Originally Posted by
sailingfun
My understanding is that the two MOU were signed at the same time and that 16-02 governs all implementation dates. 16-03 was written as part of the contract process but since it's a trial program was incorporated as a MOU to assure no issues pulling it down. A one year trial period implies that you actually test the program.
While I agree with your referenced implication, the language that the company and DALPA agreed to as written in MOU 16-03 Is pretty clear and unambiguous. Section 4 under "Duration" states:
"This MOU will become effective on its date of signing and will remain in effect for a period of one year following [DOS] unless extended by agreement of the parties."
Based on that language, the onus appears to be on the company to do their test in the one year period following DOS unless and until the parties agree to an extension. If the company wasn't ready, they should have agreed to a different start date other than DOS.
My biggest issue with this situation is the fact that MOU 16-02 lists a Jan 31, 2018 date (as repeated in NN 17-09) as the "Deferred Effective Date, No Later Than" which completely contradicts (and thereby renders as superfluous) the express language of the VB MOU which, in theory, came after MOU 16-02. If the parties wanted the deferred implementation date as listed in MOU 16-02, that language should have been incorporated in MOU 16-03 because it was (presumably) known at the time 16-03 was drafted and certainly was when it was signed/implemented. As Gunfighter corectly pointed out, this is, in effect, a one year and one month extension that actually occured at DOS.
Yet another example of sloppy drafting/review by ALPA legal. Frustrating but expected.