the consequences. It's a contract, not a platitude.

Your grammar is poor enough to cast doubt on any education you might claim, but if you're an attorney that managed to pass a bar exam, no question exists as to why you're not working in the legal field. Thus far, you haven't been able to complete a sentence. Let's see you muddle through a legal brief.

Swakid8

Last time I checked, Republic isn’t the military. This comparison isn’t valid. Let’s stop bringing up Military comparisons up….

Excargodog

contracts are contracts.

juxtapilot

So these guys signed a contract with republic, broke it but paid back Republic for all the bonuses etc. Why do they owe republic more than that?

JohnBurke

Republic is an employer. The military is an employer.

Students signed a contract with Republic. Enlistees and Officers sign a contract with the military.

Republic hired ab initio applicants with no prior experience, and provided their training in exchange for an agreement that the applicant would provide a minimum amount of service to Republic.

The military hires applicants with no prior experience, provides their training and requires an agreement that the new hire provide a minimum amount of service to the military.

Applicants to Republic's training program know what they're signing when they sign the contract. Enlistees and officers in the military knkow what they're signing when they sign the contract.

Republic's contract is legally enforceable, and is a legal document. A contract between a soldier/airman/sailor, etc, is a legally enforceable document.

Terms and agreements are clearly spelled out in a legal contract between applicants and. Republic. Terms and agreements are clearly spelled out in a legal contract between enlistees and officers and the military.

Republic is willing to enforce its contract through legal action when that contract has been broken, and the applicant refuses to fulfill his or her obligations. The military is willing and able to enforce its contract through legal action, incarceration, and other means, if the contract has been broken and the applicant refuses to fulfill his or her obligations.

You don't see the similarities. Understood. Perhaps you don't see this post, because you are blind.

Excargodog

Yeah, here is a very similar military case.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/b-190935-110510.pdf

in summary, the guy took a military medical scholarship covering tuition, books, and a $400 a month stipend (this was the 1970s) and then after having the Navy pay his way through medical school, he decided he was a conscientious objector. The Navy said, OK then, you are a conscientious objector then, pay back the money we gave you because that’s what the contract you signed said you would do. In todays dollars that would be the equivalent of $30k or so. The dude, well dude MD now, didn’t want to pay back the $400 a month ($1700 a month todays equivalent) times 42 months stipend he had received, just for the books and tuition.

That wound up not working for him.


ROTC scholarships are similar:

https://rotcconsulting.com/rotc-scholarship-contracts/

rdneckpilot

nothing will change. Pilots will still come to republic.