US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Res Judicata]

Really???
What do you call all the "5 in 5" trash talk and the continual assault on the professionalism and commitment of this pilot group. You people make light of the blood spilt on the ground and the effort it took to not only keep this airline alive, but accept, embrace and become industry leaders in CRM, Error Management, and AQP. One issue (the NIC) made it personal and it should not be so. You back comments from posters like Move2CLT that do nothing but further divide the entire pilot group. Don't point the finger at USAPA without taking a good look at those of you on the West that dance with glee and make fun of the darkest days in an East pilots career.

THAT'S what you did. GOT IT???

Driver <_<

what? Are you a 5 year old girl? " sticks and stones" there captain sensitive. Words are one thing converted, unrelenting actions from USCABA against all things west is quite another.

 

[Black Swan]

Swan, you're incorrect.

Prove it. Here is some interesting reading from Bill Wilder while you do your homework.......



Bill_Wilder says:
August 18, 2009 at 2:17 pm
There are equities on both sides. The original post just dealt with a narrow legal question. You are really addressing the broader issue of how the dispute is resolved.

There are equities on both sides. That’s why a compromise was/is necessary. The East’s Wye River proposal was premised on the Nicolau Award for that reason. The West MEC for its reasons, exceedingly unwise in my view, refused to compromise.[/i]

Your position is absolutist. The USAPA boosters on the East were also absolutist. The attitude of both is that the other must surrender. I guess you’ll see how well that works out. Good luck with that.

 

[nevergiveup]

We offered 7 years. You guys said no. Too late now. How's LOA93?

How's Nic?

 

[Black Swan]

While you wait Move2wherever, here are some more gems 🙄



While the judge correctly concluded that USAPA is the successor to ALPA’s collective bargaining agreement, that in no way restricts USAPA from negotiating any and all terms of that agreement, including the Nicolau Award. The judge nowhere considers precedent, such as Association of Flight Attendants v. United Airlines and Association of Flight Attendants v. US Airways, which hold that a predecessor union’s collective bargaining agreement provides only the beginning point for a successor union’s negotiations and the successor is free to negotiate changes to the agreement. To do otherwise would perpetuate the rejected union as representative.

The court also wrongly held that USAPA is bound by the Nicolau Award as the product of ALPA Merger Policy. ALPA Merger Policy is only an internal union procedure. It is not part of the collective bargaining agreement with US Airways (even if it was, USAPA could still negotiate changes to it.) USAPA cannot be bound to ALPA Merger Policy since it is not ALPA, and only ALPA’s subordinate bodies, the Master Executive Councils (which, admittedly, are not real labor organizations) are bound to follow the Merger Policy. The Merger Policy has no standing under the Railway Labor Act and since USAPA’s successor obligations only exist under the RLA, they cannot include ALPA Merger Policy.


See Boeing Boy, just because you have that awesome mustache, doesn t mean the 9th won't tee your ideas up. And they did. They followed Wilder exactly when they took Wakes pants down.

 

[nevergiveup]

We offered 7 years. You guys said no. Too late now. How's LOA93?

Please provide a link to the offer. I never heard of it. Thank you.

 

[Black Swan]

You have the list the East contract calls for, or have access to it. Do you not? Assuming that a single contract continues to contain a requirement to publish an annual list, then the Nic will be that list. As big a deal as you've made of separate contracts over the years since Nic published his award, one would think you'd understand that but I guess those straws are too tempting...

I do love how you've gone from a "very specific definition" in the contract <retreat><retreat><retreat> through using a movie to support your fantasy <retreat> crew news <retreat> and the lack of a company published single list when the east contract doesn't call for that. You want your fantasy to come true so badly that you justify it with any notion that you can come up with - consistency be damned...

Jim

I have no access to an official USAirways seniority list that reflects the Nicolau Award in it, neither do you. If you have access to it, show it please. The only seniority list I have reflects East pilots only on it. Very telling in light of your allegations. Waiting for your Nicolau List. The official one with USAirways pilots seniority list on it, without east of west mentioned.Published under the official auspices of USAirways. You said the company accepted the Nic list. Accepted and shelved. Accepted as in the simple act of accepting a piece of junk mail at the mailbox is an act of acceptance.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Wonder why Wilder never mentions the TA...

