L.A. Airport Commission President: City wants fair price for Ontario Airport

L.A. wants a fair price for L.A/Ontario International Airport, which it has operated since 1967. Staff file photo.

L.A. wants a fair price for L.A/Ontario International Airport, which it has operated since 1967. Staff file photo.

Los Angeles must receive a fair price in order to sell L.A/Ontario International Airport to Ontario, the president of L.A. Board of Airport Commissioners said today in a statement.

“LAWA is willing to consider a transfer of ONT to a qualified entity representing the cities and counties in the service area of the airport,” commission president Sean Burton said. “However, LAWA will only consider such a transfer in exchange for fair compensation for assets transferred and reasonable protections for airport workers, including City of Los Angeles employees.”

Regular readers know that L.A. and Ontario told a judge on Wednesday that they failed to reach a settlement during the roughly two month break in their lawsuit. Ontario had filed suit against Los Angeles in June, accusing L.A. of mismanaging the airport. L.A. has operated the Ontario field since 1967 and Ontario wants it back.

This is a very important issue for Ontario politicians and voters, who are concerned that that Ontario airport had fewer than 4 million passengers in 2013 for the first time in nearly 30 years. I don’t hear much about the issue, however, from anyone in L.A.

We’ll have more about Ontario’s lawsuit as it moves forward. Stay tuned.

Facebook Twitter Plusone Linkedin Reddit Tumblr Email

Lawsuit: Contractor that built new Tom Bradley International Terminal at LAX says it wasn’t paid for work

Walsh/Austin LAX lawsuit for new Tom Bradley International Terminal

Walsh/Austin, the construction firm that built the new $2 billion Tom Bradley International Terminal at LAX, says the airport has failed to pay its bills for unforeseen costs, according to a lawsuit filed last month.

This lawsuit, which I detailed in Tuesday’s newspaper, deals with only one subcontractor — an electrical firm called SASC — which billed more than $2.4 million for extra work but was never paid.

SASCO claims that the city provided “… electrical design documents that were inaccurate and replete with errors, conflicts and other defects.” It also says the city engaged in a practice of “… hindering, interfering with and disrupting the performance of Walsh/Austin and SASCO in performing electrical work on the project.”

One $2.4 million lawsuit is not a huge deal. But in an attachment to the suit, Walsh/Austin suggest there could be many more like this. It suggests the city may not have paid other bills for unexpected construction costs. From my story:

Three subcontractors have already filed lawsuits against Walsh/Austin and the city in connection with alleged changes and delays during the project, and many more lawsuits of a similar nature are expected,” reads an attachment to the SASCO suit.

Walsh/Austin says it currently has several administrative claims going against the city for non payment of bills. In the lawsuit, the company suggests it could file more litigation if those claims for extra payment are turned down.

“Walsh/Austin and SASCO have other change order requests against and claims against the city arising from performance of the project that are not included in this action,” the suit states.

Facebook Twitter Plusone Linkedin Reddit Tumblr Email

United Airlines flight attendants in California share lawsuit settlement

More than 4,000 United Airlines flight attendants based in California are sharing about $1 million, minus legal fees, as part of a settlement in which employees alleged relatively minor violations of the state’s Labor Code.

California has strict laws about when and how employees should be paid, and they can trip companies up, even if all employees received their full wages. The law, for example, requires that employees receive a  specific and detailed accounting of pay and deductions.

United flight attendants working in California between Oct. 4, 2010 and Feb. 19, 2013 are eligible to recover money. For more on the settlement, which I learned of from the Association of Flight Attendants website, read this article from Law360.com. 

Here’s a statement from United spokeswoman Jennifer Dohm:

It was alleged that we were partially out of compliance with California state law regarding certain printed information on pay stubs, and have since complied with the standards. This lawsuit specifically addressed information on pay stubs and not compensation; employees were compensated accurately.

Facebook Twitter Plusone Linkedin Reddit Tumblr Email