Can You believe this!!

[flyboycpa]

.

 

[varicam]

A2Be,

I have to say, Aspiring, that you know waaaayyyy too much information to simply be a "friend" of one of those terminated. I sincerely doubt your sincerity that your knowledge consists solely of what is gathered from emails, legal motions, or grumblings from your "friend." I am not making any predictions on the outcome of the forthcoming case, and I'm not saying that the guys were wrongfully (or rightfully) terminated (I didn't know them or their actions), but I think that all of us on this website are tired of you hiding behind your facade.

Why don't you simply admit to which name in the previously posted motions is yours?? Or, conversely, if you would simply state that you are one of them and you don't want your posted quotes/emails used against you and that is why you don't admit to you name, I think we'd at least respect you a little more. You're way too involved to simply be a "friend."

Now, I'll admit, if I'm completely wrong and you are only a friend, then I'll apologize, but if that's the case, then you are a really bored individual.

respectfully,
flyboycpa

Why are you guys concerning yourself with Aspirings identity and motivation? Either the stuff he's posted is true or it's not. No one here will be in the jury pool, so our whatever conclusions we draw mean nothing. I suggest that someone who's wasting a lot of keystrokes attacking his character instead come up with a logical argument that rebuts him.

 

[Majik]

Varicam's right. Aspiring to Be is putting forth information/opinion that is of interest to many fractional pilots. His information may or may not be wrong but everyone that is attacking him has yet to provide any conclusive argument to rebut his view.
To me, that's a good sign that his information is pretty close to being true. Your attacks do nothing but support his claims. Come up with something valid and back it up with fact or risk making his case stronger.

My feeling is that there may be truth to the following:
1) You didn't support the unionizing effort
2) You are happy those that did were terminated.
3) The fact that your company may have erred and is being sued by those terminated bothers you.
4) Therefore, you attack anyone that disagrees with 1-3 above.

Am I way out in left field?

 

[Apeman]

Whether or not who said what about who being a good pilot past/present is of little importance. What happens in the courts will substantiate all claims and finger pointing by both sides. But if there is any truth to what I've heard about this- then I'm glad these guy's are not here. If they are found to be in the right, then more power to them!
I have been at FLOPS for over 3 years now, and don't really care what happens at this point. Question for ass-to-B, what company do you work for? Maybe I have a friend or two there so I could waste untold amounts of time crying over any bad fate that has happened to them?!

 

[Majik]

Apeman,
You almost had it. You were so close and then something happened that sucked you back into that vortex.
Your 1st two sentences were right on. You were about to head somewhere sustantial in your 3rd sentence, then you stumbled and failed to provide what you had heard bad about all 5 of the pilots in question. You just said that you heard negative things about all of them but you never provided any substance. Your finish fell back to lower levels by calling the poster "ass-to-B" and you lost any credibility you hoped for. I mark that one up as "One more for Aspiring to Be".
Better luck next time, Apeman...

 

[Dep676]

WOW! Are we in elementary school again. Let's worry about our own problems and let the courts figure this one out. If they were wrongfully terminated then I hope they get what they deserve. That goes the other way also if they are wrong then they got what they had coming. I don't believe we are they jury here. That goes both ways if the company was wrong then shame on them and stick it too them. If not then they will get off. I think that's for the judge and jury to figure it out.

LET IT GO!!!!!!!!!!!! That goes for both sides here. Grow up.

 

[NJAowner]

To put it simply

Aspiring to be knows a lot of law for a pilot. But let's boil this down simply since I do spend a lot of time and $$$ with my lawyers (not on these issues).

A summary judgment is granted when there are no contested issues of material facts and the law is clear based upon the facts presented. This is rare. All lawyers will make a motion for summary judgment because not to do so is tantamount to legal malpractice. If there are issues of material fact in dispute, summary judgment is denied and the case goes on.

It then becomes up the the trier of fact (the jury) to decide who is telling the truth. Just because someone says something in a deposition, under oath, it is not necessarily the truth. A jury decides who of all the people who testify are the most credible and put a greater weight upon what they say. There is always someone saying they say X pull the trigger while at the same time someone else tesifies he was having dinner with X in a different state. They were both under oath. It is up to the jury to decide the credibility.

I can't talk much about flying, but unfortunately, I am very familiar with the legal system.

I have no personal interest in the outcome of this case.

I hope all of you fly safe!

 

[Aspiring to be]

NJAowner,

I agree with your post for the most part. It is usually the other side and not the plaintiff’s that request summary judgment. In most cases, the plaintiffs must present argument against summary judgment. FLOPS did not request summary judgment. I would assume FLOPS must present arguments against summary judgment.

Reading the deposition, I will really be surprised if FLOPS lets it go to summary judgment. There is no way that Raytheon wants this to go to trial. The only reason that it would be allowed to go to trial by Raytheon is that FLOPS has insurance and it is the insurance company that is paying the legal cost for FLOPS.

I am not a lawyer but I like you understand some of the points of law. This could be an interesting case from the standpoint of the judge in this case. I can see where the judge would want to see this go to trial. I do not think that this case will be a run of the mill type case and will present the judge a very interesting opportunity.


One additional person is involved in the lawsuit but his case is a little different and a request for summary judgment was not made in this man case. I believe a summary judgment would have been requested if time had permitted. I believe two depositions given that make this person termination out to be a shame were just too late to file. Last deposition was given Friday afternoon with the summary judgment deadline the following Monday.

 

[GooseHZ]

YOUR LAST

Merlin,Bill, Jimmy, who ever you are,

You said that this was your last post a FEW post ago? I think FLOPS pilots just want to know why you are always jumping on FLOPS. We the pilots have done nothing to your "Friend", and until a COURT says so neither did anyone eles. So why dont you go post your thoughts and rummors on YOUR IBT board.

 

[Grim Reaper]

All the depostions are not in and the company lawyers have a good bit of time left before responing to the Motion For Summary Judgement.

A to be is only talking about the TWO depositions that seem suport his side of the argument. When all is said and done, more than 25 people will have been deposed.

Will it go to trail, maybe, maybe not.