You claim the 9th did one thing, but they never looked at the merits - only ripeness. They did warn USAPA about a solution that "harms the West as they fear" and what "unquestionably ripe" DFR suit it would face if it didn't represent both sides equally, didn't they? Funny how you and Wilder never mention those little tidbits...

Jim

 

[cleardirect]

Clear, you make it abundantly clear, you don't have a clue how it works in an arbitration. You act as if all arbitrations have a remedy phase, and try to imply that there is a period where there takes place negotiations again.Your statement implying the company and USAPA have to come up with a rate is the stupidest idea of all.If USAPA wins, Kasher will give the rate, and Parker will pay. What would be the purpose of the arbitrator in a pay dispute when two parties cannot agree? If they can't agree in the first place, why would they suddenly agree? Unbelievabley naive. When Kasher gives his award, he will give a remedy. There is no "phase" here, he will give detailed instructions as to what he has awarded. If he finds USAPA is to be awarded, he will give the specifics, and the company will have to comply. The only way there will be a phase of any kind, is if USAPA agrees to negotiate with the company to do otherwise, at their discretion. This will be BINDING, unlike your Nicolau experiment. Which was simply an internal union bargaining position that USAPA is not bound to. Boeing Boy will get a quick education when this goes down. Your negotiating idea is preposterous. You are clearly out of your league here. Nobody expects a retro check the next day. What we will expect, is the full amount, paid according to a reasonable plan. Speaking of payments, how are the repayments on the training over pay going? Are you negotiating that one?

Keep clicking those heels Dorthy. It is you that needs to understand arbitration. I suggest that you educate yourself on the process.

This is the award from T/A 10

Award

The grievance is granted. The company violated the Transition Agreement by utilizing a 12-month rolling average instead of measuring on a month by month basis, as it had in the past. The matter is remanded to the partied for consideration of appropriate remedies. The System Board of Adjustment will maintain jurisdiction in the event of a dispute arising on the question of remedy.

The arbitrator threw it back at the company and the union to work out the remedy. Why would the arbitrator let the parties decide the money? They could not. Another arbitration was held last week. Read the transcripts. Point out where the union talked about remedy in the arbitration hearing?

Educate before speaking. Call the grievance committee if you don't believe me. Let them explain it to you.

BTW you say Parker will comply. Why? Who is going to make him? What if Parker just says NO? What are you going to do?

 

[BoeingBoy]

I have no access to an official USAirways seniority list that reflects the Nicolau Award in it, neither do you. If you have access to it, show it please. The only seniority list I have reflects East pilots only on it.

As I said, exactly as required by the east contract.

Waiting for your Nicolau List. The official one with USAirways pilots seniority list on it, without east of west mentioned.

You know very well it exists - it's part of the award. As I said, if a combined contract requires the company to publish an annual seniority list, you'll have your copy. In the meantime look at the one and only combined list that the company has accepted. As per Parker and other execs in legal filings and sworn testimony. That wouldn't be USAPA's list, would it?

You said the company accepted the Nic list. Accepted and shelved. Accepted as in the simple act of accepting a piece of junk mail at the mailbox is an act of acceptance.

That fantasy land must be something. First you said they didn't accept the Nic list, now you say they did but it doesn't mean anything. If your fantasy had any real foundation , you wouldn't need to keep changing your story and your story wouldn't be so easily knocked aside...

Jim

 

[Move2CLT]

Swan, the east CIRP has been activated. Call them so they can start talking you down.

 

[BLT]

LOA 93 States:

Duration:
Amendable date December 31, 2009.

Revisions to Hourly Pay Rates:
The rates of pay specified in Section 3 of the Agreement, as modified by the Restructuring Agreement, will be revised as follows:
1. Freeze current rates effective 5/01/04 through 12/31/09.
2. Reduce rates as frozen by 18.0%
3. Reduce International pay override, as stated in Section 3(F) and Section 18(C), by 18.0% for transoceanic trips; eliminate international override for non-transoceanic trips.
4. Pay all flying at day rate.

It appears to me that LOA 93 is "amendable" as of December 31, 2009. I don't see any evidence of a snapback date or expiration date that would lead to a snapback.

