What's new

Nov/Dec 2013 Pilot Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Phoenix said:
Some might posit that there is always an opportunity to make loads of money from people who are passionate about something, and if one could persuade passionate people to accept implicit assumptions then it is conceivably possible to multiply that profit, at least until the assumption is no longer plausible.  
 
If I were considering a donation to Leonidas LLC, I would hope that my passion about the subject would not cause me to gloss over the question.."Is an LLC liable to delver something to me for my donation?" 
 
Now that so many emails are public knowledge, me thinks there is a possibility that passions may be directed in more directions than they previously were.
Passionate? New York Yankees cheat, Alex Rodriguez is passionate, walking out of arbitration and pointing fingers to deflect attention. He claims arbitration is not fair. It seems that some people or groups are incapable of going through such a process. It's not fair! It's not fair!
hissyfit.gif
 
sad-smiley-047.gif


About those emails. Not only are the emails, public, so are the email addresses. I wonder if that could cause some problems for the group who released the information?
 
snapthis said:
Maybe Judge Silver can clear up all this confusion for US so we can determine who is more confused which may add to the suffering for one of US. 🙂
 
That would first require that both of us be confused and suffering. I'm certainly not, but have whatever fun with "you'se" group's obvious issues as best suits. Since your strongest attempt at countering the inherent idiocy of the emails is merely the feeble notion that public display of them "could cause some problems for the group who released the information", versus for the group that briilliantly generated the "information"...well, methinks any current "suffering" exists only within west ranks. I am a bit dissappointed though snap, at the west's obvious inability to make even the most pathetic attempt at spinning the statements within those emails. Got anything new for that?...Anything at all? 😉
 
Claxon said:
You would have scabbed.
Res Judicata said:
Against you POS? Count on it, scab.
 
Well Res, it's just this way: One would EVER choose to be a scab or not. A person either has a moral code and personal principles or doesn't. "You'se" clearly do NOT...Period.
 
Phoenix said:
"Andy is dead wrong about the APA inheriting this liability."   Doc 281-4
 
 
"10G and H worry me greatly.  On the face, these paragraphs appear to allow USAPA, aided and abetted by the company to amend (abandon) our TA which demands the Nic.... if the West votes for the MOU, USAPA will bring out the PHX vote and attempt to use it like Ozark/TWA in any DFR case....
 
.... I think Leonidas should not endorse the MOU.  Further, if we come out against [the MOU] for this reason, the east will see it as justification to vote for the MOU and it will pass by a 2/3 margin.  We get ripeness without risking weakening our claim [if we don't recommend or vote in favor of it]. "  Doc 281-4
 
 "Further, if we come out against [the MOU] for this reason, the east will see it as justification to vote for the MOU and it will pass by a 2/3 margin."  Whew! I honestly can't recall encountering ANY naive arrogance during my lifetime that exceeds the degree displayed by that assumption.  "You'se" west people truly have not the slightest clue.
 
Res Judicata said:
Do yourself a favor, and STFU about subject matter you are so woefully Iil-prepared to discuss.
 
Or what?..."You'se" will stamp "spartan" feet, froth at the mouth/pound your keyboard and hold your breath 'till you turn blue? Get over yourself kid. 😉
 
traderjake said:
 
He and end_of_alpa have watched every episode of Perry Mason. :lol:
 
This is exactly who and what you're waving pom poms for here trader. Your west friend Res at his finest:
Claxon, on 20 Nov 2013 - 9:21 PM, said: "You would have scabbed."
Res Judicata: "Against you POS? Count on it, scab."
 
Think about that, even if just a little bit.
 
PS: Res's proud proclamation of his wannabe/just-gimme-the-chance-to-scab status has already gleaned 4 positive votes, all presumably from his fellow "spartans", and yet you support the supposed morality of such people?...Seriously?
 
end_of_alpa said:
You think you're commercial instrument ratings make YOU a leader? Gear up, Dan.
 
"Gear Up"  (but only on Saturday and Sunday).
 
EastUS1 said:
 ... Since your strongest attempt at countering the inherent idiocy of the emails is merely the feeble notion that public display of them "could cause some problems for the group who released the information", versus for the group that briilliantly generated the "information"...well, methinks any current "suffering" exists only within west ranks. I am a bit dissappointed though snap, at the west's obvious inability to make even the most pathetic attempt at spinning the statements within those emails. Got anything new for that?...Anything at all? 😉
I assumed these emails were gleaned from published court records.
 
Graceson said:
I assumed these emails were gleaned from published court records.
Exactly my point. All to do about nothing. Kinda like the unproven and false ID theft accusations.
 
EastUS1 said:
 
This is exactly who and what you're waving pom poms for here trader. Your west friend Res at his finest:
Claxon, on 20 Nov 2013 - 9:21 PM, said: "You would have scabbed."
Res Judicata: "Against you POS? Count on it, scab."
 
Think about that, even if just a little bit.
 
PS: Res's proud proclamation of his wannabe/just-gimme-the-chance-to-scab status has already gleaned 4 positive votes, all presumably from his fellow "spartans", and yet you support the supposed morality of such people?...Seriously?
 
If APA calls a strike Res will be standing right next to you on the picket line.
 
