Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Can You believe this!!
- Thread starter Aspiring to be
- Start date
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Aspiring to be
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2002
- Posts
- 95
OK, This will be my last.
I am very surprised that you remembered the guys that were fired. Many at RTA supported the union effort. Three of those terminated never flew a trip for FLOPS. I would say that about 98% and this includes the RTA Chief Pilot was against the so call merger.
RTA had some problems but when compared to FLOPS there was no contest. RTA for all of its problems had a class act when comp aired to FLOPS. . FLOPS was on the verge of closing its doors. If the so call merger had not taken place FLOPS would have been out of business very soon.
The FLOPS Chief Pilot on the voice mail to all pilots made the statement that there was a lot of intimidation. In what form do you think this acknowledge intimidation took place? You claim that those terminated complained to the owners, how do you know this?
I was told that not the first one had any complaints from owners at RTA. The only one that worked any trips for FLOPS had one complaint that was justified by his SIC and FLOPS customer service or what ever they are called. The letter was about the pilot having to defuel . This was due to the passenger showing up with extra passengers and bags plus golf bags. This flight was out of Aspen so weight was critical.
They were not fired because of talking bad about the company or the management of FLOPS. They were terminated because they were well known for their support of a union.
The RTA program manager at deposition said that they were all the type he wanted as PIC, that he had never had any trouble from any of them. The Chief Pilot from RTA at deposition said that they were all team players and did not present a problem to him. Please do not try to say that they had a bad attitude or that they deserved to be fired. It was the management of FLOPS that broke the law and violated the rights of those terminated. Please place the blame where it belongs.
I am very surprised that you remembered the guys that were fired. Many at RTA supported the union effort. Three of those terminated never flew a trip for FLOPS. I would say that about 98% and this includes the RTA Chief Pilot was against the so call merger.
RTA had some problems but when compared to FLOPS there was no contest. RTA for all of its problems had a class act when comp aired to FLOPS. . FLOPS was on the verge of closing its doors. If the so call merger had not taken place FLOPS would have been out of business very soon.
The FLOPS Chief Pilot on the voice mail to all pilots made the statement that there was a lot of intimidation. In what form do you think this acknowledge intimidation took place? You claim that those terminated complained to the owners, how do you know this?
I was told that not the first one had any complaints from owners at RTA. The only one that worked any trips for FLOPS had one complaint that was justified by his SIC and FLOPS customer service or what ever they are called. The letter was about the pilot having to defuel . This was due to the passenger showing up with extra passengers and bags plus golf bags. This flight was out of Aspen so weight was critical.
They were not fired because of talking bad about the company or the management of FLOPS. They were terminated because they were well known for their support of a union.
The RTA program manager at deposition said that they were all the type he wanted as PIC, that he had never had any trouble from any of them. The Chief Pilot from RTA at deposition said that they were all team players and did not present a problem to him. Please do not try to say that they had a bad attitude or that they deserved to be fired. It was the management of FLOPS that broke the law and violated the rights of those terminated. Please place the blame where it belongs.
ASSPIRING?
ASSPIRING
Do you work for Flight Options? Do you work for the IBT?(I bet this one is it) How do you know all this info., whether it be true or not. Did you know all the guys that were fired? You sure seem to be digging deep to find things wrong at Options. Do you dig this deep at other fractionals or companies? Or, is it just Options you want to blast on a public board? I have worked at Options for a while and I haven't had much of any problems I couldn't handle, I also don't tell managment how to run their company. I am hear by choice and I like it, if I didn't I would leave.
So, what's really up with you?
ASSPIRING
Do you work for Flight Options? Do you work for the IBT?(I bet this one is it) How do you know all this info., whether it be true or not. Did you know all the guys that were fired? You sure seem to be digging deep to find things wrong at Options. Do you dig this deep at other fractionals or companies? Or, is it just Options you want to blast on a public board? I have worked at Options for a while and I haven't had much of any problems I couldn't handle, I also don't tell managment how to run their company. I am hear by choice and I like it, if I didn't I would leave.
So, what's really up with you?
Grim Reaper
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2002
- Posts
- 139
Grim Reaper
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2002
- Posts
- 139
Skyking650
Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2002
- Posts
- 23
Grim Reaper
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2002
- Posts
- 139
Aspiring to be
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2002
- Posts
- 95
I do not work for FLOPS or the IBT. One of those terminated is a good friend and he sent me a copy of the depositions. It is not necessary to dig to find the dirt at FLOPS. The management of FLOPS has shoveled it for all to see. It appears most people can see what has taken place. Why do you try to protect the management of FLOPS? What part do you believe is not true? How can you think that what happen to those guys is not a terribly act of injustice. How can you feel immune to such acts? What other acts are acceptable? What other laws will you allow the company to break before you are willing to say that management of FLOPS went too far?