It appears the rates are frozen until the amendable date, at which point the agreement could be amended. I believe this would require the agreement of both parties to amend the document.

The word amend means to modify or change. Not expire or snapback to prior agreements.

Am I missing something?

 

[A320 Driver]

LOA 93 States:

Duration:
Amendable date December 31, 2009.

Revisions to Hourly Pay Rates:
The rates of pay specified in Section 3 of the Agreement, as modified by the Restructuring Agreement, will be revised as follows:
1. Freeze current rates effective 5/01/04 through 12/31/09.
2. Reduce rates as frozen by 18.0%
3. Reduce International pay override, as stated in Section 3(F) and Section 18(C), by 18.0% for transoceanic trips; eliminate international override for non-transoceanic trips.
4. Pay all flying at day rate.

It appears to me that LOA 93 is "amendable" as of December 31, 2009. I don't see any evidence of a snapback date or expiration date that would lead to a snapback.

It appears the rates are frozen until the amendable date, at which point the agreement could be amended. I believe this would require the agreement of both parties to amend the document.

The word amend means to modify or change. Not expire or snapback to prior agreements.

Am I missing something?

Read #1 again...slowly this time.

 

[Hate2fly]

Refresher 101 from Donn B. This is not a snap back! Part 2 to follow.


Glad to answer your inquiry. First, let me make it clear that I am not saying that we have a "snapback" coming. A snapback would be in the nature of a return to the old provision of a contract; those that existed at the time that the new provision took place. In this case that new provision was LOA93 and the old provision was LOA84. What I am talking about here is the expiration of the LOA93 pay rate provision. What? You may be thinking that labor contract provisions do not expire under the law called the Railway Labor Act (RLA), they merely become amendable in what is referred to as a "status quo" period, and that therefore without specific snapback language in a contract no change to the provision is possible. Status quo is the general rule as to how labor contracts operate under the RLA when otherwise silent, but it is not absolute, nor exclusive.

This is simple, but thinking back to when Congress dreamed up the RLA, among the many provisions they included in that law, they applied the status quo concept . This was a change to the fundamental legal rule that a contract expires on its end date, usually leaving the parties free to impose what we call "self-help." It also prevents parties from making unilateral changes to the terms of the contract after the amendable date. As a matter of public policy Congress did not want the transportation system of our country disrupted every time a labor contract expired, so established this staus-quo concept rather than allow these labor contracts to simply expire and self-help take hold. Initially, this was only applied to railroad labor contracts, hence the name RLA. Then, it was extended to the airline industry by Title II of the RLA. Some say Congress did this to remove self-help leverage from organized labor, some say it was done to protect workers from the unilateral imposition of onerous labor terms by the employer. Everyone is free to opine on the matter. However, what is clear is that Congress was protecting the public transportation system, not preventing the parties from making agreements, selective or otherwise, either before, on, or after the end (amendable) date of the contract.

Again, the point is that Congress did not prevent the parties to a contract under the RLA (management and labor) from making agreements on or even after the amendable date of an underlying contract. Our contract is no exception and we have many examples of doing exactly that. For example, in LOA84, which by its terms was amendable on Dec. 31, 2008, we agreed to include pay raises on Jan. 1, 2009 and May 1, 2009. Notice that both of these dates are in what is the staus quo time period for the remainder of the provisions of LOA84. You can think of the status quo period for the pay rates provision of LOA84 as beginning on May 1, 2009, even though the status quo period for the remainder of LOA84 was Dec 31, 2008. Get it? Status quo if silent, effective if explicit.

Remember, unless otherwise stated, all terms of a contract are subject to the status quo provision of the law when the amendable date is reached. There are several ways to say otherwise, one of which is the example I gave in the above paragraph. Another technique is to state that a provision(s) is to only be in effect for a certain period of time. It is the use of this language that I read in the pay rates provision of LOA93. Paraphrasing, the writer of this specific provision wrote that the pay rates will be frozen and reduced a further 18% from the date of signing through Dec. 31, 2009. This is exactly the way that a contract writer indicates that a provision is not to become part if the status quo. He gives the provision a certain beginning date and a certain ending date. This is so even though the amendable date and the end of the "time certain" provision are coincident. Think of it this way, had the writer indended the pay rates provision to simply be included in the status quo, he would not have given it its own special time period. Had he simply been silent as to the time the provision was to end it would be included in the underlying status quo period of the specific agreement. LOA93 extended the amendable date of LOA84 one year, to Dec. 31, 2009, but expressly ended the concessinary pay rate provision after Dec. 31, 2009.

