What's new

2014 Pilot Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
dca319 said:
I'm sorry, what? Fell asleep reading that one.
 
Likely from "you'se" adoptive mommy brushing your persian pussycat hair, as you're safely spouting off online...? 😉
 
Thanks for the always predictable laughs Move2CLT/"dca".
 
Metroyet said:
Relax. You'll be able to sue the APA when this is all over. You know, try to un-explode the bomb. After watching you complete idiots fumble the ball time and time again, I'm guessing no one at the APA is losing any sleep over your geriatric group of failures however.
Do us a favor Kev. Google William Wilder in conjunction with McCaskill Bond.
Then get back to us. Maybe you and the APA will get an education about who put the entire bill together. Hint, you won't see Marty Harper mentioned, nor Eric Ferguson.
No Roghair mentioned either.
 
What does the FBI Boy have to foam about today?
Lets' call todays' musing HOW the needles swing.....?
 
Claxon said:
Do us a favor Kev. Google William Wilder in conjunction with McCaskill Bond.
Then get back to us. Maybe you and the APA will get an education about who put the entire bill together. Hint, you won't see Marty Harper mentioned, nor Eric Ferguson.
No Roghair mentioned either.
you probably won't read anything about a judge turning McCaskill Bond as she sees fit either. That law will be followed one way or another
 
cltrat said:
you probably won't read anything about a judge turning McCaskill Bond as she sees fit either. That law will be followed one way or another
Waiting for west pilots to roll out Marty against Wilder. As well as the APA.
Roghair will be very comfortable as was Marty explaining how a MOU is suddenly a JCBA.
Is Ferguson and Leonidas advising the APA?
 
EastUS1 said:
One could only wish...
Horner, ferguson Simmons and Koontz started the entire Leonidas Ponzi scheme based on total misunderstanding of labor law. Marty profited from their ignorance.
Bill Wilder stepped on the Leonidas roach, and is already lighting the APA up.
 
dca319 said:
Good morning to you as well little sunshine. Once your finish you'se glass of "hair of the dog", we need to set up and LLC for AOX.

How much should I put you down for to start? Claxon, you in?
 
The fun part is, you only need to make one posting to Clax to send him off in an addled frenzy, resulting in another 10 posts of comedy gold from him.  You have him trained like Pavlov's dog. 
 
Phoenix said:
You seem persuaded that the West will participate in MB arbitration. Answer me this...

No arbitration can start, much less finish, apart from the arbitrating parties submitting themselves to the terms or arbitration. And by the way, the arbitrator submits to the terms as well....

Q1: The terms of MB arbitration are stipulated by Statute. If a party to the arbitration desires to stipulate terms other than the statute, what would be required to do so?
Q2: Or in the alternative, if a party to the arbitration preferred to limit the terms of arbitration to the Statute without modification what would be required?

Hint: A1: A supplemental agreement between all parties.
         A2: Nothing.

Which is easier?
 
 
Metroyet said:
The easier thing is to completely remove the opposing party. ....
 
Wrong.  "Nothing" is even easier than "dreaming".
 
Try again.  This time you can pick your favorite habit of "Implicit Assumption Dreaming" if you wish...   Try hard though this time. Think ClearDirect.... Don't use Gay logic.... You already used your mulligan.
 
Which is easier:
 
1. Securing a supplemental agreement among all participants in order to establish at least one additional party to the arbitration...
2. Dreaming about the implicit assumption that arbitrators don't follow the law...
3. Do nothing.  
 
 
P.S.  
 
By definition, no arbitration can ever commence until all parties to the arbitration, including the arbitrator, willingly submit to the terms of the arbitration.  The terms of arbitration by definition include a stipulation regarding the participants to said arbitration.  The  participants are established by statute, or in the alternative by a mutual contract accepted willingly among all participants.    
 
P.P.S.
 
"In addition, the former America West pilots are not entitled to participate in the upcoming statutory procedure required for the integration of the US Airways and American Airline pilots." "Under that statute, the West Pilots are not entitled to participate."
 
P.P.P.S.  If anyone wants to entitle the West Pilots to participate, all arbitration parties will have to agree to stipulate an exception to the statute. <<------------  This is your clue. 😉
 
Phoenix said:
 
P.P.P.S.  If anyone wants to entitle the West Pilots to participate, all arbitration parties will have to agree to stipulate an exception to the statute. <<------------  This is your clue. 😉
I think the APA and company made it clear they'll be giving a seat to the west.
 
Monkee said:
 
The fun part is, you only need to make one posting to Clax to send him off in an addled frenzy, resulting in another 10 posts of comedy gold from him.  You have him trained like Pavlov's dog. 
He may be nuts but he's our nuts. Clacon is Persian #3 in the newly formed AOX.
 
EastUS1 said:
 
Likely from "you'se" adoptive mommy brushing your persian pussycat hair, as you're safely spouting off online...? 😉
 
Thanks for the always predictable laughs Move2CLT/"dca".
Woops! Persian #1 thinks I'm a cat now. Back on the sauce he is.
 
dca319 said:
Woops! Persian #1 thinks I'm a cat now.
 
Good point. I've no reason to insult actual cats. I do respect that they've sometimes demonstrated great courage, even thought of a sort, that the larger versions are formidable predators, and all serve a useful purpose in this world, so that was an entirely inappropriate comparison on my part. 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top