Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because one fact remains. (which you seem to be doing your best to ignore) US Airways authored an Airport Authority Bill that was submitted to the GA that removes the Charlotte city council from having anything to do with the airport. I believe you when you say that corporations act on facts & numbers and therefore it will be illogical to assume they are still working out merger plans with the very entity they seek to remove. Obviously the confidence level is very low.
Furthermore the Charlotte city council has demonstrated time and time again they are very thinned skinned with these sorts of things. If they were still working with USA, then they certainly would have raised that as a reason that no authority/commission is needed. Yet there is nothing. However if you have something that would indicate the city council is in open discussions about this merger, such as meeting minutes, then I'm willing to think otherwise.
Fact? You haven't provided one credible source, lol, yet it is a "fact". Enough already....different alias, same frew fantasy land. The city is still running the airport.....without Orr.
Yes, Fact. It was already provided to you last time you denied that it was true. But I'm a nice guy, here it is again. It was in the Charlotte Observer more than once.
US Airways authored the Airport Authority Bill. No only did US Airways author the bill, they worked with the local Senators to insure that it got entered as a bill at the NC GA.
Last week’s drama was set in motion more than a year ago.
In early 2012, an executive with US Airways, the airport’s largest tenant, had a tense meeting with then-City Manager Curt Walton over how much say the airline would have over Orr’s eventual successor.
Planning consultant Michael Gallis, who has worked with Orr, heard about the tensions and raised concerns with Stan Campbell, a former member of the City Council and Airport Advisory Committee. At the same time, developer Johnny Harris was warning of the politicization of the airport by city leaders he saw as “paralyzed” over a dispute about building a streetcar.US Airways forwarded a draft of possible authority legislation to Campbell. In December, Campbell approached Sen. Bob Rucho, a Matthews Republican.
Like your incorrect statement about Rent-A-Cops this proves it's not hearsay. I personally don't have any problem with the state getting involved to protect the jobs provided by the 3rd largest employer in the city. Fortunately both Foxx & Walton are gone and I say good riddance.
According to the news, the Judge won't make a decision on the commission until the FAA releases a statement on whether the commission needs a certificate or not. Apparently the letter the city waved around on Monday night doesn't matter.
So this continues for a while. I assume either side could appeal this to a higher court now.
According to the news, the Judge won't make a decision on the commission until the FAA releases a statement on whether the commission needs a certificate or not. Apparently the letter the city waved around on Monday night doesn't matter.
So this continues for a while. I assume either side could appeal this to a higher court now.
That's incorrect. The judge did make a decision. The question was whether the city would be granted a preliminary injunction. That was the only question in front of the judge today. Did you expect him to rule on the entire case without a trial?
So, the city got what they wanted and 100% of it was based on the letter that the city waved around Monday night so it does matter.
Why in the world would any side appeal the injunction? The city got what they wanted and on what grounds would you expect the judged to be overruled?
If the only thing that comes out of this is that the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed then fine. That's better than having the bond issue up in the air and having an airport owner that has no authority to have planes take off and land. You and the GA seem to think this is just a formality and you don't need permission from the FAA but that's hubris.
Why in the world would any side appeal the injunction? The city got what they wanted and on what grounds would you expect the judged to be overruled?
Because neither side got what it wanted. I disagree with you on this.
The city wanted the law declared unconstitutional and invalid. It did not get a decision on those arguments. The Airport commission did not get permission to take over operations of the airport as NC law now allows. It's still in the air and undecided. Neither legal camp can be happy about this.
There is just cause, if one of the sides believe it is right, to bypass this low level judge now and move on to the appeals court.
Because neither side got what it wanted. I disagree with you on this.
The city wanted the law declared unconstitutional and invalid. It did not get a decision on those arguments. The Airport commission did not get permission to take over operations of the airport as NC law now allows. It's still in the air and undecided. Neither legal camp can be happy about this.
There is just cause, if one of the sides believe it is right, to bypass this low level judge now and move on to the appeals court.
I have to disagree with your disagree. Without looking at the actual transcript I cannot imagine the city expecting the law to be declared anything. That's not how it works at this stage. It cannot be disappointed on a decision that never entered their mind.
Neither legal camp is happy because they are in court. Outside council is happy because they are billing.
The state/commission hasn't even answered the lawsuit. Orr's affidavit isn't valid because it is against the wrong complaint. The defendants next move is to file a motion to dismiss and/or to answer the complaint or stay until the FCC says something. The clock is still ticking on the time to reply and the state must respond or they will face a default judgement.
So what the city ultimately wants had nothing to do with today's hearing. Or the next hearing. Or the hearing after that.
But, while the city got what they wanted, they didn't get it for the reasons they wanted. This is writing on the wall. The judge is unlikely to rule on a new injunction based upon reasons that he discarded today. Therefore, if the FCC satisfies the reasons that the injunction exists, the judge will likely dissolve it at that point and the law takes effect. This city might appeal at that time but they have to see it coming.
They can declare victory then by saying they made sure the law was followed and their asset was protected. Of course the other side also wins because the law will take effect.
And what if the FAA decides that no certificate is necessary as the state argues? Or if one is required, then the Authority can goes ahead and applies for one?
I don't see how the city can really be happy about this at all. Their arguments to have the law invalidated were not granted.
On the other hand, I really don't know why the city-council continues to argue this. They have already agreed to 95% of it anyway and Carlee has even gone as far as saying that an authority is a better idea. (In an interview with the herald)
And what if the FAA decides that no certificate is necessary as the state argues? Or if one is required, then the Authority can goes ahead and applies for one?
I don't see how the city can really be happy about this at all. Their arguments to have the law invalidated were not granted.
On the other hand, I really don't know why the city-council continues to argue this. They have already agreed to 95% of it anyway and Carlee has even gone as far as saying that an authority is a better idea. (In an interview with the herald)
There will be no authority. That is settled. The city didn't expect to get the law invalidated today even if they asked just like Manning's attorney didn't expect to have charges dropped before closing arguments began. You ask for those things because you have a chance to shoot for the moon so why not take it? That doesn't mean they actually thought they'd get it.
I expect that when the FAA's questions are answered then the commission will come in to being. Maybe the city would appeal that or the lawsuit continues based on remaining merit while the commission is in force.
That would be an inconvenience but the questions for a preliminary injunction are, is the city likely to win and without an injunction will there be irreparable harm?
If the answers are no then there will not be an injunction unless the state/commission agrees to one because without an injunction things will be awkward if the case moves to trial.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
