Originally Posted by
queue
Incorrect. You cannot apply conventional wisdom and intent to contracts. If it's not written, it doesn't exist. If you try to throw intent, even if documented, you always run the risk of losing. Unless the contract is explicit, it will be like 3A all over again....
Too many BJ pilots don't get that their conventional fuzzy logic doesn't apply in this kind of situation. Weak language is room for BJ lawyers to screw us.... they've done it over and over again yet people here don't learn.
This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.
Actually bargaining notes are entirely admissible as witness to intent of language. Often good bargaining notes are more important than the language itself. Not that I don’t agree with many of your overarching points, just needed to clarify.
Of course the downside of bargaining notes is very few people know what they say since they are not in the body of language.