Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
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
Carl;
You are correct, I used the wrong word. There is no violation but there is non-compliance of the first proviso which triggered the second proviso or the cure period. There is NOT non-compliance to the point of a violation which was my point last night.
I took non-compliance in your post to mean violation and I clearly misunderstood your intent. The blame is on me not you.
There is no violation until they are in non-compliance of the second period which ends at the end of March of 2015. It does look like that that time there will be a violation if nothing changes in the JV.
Here is what I wrote:
Lets try this again Carl.
Contractual compliance or non-compliance goes farther than just compliance with the EASK balance listed in the PWA. As you have dutifully copied here, in the PWA, there is a measurement period of three years, that is date defined. Compliance or -non-compliance of the metric that was agreed to, determines not a PWA violation but if the secondary provision of a cure period is triggered.
As you and I are totally aware of, the "company" is below the compliance band, (do not have the exactly number) as it was measured at the end of March 2014, and as a result the cure period as mutually agreed to many moons ago is triggered.
Non-compliance of the EASK balance at the end of the measurement period does not equate to a contractual violation.
As you read there is directive language in the fact that the company "will" return to compliance in the one year cure. If that does not happen, and at the end of this period, and only then is there a violation of the PWA by the "company."
I know you know this, but you cherry pick what suits your purpose. Any contract that has a remedy clause in it, with a date specific period, results if the party that has the damages having to wait to file claim until that remedy period is over. It is the same on any contact, labor agreements or otherwise.