Originally Posted by
TransWorld
Go back on this (and other) threads. This has been thoroughly discussed. I summarized it.
Stop and think how your statement would be implemented.
If AA hired 26 in a month, Envoy would be entitled to 25 of the 26 slots. That would make it impossible to fulfill contractually required flows from PSA and Piedmont.
No, that’s what the subject to 50% means....
26 a month, Envoy sends 13
46 a month, Envoy sends 23
56 a month, Envoy sends 28, but may withhold at 25. It still owes the 50% though
Originally Posted by
TransWorld
If AA hired 200 in a month (realistically possible at maximum retirements), Envoy would be entitled to 100 of the 200 slots. That would be equal to hiring half of Envoy’s total pilots in a single year. That would not be a sustainable operation in Envoy.
No, it means they’d withhold at 25 for the month, but would still owe the rest. They literally argued at the bargaining table that if the airline flowed out of existence that is what they’d do.
Originally Posted by
TransWorld
Both cases illustrate your interpretation is not what AA would contractually agree to.
I agree it is bad wording, kind of like you don’t not like to avoid double negatives.
I hated the wording when it was presented in executive session and argued round and round with the lawyers that it would lead to exactly this confusion and misinterpretation.
It is in fact written to require parking planes if need be. Staffing is not justification for not meeting 50%, they agreed to park planes before violating flow. The negotiations notes on the subject were to have been preserved on both sides as I understood it.