Originally Posted by
Nevets
This coming from the guy that still insit that Acey is one syllable.
Anyway, it was you who was only complaining that we had boiler plate language that required arbitration for new aircraft. Never did you mention anything about complaining that that language didnt exclude bankrupt airlines until you found the same arbitration clause in your own contract.
The only point I was trying to make to bozo is that that language is the same language negotiated by ALPA attorneys into new contracts. As ALPA "learns" of better language, they negotiate that new language in new contracts. It's pattern bargaining and that is what I meant by boiler plate language. If you don't like my choice of words in my explanation, fine. But arguing semantics distracts from the point itself.
Like I said earlier, we wouldn't be in this predicament if your MEC hadn't given their flight line or no merger ultimatum.
When you have people / pilots such as you do that do not understand how to write language you are correct. You allow National to lead you. Blind leading the blind.
All you have to do is look at the term sheet put out by your group and there is such an obliteration of effective language that will keep your contract compliance team busy until you're 6 feet under.
As I said, this boiler plate language (regardless if it was written a pilot or an ALPA attorney). And when someone comes up with a better boiler plate, it gets used the next time until that one is replaced with a better one. Your contract was written after ours. I don't know how else to explain pattern bargaining without using crayons.
If you are so bitter about it, aim it at the party who forced the company to use their right to exercise that clause by giving flight line or no merger ultimatums. If you guys are so smart, you should have known about it, known the possible risks and ramifications of your ultimatum and compromised by taking the offer to arbitrate the PBS vendor issue. You've made our bed, now we are all sleeping in it. Thanks