Since the LOA93 pay rate provision ends after Dec. 31, 2009, what pay rate provision is in effect on Jan. 1, 2010? The answer to that question is found in the underlying provisions of the agreement that preceded LOA93. That of course is LOA84. LOA84 is the contract that was in effect regarding pay rates when LOA93 was made effective. Therefore, LOA93 modified and changed LOA84 to the extent is was explicit on the term. Just like LOA 84 modified the first concessionary agreement in mid-2002 and the first concessionary agreement modified the basic agreement that was effective in 1998. According to the explicit pay rate term of LOA93, the pay rate provision of LOA84 was changed on the effective date of LOA93. Also, according to its explicit time of effectiveness, the LOA93 pay rates provision expires after Dec 31, 2009, leaving in its place the provisions of LOA84 for that date and beyond.

As previously stated, LOA84 was amendable on Dec 31, 2008, but had explicit pay rate raises on Jan 1, 2009 and May 1, 2009. But for LOA93's explicit pay rates provision carrying through Dec 31, 2009, LOA84's pay rate provision would be in effect, albeit in its own status quo period beginning on May 1, 2009. Therefore, with the explicit expiration of the LOA93 pay rate provision after Dec 31, 2009, the pay rate provision of May 1, 2009 contained in LOA84 is in effect, but is itself subject to staus quo.

This is not, not, not a snapback in pay rates. We will not go back to pay rates in effect on Oct 15, 2004, the effective date of LOA93. This is simply a matter of a modifying time certain contract provision expiring by its own terms and the underlying contract provision that was modified becoming again effective. (Read that again.) The status quo provisions of the RLA do not change the basic freedoms that parties have to bargain and write their contracts. Management cannot now successfully say that because our contract is subject to the RLA, all provisions of that contract are subject to status quo on Dec 31, 2009. The RLA status quo period was not made law to relieve either management or labor of their responsibilities when bargaining. Remember, it was written to protect the public interest in a reliable transportation system, not often interrupted by self-help in labor-management relations. Congress doesn’t care whether you make a good contract, a cheap contract, an expensive contract or a concessionary contract. Nor do they care whether concessions last for 1 year, 5 years or ten years. They just don't want their constituents calling and complaining that their latest flight or train was cancelled because the pilots or coal shovellers went on strike today. Neither can management successfully say that because a time certain provision ends coincident with the start of a staus quo period that the provision itself is subject to status quo. (Read that again, too.) That would make no sense and would effectively null and void the explicit time certain existence of specific clauses. This is not the interest that the RLA protects.

Therefore, in summary answer to your question, because the concessionary pay rates provision of LOA93 ends after Dec 31, 2009, the concessionary pay rates provision on the underlying LOA84 is effective. Those rates of pay that would be in effect on Jan 1, 2010 under the terms of LOA84 are the rates that are to be paid to the pilots subject to that contract. As I said earlier, those rates are the LOA84 rates for May 1, 2009.

Consider this too Steve, had we in LOA84 provided for another pay rate increase on Jan 1, 2010 or on May 1, 2010, then under the explicit terms of that agreement we would be paid those rates on those dates, regardless the fact that LOA84 itself was made amendable on Dec 31, 2008. The LOA93 pay rates provision that modified LOA84 ends, by its own terms, after Dec 31, 2009. When the clock strikes 0000 on Jan 1, 2010, the pay rates of LOA84 are no longer modified by LOA93, and are therefore effective.

From some of the behavior that I see from this management regarding other terms of the contract, e.g., refusal to pay qualified DC plan contributions to pilots on LTD, a $40 million liability, I am left to wonder if they can read, or if they are just a bunch of cheats. I am not sure if they have read the LOA93 pay rates provisions, nor if they are in agreement with the above. I have not spoken to anyone in management about the contract since ALPA was voted off the island, me along with ALPA, therefore I do not know.