Do you think the summary judgment filed is full of misleading statements? Do you think the judge in the case would take lightly any misrepresentation? The law firm for the company might try to convince the judge that the facts presented are not the total facts and they are not. There is nothing in the deposition that disputes or changes the facts filed in the summary judgment. There are no hidden facts, nothing in the slightest detail that will change the facts. I am not saying the judge will grant summary judgment in this case. It is rare for the plaintiff to file for summary judgment. I am sure a judge is reluctant to rule on the guilt of any party without a trial. Most summary judgments are issued due to insufficient or lack of evidence by the plaintiff to warrant a trial. Do you not know that the judge has the complete depositions? I would be happy to email a copy of the depositions if the system here will accept them. Salata’s deposition alone is over seven (7.07)MB. The guys that were fired did not try to tell management how to run the company. Those fired were fired for doing what the law says they had a right to do. Call FLOPS 135 Chief Pilot and ask him about those that were fired. Ask him if he has been misrepresented on statements made about his deposition. You will only find a few back stabbing pilots from RTA that would even try to say that those guys were fired for any reason other than their union involvement. Remember three never flew the first trip for FLOPS. Not the first one had any complaints from owners during there time at RTA. Not the first one had any training problems. How blind can you really be? Why do you think the facts given here are false or not the complete truth? Why are you so against those men for standing up for their rights? I find it sad that some of you are so against those fired when so much of the truth is known. What more do you need?
Do you think the summary judgment filed is full of misleading statements? Do you think the judge in the case would take lightly any misrepresentation? The law firm for the company might try to convince the judge that the facts presented are not the total facts and they are not. There is nothing in the deposition that disputes or changes the facts filed in the summary judgment. There are no hidden facts, nothing in the slightest detail that will change the facts. I am not saying the judge will grant summary judgment in this case. It is rare for the plaintiff to file for summary judgment. I am sure a judge is reluctant to rule on the guilt of any party without a trial. Most summary judgments are issued due to insufficient or lack of evidence by the plaintiff to warrant a trial. Do you not know that the judge has the complete depositions? I would be happy to email a copy of the depositions if the system here will accept them. Salata’s deposition alone is over seven (7.07)MB. The guys that were fired did not try to tell management how to run the company. Those fired were fired for doing what the law says they had a right to do. Call FLOPS 135 Chief Pilot and ask him about those that were fired. Ask him if he has been misrepresented on statements made about his deposition. You will only find a few back stabbing pilots from RTA that would even try to say that those guys were fired for any reason other than their union involvement. Remember three never flew the first trip for FLOPS. Not the first one had any complaints from owners during there time at RTA. Not the first one had any training problems. How blind can you really be? Why do you think the facts given here are false or not the complete truth? Why are you so against those men for standing up for their rights? I find it sad that some of you are so against those fired when so much of the truth is known. What more do you need?
Grim Reaper
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2002
- Posts
- 139
Aspiring to be
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2002
- Posts
- 95
He (FLOPS 135 Chief Pilot) said that all of those fired were team players. He said that he never had any trouble with any of them. He said nothing bad about those fired, nothing, not a word. If you say other wise then sir, you are nothing but a low class lair. Tell me one thing the (CP) said that would be or could be considered negative.
He (CP) said that another one (fired) that is not part of the summary judgment but is part of the lawsuit would not have been terminated at RTA. This was an instance that one person accused him of violating company policy in that he cussed him. This case was not even investigated (by deposition of 135 Chief Pilot) by anyone. At deposition, another worker that observed the alleged instance and said the pilot did not commit the alleged act. The SIC on the flight over heard the conversation and supported what the other witness said that the PIC did not cuss this man.
He did maybe cuss the company procedure. This concern the practice that FLOPS had of only showing the last four write-ups. I believe they now show the last 15. The PIC had written up many items and wanted to know what work had been completed. This was on a Challenger and just about the time of the so-called merger.
Again, why are you so committed to the wrong deeds of the management at FLOPS?
He (CP) said that another one (fired) that is not part of the summary judgment but is part of the lawsuit would not have been terminated at RTA. This was an instance that one person accused him of violating company policy in that he cussed him. This case was not even investigated (by deposition of 135 Chief Pilot) by anyone. At deposition, another worker that observed the alleged instance and said the pilot did not commit the alleged act. The SIC on the flight over heard the conversation and supported what the other witness said that the PIC did not cuss this man.
He did maybe cuss the company procedure. This concern the practice that FLOPS had of only showing the last four write-ups. I believe they now show the last 15. The PIC had written up many items and wanted to know what work had been completed. This was on a Challenger and just about the time of the so-called merger.
Again, why are you so committed to the wrong deeds of the management at FLOPS?
flyboycpa said:
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
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2001
- Posts
- 320
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?
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?
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?!
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
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2001
- Posts
- 320
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...
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...
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.
LET IT GO!!!!!!!!!!!! That goes for both sides here. Grow up.
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 $$$ with my lawyers (not on these issues).
A summary judgment is granted when there are no contested issues of material facts and the law is clear based upon the facts presented. This is rare. All lawyers will make a motion for summary judgment because not to do so is tantamount to legal malpractice. If there are issues of material fact in dispute, summary judgment is denied and the case goes on.
It then becomes up the the trier of fact (the jury) to decide who is telling the truth. Just because someone says something in a deposition, under oath, it is not necessarily the truth. A jury decides who of all the people who testify are the most credible and put a greater weight upon what they say. There is always someone saying they say X pull the trigger while at the same time someone else tesifies he was having dinner with X in a different state. They were both under oath. It is up to the jury to decide the credibility.
I can't talk much about flying, but unfortunately, I am very familiar with the legal system.
I have no personal interest in the outcome of this case.
I hope all of you fly safe!
Aspiring to be knows a lot of law for a pilot. But let's boil this down simply since I do spend a lot of time and $$$ 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
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2002
- Posts
- 95
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.
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.
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.
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
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2002
- Posts
- 139
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.
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.
Aspiring to be
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2002
- Posts
- 95
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.
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.
longrangekiller
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2004
- Posts
- 49
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
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
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.
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.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
