Originally Posted by
Bucking Bar
Carl, both those who wrote the language have an entirely different view of it and they are (to say the least) offended by your and my criticism.
I think a big test will be the subjective weight restriction v/s Type Certificate or other objective limitation. We have what we have and we will both see how it stands up. I hope the ALPA experts are correct and it holds.
The DPA, responsibly, says that they want polling data and input before making any positions on supposed contractual language. So you and I really can't say how they would do things differently.
They can be offended all they want, I don't care. The only thing I care about is
intent. A judge would also care deeply about
intent if ALPA had the stones to take this to court. But ALPA does not. You used to say ALPA did it on purpose knowing that the language they were writing was weak. I could never be sure about that, but again it's immaterial. Intent is nearly everything in contract law disputes. Intent lives in negotiators notes and elsewhere. I am CERTAIN that our negotiators notes DO NOT describe the intent of our Section 1 as meaning we fly aircraft above 76 seats EXCEPT if you slither around it with a RAH style holding company. Surely you must concede that was never the intent of our current language.
With that in mind, you must next ask yourself who wrote that language? Whose legal expertise was used to transfer our intent into enforceable contract language? You and I both know the answer to that question. The only difference between us is that I want that law firm fired, and you seem to want to give them another opportunity for redemption.
Carl