However, if I heard that management did not intend to follow the course of the contract I would inquire of them in writing. Receive their answer, and if not in accord, or if no answer received in a timely period, file a grievance. Grievance is the only legal avenue to pursue in a minor dispute over the terms of a RLA labor agreement. As slow as that process can be, until Congress gets involved and changes the rules, a grievance is our only course of legal action.

I hope this note is effective in explaining my thinking to you and that you did not find it too difficult or tedious to follow. If not satisfactory, please give me a call and we can talk about it.

Be well and keep the rubber side down,

Donn

 

[Hate2fly]

Refresher 101 from Donn B. This is not a snap back! Part 2 to follow.


Glad to answer your inquiry. First, let me make it clear that I am not saying that we have a "snapback" coming. A snapback would be in the nature of a return to the old provision of a contract; those that existed at the time that the new provision took place. In this case that new provision was LOA93 and the old provision was LOA84. What I am talking about here is the expiration of the LOA93 pay rate provision. What? You may be thinking that labor contract provisions do not expire under the law called the Railway Labor Act (RLA), they merely become amendable in what is referred to as a "status quo" period, and that therefore without specific snapback language in a contract no change to the provision is possible. Status quo is the general rule as to how labor contracts operate under the RLA when otherwise silent, but it is not absolute, nor exclusive.

This is simple, but thinking back to when Congress dreamed up the RLA, among the many provisions they included in that law, they applied the status quo concept . This was a change to the fundamental legal rule that a contract expires on its end date, usually leaving the parties free to impose what we call "self-help." It also prevents parties from making unilateral changes to the terms of the contract after the amendable date. As a matter of public policy Congress did not want the transportation system of our country disrupted every time a labor contract expired, so established this staus-quo concept rather than allow these labor contracts to simply expire and self-help take hold. Initially, this was only applied to railroad labor contracts, hence the name RLA. Then, it was extended to the airline industry by Title II of the RLA. Some say Congress did this to remove self-help leverage from organized labor, some say it was done to protect workers from the unilateral imposition of onerous labor terms by the employer. Everyone is free to opine on the matter. However, what is clear is that Congress was protecting the public transportation system, not preventing the parties from making agreements, selective or otherwise, either before, on, or after the end (amendable) date of the contract.

Again, the point is that Congress did not prevent the parties to a contract under the RLA (management and labor) from making agreements on or even after the amendable date of an underlying contract. Our contract is no exception and we have many examples of doing exactly that. For example, in LOA84, which by its terms was amendable on Dec. 31, 2008, we agreed to include pay raises on Jan. 1, 2009 and May 1, 2009. Notice that both of these dates are in what is the staus quo time period for the remainder of the provisions of LOA84. You can think of the status quo period for the pay rates provision of LOA84 as beginning on May 1, 2009, even though the status quo period for the remainder of LOA84 was Dec 31, 2008. Get it? Status quo if silent, effective if explicit.

Remember, unless otherwise stated, all terms of a contract are subject to the status quo provision of the law when the amendable date is reached. There are several ways to say otherwise, one of which is the example I gave in the above paragraph. Another technique is to state that a provision(s) is to only be in effect for a certain period of time. It is the use of this language that I read in the pay rates provision of LOA93. Paraphrasing, the writer of this specific provision wrote that the pay rates will be frozen and reduced a further 18% from the date of signing through Dec. 31, 2009. This is exactly the way that a contract writer indicates that a provision is not to become part if the status quo. He gives the provision a certain beginning date and a certain ending date. This is so even though the amendable date and the end of the "time certain" provision are coincident. Think of it this way, had the writer indended the pay rates provision to simply be included in the status quo, he would not have given it its own special time period. Had he simply been silent as to the time the provision was to end it would be included in the underlying status quo period of the specific agreement. LOA93 extended the amendable date of LOA84 one year, to Dec. 31, 2009, but expressly ended the concessinary pay rate provision after Dec. 31, 2009.

