ebwqs asked: "Um, didn't America West make a fuel stop in BK court?"
Um, yes....about TWO DECADES AGO, and came out on the other side. Here's a piece of straw to grab at........
Let me help you out then.
She was asking about the facts of the Ramey case and you need to listen to Dr. Jacob's answer. In Ramey the limitations began to run two months prior to the final negotiations. The union distributed a memorandum to all employees informing them of a bargaining position the union intended to negotiate. The Ramey court deemed that to be enough to trigger the commencement of the running of the statute of limitations - BEFORE THE CBA. Also in the Ramey case the court talks about the ripeness and limitations and how the two relate in time. Ripeness, by law, begins to run at the time of limitatios OR BEFORE. The Ramey court treated the memo - standing alone - to constitute a form of anticipatory repudiation. Now, stack those facts against USAPA's acts. All the roadshows, all the NAC and BPR updates, and the quintessential gift from USAPA to the plaintiffs was the delivery of a DOH list to the company. It was after Judge Graber's question about the Ramey facts that she launched her hypothetical. Then she asked Dr. Jacob what USAPA has done. He outlined it as is. The best was Dr. Jacob's recounting of how USAPA flat out told Judge Wake they'd never implement the Nic. Dr. Jacob summed it up well when he said "yes they could injure us more, but they injured us already." The plaintiffs in Ramey were deemed injured with much less.
You need to listen to the response. The footnote was there to explain that the Ramey court understands that negative statements normally do not trigger a claim, but in this (the Ramey case) they do. It's not really that different from what the Rakestraw court did in having to be extra careful in explaining why they were doing what they were doing. The reason for this extra caution is due to the willingness of all the ambulance chasers out there to take a sentence out of context and blow it into a proposition that it isn't. Seham nevertheless tried to take Rakestraw completely out of context and that's the reason Judge Wake characterized Seham's interpretation of Rakestraw as a slender reed that does not support USAPA's elephantine proposition.
Just throwing a little reality into the equation. Could it be that US Airways was closer to Chapter 7 than A@W because that little event called 9-11. That day forever change things for many of us that were already in this industry for years. Many out west because of tunnel vision forget that DCA was closed for a long time and a huge percentage of US Airways flight were cxld for long periods of time. I get the impression that many out west like to forget history and just blame US Airways problems on lousy management and far from the truth lousy employees. Because it make little people feel better about themselves and what they actually bring to the table. I hate to see any pilot furloughed and I hope to see them all come back soon. However that thing called reality enters the picture again. Without the merger Doug and Scott both said that A@W would shrink and there would be pilot layoffs. Since we have separate seniority list those pilots were furloughed by DOH which is what they earned when they were hired at A@W. Nothing more and nothing less!!!!!
Wasn't Leeham on video in the campaign phase saying that dumping the Nic was a "SLAM DUNK"?
The pilot club was warned not to go public but they were so driven they couldn't help themselves. Bradford was warned when he was lawyer shopping but didn't take some sage advice.
Does anyone honestly believe this group was formed for any other reason?? :huh:
I'm still waiting on the better, cheaper, faster than ALPA group....they showing up anytime soon? It's been 2 years and the best this bunch can do is blame every thing on ALPA. :down:
ALPA is gone, you're in the drivers seat, you've got the majority. How about showing us you can make it work rather than always pointing a finger at someone else.
Homer said:
