Can You believe this!!

[Aspiring to be]

I believe the company has until OCT. 15 to respond to the summary judgment. You do have it wrong. Two depositions have some support for the company side. One from Ricci and the other from Sullivan. Both of these depositions have been refuted by others from the management team at FLOPS. .

I was told that the FLOPS had requested the judge to deny any more deposition but that request has been denied and about four more depositions will take place. Three out of the four are from RTA. These four should have been deposed before but the approval from the judge did not reach the attorneys in time.

I do agree with one thing you said, “Will it go to trail, maybe, maybe not.” If it fails to go to trial it will only be because the plaintiff’s settle prior to trial. If there was any chance the judge would rule against the plaintiff’s (due to lack of evidence or merit) then FLOPS would have requested summary judgment.

 

[450]

After reading this post I'd think anybody would have to be a bit naive to believe Aspiring is even remotley a "neutral" party.

 

[flyboycpa]

.

 

[luvu]

None of these stalwart defenders of Flight Options has answered my question yet. Is this post true?

It's pretty simple guys..did Ricci and other members of Flight Options management conspire to terminate pilots based on their union organizing efforts? If it is, how can you defend Ricci and the other folks involved in it?

Like or dislike unions all you want, it was an illegal act if it went off like it appears from that post. If it went off as it appears, Raytheon better get out the checkbook and start writing a number with a lot of zeros behind it. (Bet they wish they had never heard of Ricci right about now...)

And before you ask, I never applied for a job with you guys. I learned from prior experience how well "At Will" works in the aviation world.

..

 

[luvu]

case settled

It appears that Aspiring to Be, Cliff, and Griz win the thread. Raytheon got out the checkbook on Friday the 8th just as Griz and company predicted many months ago. Nice insight guys!

 

[longrangekiller]

They Ain't Quit'n Their Day Jobs

Bet ya None of Them are gonna quit their day jobs.

BY THE WAY, THE SUIT READ XXXX ET AL VS FLIGHT OPTIONS. RAYTHEON WAS NOT NAMED.

QUESTION, IF RAYTHEON WAS NOT NAMED WHY WOULD RAYTHEON WRITE THE CHECK!! NOT.

CAN NOT WAIT TO SEE THE BS RETORTS ON THIS ONE!! Remember, when you compose your grandeloquent retorts, RAYTHEON was not named in the suit. I know that for fact.

Only one reason BOTH sides agreeded to settle. Neither Side Had A walk away victory. GET SOMETHING NOW AS OPPOSED TO NOTHING LATER. PAY A BIT NOW AS OPPOSED TO A BUNCH LATER. EITHER WAY, BOTH SIDES MADE OUT.

YES, THERE IS A BINDING NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT THAT WOULD BE VERY PAINFUL TO BREAK. SO YOU GUYS YUK IT UP

 

[NJAowner]

Settlements

Over 99% of cases settle before trial. Some sooner, most later.

The definition of a "good settlement" is one which neither party is thrilled about; it means they compromised.

There is an old axiom among trial attorneys which I have heard frommy attorneys many times in the past: "A bad settlement is still better than the risk of going to a jury". Remember juries -- the fine people who believe OJ was innocent and gave someone in Alabama $100,000,000 for $750 of damage to his new BMW (later over turned).

In addition, most public companies will set up a reserve for the litigation and take a small amount of funds each month an dset it aside for settlement. Then, becuase it may be years until settlement, when then settlement happen it does not effect the financial statements.

In addition, sometimes the legal fees in going to trial and winning may be worse than the settlement offer.

I have no idea whether this case settled, but sometimes it just makes sense.