The issue is the retention of the language "circumstances over which the Company does not have control” in the contract. The inclusion completely negates what the NC is telling the pilots as to the effect of striking "mechanical on pilot's assigned aircraft" means.

The TA summary has the following bullet point...

Removed “mechanical” from circumstances beyond Company control language related to reroute pay
o The only non-premium pay reroute is for WX on pilot’s routing and closure of origin/destination airport


Now, let's look at the actual contract language in 23.L.8



Pay attention to line 31-32. See the problem? Let me explain it to you. The PWA says that you will not receive premium pay for "circumstances over which the Company does not have control." That is the general rule. It then goes on to give examples of situations beyond the company's control. Notice the use of the latin "e.g.". This means "such as." In other words, these are mere examples of things beyond the company's control. They used "e.g" for a specific reason---it's because this is not an exhaustive list of things beyond the company's control.

Now, go back and read the second bullet point above from the NC's TA highlights. The PWA language does NOT say this. Any first year law school student would understand this. This is a major FAIL on the part of the NC for not catching this. Where are the ALPA lawyers who proofread this? This is pathetic. If the intent of both parties was what is spelled out in the NC bullet above (in blue), then lines 31-32 need to be struck in their entirety, "e.g." needs to be removed, and replaced by the blue bullet point above.

"Reroute" is touted as a major gain. I don't see it that way. The contractual language is horrible. You think the company doesn't know there's a hole in here a mile wide? So much for that "win."

Update: I just heard back from NC Chairman John Morgado regarding the reroute issue I've raised above.

John admits that the list of items in the contract are just examples, i.e. they are not the only things beyond the company's control. He says the company "currently" not paying for mechanical and weather. He specifically used the word "currently" which I thought was entirely appropriate because the company can allege at ANY time in the future additional circumstances that they claim are "beyond their control."

He went on further to state that we can rely on "past practice." YHGTBKM. This is naivete at its worst. If the true intent of the parties is as was stated in the bullet point (in blue) above, then the "circumstances over which the Company does not have control” language needs to be struck in its entirety. John gave no indication that he would seek a change in contractual language with the company. I am very disappointed in this response. Surely if this is what the parties agreed to it should be a simple fix, right?

This is a huge deal folks. The NC just doesn't get it.