Originally Posted by
Alan Shore
Gentlemen,
I love ya both, but I believe that you are both arguing in circles around each other over semantics. The fact is that the Company was required by the PWA to fly at 48.5% of Bundle 1 in the first 3-year period. They did not. That violated that part of the language. But...
Rather than filing a grievance to argue over the remedy for that violation, further language prescribes a remedy, to wit that the Company must fly enough in the following year such that the new 3-year period is again in compliance. We're in that period now.
As I believe we all agree on these facts, does it really matter what we call the Company's non-compliance during the first 3-year period? Please cut it out and let's move on to what we expect in return for this violation(s) now and in the future.
Actually Alan, acl and I aren't talking in circles at all and it's definitely not semantics. Acl specifically stated that there is not currently any non-compliance with our PWA regarding the JV. George, myself and other posters corrected him, but acl dug in his heels and reiterated that there is currently no non-compliance. When I posted the actual contract language showing our current non-compliance, then further described when contract violation would occur at the end of the cure period, acl posted the political double-speak in an attempt to deflect from his own previous words.
Again, there's a difference between non-compliance and violation. When acl65pilot stated that there is currently no non-compliance with our PWA, that was done for a purpose other than properly looking out for Delta pilots. If it was just a typo, then he wouldn't have continued to defend the statement as correct until I posted the language. Why he does this, I cannot understand.
Carl