Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
That's not at all certain because:
1. This TA keeps the same loophole language available to the company that allows them to claim "events beyond their control" for damn near anything except a very narrow list of items.
2. Our very union has a history of modifying these items that appear to constrain management depending upon the needs of management. Sometimes these modifications are done by a single MEC bureaucrat via an MOU as opposed to MEMRAT.
3. The jury is WAY OUT on the whole prospect of whether any attempt by our union to force another union to lose jobs based on a contract that they didn't sign, would even be legal. It would certainly produce a DFR against ALPA by the agrieved RJ airline, and could well produce a lawsuit against DAL for violating the Railway Labor Act. This is competely unsettled law here. None of us are in any position to feel confident about the language that appears to force ANOTHER AIRLINE to reduce their RJ count or the block hours they fly those RJ's.
This is incredibly dangerous legal ground.
Carl
You are really playing the fear card of FM??? Really Carl? And yet you come on here and tell everybody that since the company wanted an early agreement that if we vote this down we will get a speedy renegotiation? First of all, FM doesn't have to be written into anything. If there is another 9/11, even without the clause, the company can do whatever it needs to do to survive, and every single court in the land will back them up. It is a flat out misrepresentation of the facts for you to come on here and say otherwise. And it is a scare tactic to boot.
Item 2 above is nothing more than you pressing your donut agenda. yawn.
Item 3 is so out to lunch I have no idea where to begin.
Your ground is nothing but fearmongering.