Originally Posted by
acl65pilot
Slow, its not a question of what they will do?, The question is; Can they do it? That is the question every lawyer asks; Can I get around this language legally?
...Makes me scratch my head and wonder why it is so vague. I want a great contact, but it needs to be vetted line by line...
Where we need vague language we have defined language like the "proft/loss" definition, and where we need tighter language its vague.
I keep going back to this because it was a deal between Delta and ALPA (albiet a different ALPA)...
When Delta came to the Comair pilots in 2005, they offered 34 new aircraft in exchange for a two-year pay freeze to get our costs in line with the rest of DCI (the fact that we've had this freeze for 7 years and somehow we're still too expensive is a different matter entirely).
In 2005 Delta came in, plopped an offer on the table, and said "we need this in a month. No negotiations. Yes or no. And a 'No' means they go to Republic." This scare tactic went straight to the pilots in memos, so ALPA couldn't pretend otherwise. Naturally we didn't have 350 cycles of back and forth.
Point 1 - Has RA actually gone on record that this is a one time offer, yes or no? Otherwise the 717s stay at SWA? That would be a very good scare tactic, but only if he's prepared to have his bluff called - and let the current contract stand for several more years.
Point 2 - As ACL said, it's not a question of what will they do, but "is this legal?" The LGA slot swap didn't cost you guys anything more than some time on the phone and a couple stamps, but look how that turned out. RA didn't seem too concerned that he played you in the spirit of constructive engagement.
Point 3 - If this contract is 477 pages long, but still vague on the important stuff (717 deal, AirTran pilots, definition of profit, etc), then you should be asking why. Every gray area belongs to Delta.