Since the LOA93 pay rate provision ends after Dec. 31, 2009, what pay rate provision is in effect on Jan. 1, 2010? The answer to that question is found in the underlying provisions of the agreement that preceded LOA93. That of course is LOA84. LOA84 is the contract that was in effect regarding pay rates when LOA93 was made effective. Therefore, LOA93 modified and changed LOA84 to the extent is was explicit on the term. Just like LOA 84 modified the first concessionary agreement in mid-2002 and the first concessionary agreement modified the basic agreement that was effective in 1998. According to the explicit pay rate term of LOA93, the pay rate provision of LOA84 was changed on the effective date of LOA93. Also, according to its explicit time of effectiveness, the LOA93 pay rates provision expires after Dec 31, 2009, leaving in its place the provisions of LOA84 for that date and beyond.

As previously stated, LOA84 was amendable on Dec 31, 2008, but had explicit pay rate raises on Jan 1, 2009 and May 1, 2009. But for LOA93's explicit pay rates provision carrying through Dec 31, 2009, LOA84's pay rate provision would be in effect, albeit in its own status quo period beginning on May 1, 2009. Therefore, with the explicit expiration of the LOA93 pay rate provision after Dec 31, 2009, the pay rate provision of May 1, 2009 contained in LOA84 is in effect, but is itself subject to staus quo.

This is not, not, not a snapback in pay rates. We will not go back to pay rates in effect on Oct 15, 2004, the effective date of LOA93. This is simply a matter of a modifying time certain contract provision expiring by its own terms and the underlying contract provision that was modified becoming again effective. (Read that again.) The status quo provisions of the RLA do not change the basic freedoms that parties have to bargain and write their contracts. Management cannot now successfully say that because our contract is subject to the RLA, all provisions of that contract are subject to status quo on Dec 31, 2009. The RLA status quo period was not made law to relieve either management or labor of their responsibilities when bargaining. Remember, it was written to protect the public interest in a reliable transportation system, not often interrupted by self-help in labor-management relations. Congress doesn’t care whether you make a good contract, a cheap contract, an expensive contract or a concessionary contract. Nor do they care whether concessions last for 1 year, 5 years or ten years. They just don't want their constituents calling and complaining that their latest flight or train was cancelled because the pilots or coal shovellers went on strike today. Neither can management successfully say that because a time certain provision ends coincident with the start of a staus quo period that the provision itself is subject to status quo. (Read that again, too.) That would make no sense and would effectively null and void the explicit time certain existence of specific clauses. This is not the interest that the RLA protects.

Therefore, in summary answer to your question, because the concessionary pay rates provision of LOA93 ends after Dec 31, 2009, the concessionary pay rates provision on the underlying LOA84 is effective. Those rates of pay that would be in effect on Jan 1, 2010 under the terms of LOA84 are the rates that are to be paid to the pilots subject to that contract. As I said earlier, those rates are the LOA84 rates for May 1, 2009.

Consider this too Steve, had we in LOA84 provided for another pay rate increase on Jan 1, 2010 or on May 1, 2010, then under the explicit terms of that agreement we would be paid those rates on those dates, regardless the fact that LOA84 itself was made amendable on Dec 31, 2008. The LOA93 pay rates provision that modified LOA84 ends, by its own terms, after Dec 31, 2009. When the clock strikes 0000 on Jan 1, 2010, the pay rates of LOA84 are no longer modified by LOA93, and are therefore effective.

From some of the behavior that I see from this management regarding other terms of the contract, e.g., refusal to pay qualified DC plan contributions to pilots on LTD, a $40 million liability, I am left to wonder if they can read, or if they are just a bunch of cheats. I am not sure if they have read the LOA93 pay rates provisions, nor if they are in agreement with the above. I have not spoken to anyone in management about the contract since ALPA was voted off the island, me along with ALPA, therefore I do not know.

However, if I heard that management did not intend to follow the course of the contract I would inquire of them in writing. Receive their answer, and if not in accord, or if no answer received in a timely period, file a grievance. Grievance is the only legal avenue to pursue in a minor dispute over the terms of a RLA labor agreement. As slow as that process can be, until Congress gets involved and changes the rules, a grievance is our only course of legal action.

I hope this note is effective in explaining my thinking to you and that you did not find it too difficult or tedious to follow. If not satisfactory, please give me a call and we can talk about it.

Be well and keep the rubber side down,

Donn

Part 2 of Donn B.

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.

 

[Hate2fly]

J. Freund told the west all the risk was on the west side. The west has always been younger and smarter. The spanking will begin soon.

Hate