APA, taking US out of USAPA. (from the Hanger board)
 
snapthis said:
Exactly my point. All to do about nothing. Kinda like the unproven and false ID theft accusations.
That sensitive info was not gleaned and then shared from public records. It was behind corporate firewalls.
 
No money for any of the pilots this year:
http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2013/11/district-judge-lays-out-timetable-for-finalizing-the-american-airlines-us-airways-settlement.html/

"U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly signed an order that spells out how the U.S. Department of Justice will make public the settlement terms in its antitrust case with American Airlines and US Airways.

The order specifies how the materials are to be published in the Federal Register and three newspapers, of which the Dallas Morning News is one and I had nothing to do with it.

The timetable indicates that the process will stretch into March before the settlement becomes final.

Heres the full order.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 1:13-cv-01236-CKK

US AIRWAYS GROUP, INC. and AMR

CORPORATION,

Defendants,

ORDER

After conferring with the parties, and in order to administer the settlement of this case in accordance with the procedures set out in the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (Tunney Act), 15 U.S.C. § 16(b)-(h), and as expeditiously as possible, it is this 20th day of November, 2013, hereby

ORDERED that the United States shall publish the proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement in the Federal Register by no later than December 6, 2013; and it is further

ORDERED that, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 16(g), within 10 days of the publication of the proposed Final Judgment in the Federal Register, and by no later than December 16, 2013, each of the Defendants shall file with the Court a description of any and all written or oral communications by or on behalf of such Defendant, or other person, with any officer or employee of the United States concerning or relevant to the proposed Final Judgment, except that any such communication made by counsel of record alone with either the Attorney General or the employees of the United States Department of Justice shall be excluded from this requirement. By no later than March 10, 2014, each Defendant shall certify to the Court that the requirements of 15 U.S.C. § 16(g) have been complied with and that its filing pursuant to this subsection is a true and complete description of such communication known to the Defendant or which the Defendant reasonably should have known; and it is further

ORDERED that, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 16(c), the United States shall cause to be published in the Washington Post, the Arizona Republic, and the Dallas Morning News a notice containing a summary of the terms of the proposed Final Judgment, a summary of the Competitive Impact Statement, and a list of materials and documents which the United States shall make available for purposes of meaningful public comment and the place where such materials and documents are available for public inspection. Such publication shall continue for seven days over a period of two weeks, commencing not later than November 25, 2013; and it is further

ORDERED that members of the public may submit written comments concerning the proposed Final Judgment to the designated official of the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice for a period of 60 days following either publication of the proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement in the Federal Register, or the last date of publication in a newspaper pursuant to this Order, whichever is later. This period shall run from December 9, 2013 to February 7, 2014; and it is further

ORDERED that, within thirty days after the close of the 60-day public comment period, and by no later than March 10, 2014, the United States shall post all public comments on the Antitrust Division website and shall file with the Court and publish in the Federal Register its responses to any comments received, including in the Federal Register the internet address where the public comments may be found. The posting of all public comments on the Antitrust Division website shall serve as an alternative method of public dissemination of these comments pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 16(d) in lieu of Federal Register publication; and it is further

ORDERED that, simultaneous with the filing of its response to the comments of the public, the United States shall file any appropriate legal briefing with the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that the United States shall file any Renewed Proposed Final Judgment, containing modifications pursuant to public comments, for the Courts review pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 16(e)-(f) by no later than March 10, 2014; and it is further

ORDERED that upon completion of the above procedures, and by no later than March 10, 2014, the United States shall file with the Court a certification of compliance with the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (Tunney Act), 15 U.S.C. § 16(b)-(h).

Once the Court receives the appropriate filings from the parties, it will determine if a hearing is necessary as part of its review pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 16(e)-(f).

SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 20, 2013 _____/s/____________________________
HON. COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE"
 
traderjake said:
 
If APA calls a strike Res will be standing right next to you on the picket line.
 
Umm...Yeeeah, sure thing, whatever you say/etc. Thanks for the laughs. 😉 Just how would/could you even pretend to know that, and based on what exactly?...A previously stated willingess to scab if/when it suits personal whims to do so? Spare us all such inane BS. Anyone who'd ever scab is scum that can't be trusted...period. Were circumstances reversed with the west running things; I'd not cross the line. There's no such thing as a conditional scab, but otherwise "good person". A scab is a scab, and any/all wannabe scabs fail to much impress me. Your mileage clearly varies there.
 
snapthis said:
Passionate? New York Yankees cheat, Alex Rodriguez is passionate, walking out of arbitration and pointing fingers to deflect attention. He claims arbitration is not fair. It seems that some people or groups are incapable of going through such a process. It's not fair! It's not fair! 
hissyfit.gif
  
sad-smiley-047.gif
 
  • Are you passionate about Leonidas LLC?
  • Can you sue an LLC for failing to deliver a return for your donations (DFR like)?  
  • Did you implicitly assume your donations were guaranteed to cash your lottery ticket?
  • Do you know what benefits the leaders of Loenidas, LLC are entitled to under the terms of its incorporation?
  • How public is that info?
 
 
Did you pause to ask yourself these question before you donated on the advice of people who can legally run a for profit organization?   
 
Graceson said:
That sensitive info was not gleaned and then shared from public records. It was behind corporate firewalls.
I still would like someone, anyone to come forward who was harmed by a Leonidas mailing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top