Originally Posted by Nevets

Wait, you are saying that since your contract says 'aircraft type' means CR7, CR9, CR2, AT7, that they would need to negotiate for a new rates for EMB175s? If that's the case, then it just proves the point that it was your MEC that was intransigent and turned down every single dispute resolution idea and forced management to invoke our new aircraft contract language instead of yours.

Also, earlier you were complaining about our "stupid" new aircraft contract language because it requires arbitration if the parties do not agree. I told you that it was boiler plate language and now you post your boiler plate new aircraft contract language that requires arbitration if the parties do not agree.

Originally Posted by Bozo

So does your current CBA have this language sport?

>>5. The arbitrator’s decision will be based upon relevant factors
within the part of the U.S. airline industry comprised of
carriers, the majority of whose aircraft fleet (present and
future firm orders) and operation is substantially similar to the
Company’s and who meet all of the following criteria:
a. Are not currently operating under the protection of the
bankruptcy laws; and
b. Have a collective bargaining agreement with a labor
organization certified by the National Mediation Board
(NMB) covering its pilots; and

Originally Posted by Nevets

No it doesn't. That is beside the point tony was arguing. In both cases, it is boiler plate language. The difference being the DOS of each contract.