luvthe9,
Look like I have to break out the Donny B. LOA 93 Pay Restoration documents again.
Here we go!
Enjoy!
As I stated earlier, the pay rates issue is not one of snapbacks. Therefore, it does not matter that Doug Mowery stated he didn't get snapbacks. Of course he didn't get snapbacks. Nowhere does it say "snapbacks". BTW, he has never said that to me and I have never seen any of his proposals indicating such. And, you know that his NC of those days (prior to DH) did not negotiate anyway. They merely accepted and carried the management written document that would become LOA93 back to the MEC and the pilots for a vote, but only after they were facing the debtors 1113 Motion and hearing in BK Court, and only after ALPA legal explained to the MEC the personal liability those gentlemen faced if they chose a different course of action.
The document is what it says. There is no disputing or getting around that. It is too late now for management to claim that they made a mistake with that provision. What legitimate claim can they make? Don't you think they have to make one? What would they say, "we never thought that 5 years of concessions was enough, that we always intended it to last into perpetuity"? I doubt that they even have financials for the post 2009 period of time. What could be their answer as to why the pay rates clause is the only provision that contains its own date; is written the way it is? Their lawyers knew how the amendable clause works under the RLA. Yet they wrote the provision the way they did nonetheless. You can rest assured that had that type of language been written by us to our detriment, management would insist that it was written that way for a reason and that it has full independent meaning. Meaningless words are not inserted into a contract by the brain dead. If it's there, it means something.
Again gentlemen, this is not a matter of a snapback. I wish we could take that word out of our lexicon here. This is a matter of an underlying document again having full force and effect because the explicit language of the overlying document has expired according to its own terms. It's as though the pay rates provision was rendered inoperative for a set period of time, then operative again.
Management wrote the pay rate clause, not Doug Mowery. They did it with a specific ending date and time. That is what a drafter does when he wants to indicate that a clause is not subject to the otherwise all encompassing "amendable clause".
I am not looking to create an argument or be disagreeable with you guys for no reason. But to let this lie is wrong. 5 years of industry basement pay rates is enough. That is what is in the LOA93 agreement, not more. Why don't you tell me why you think management wrote the pay rates clause so differently than all the rest. Then I could consider your thoughts and ideas, because as it stands, having them simply say "we didn't mean it" is not dispositive of the issue, and it is not legitimate contract law.
Regards,
Donn.
Hate
