Originally Posted by
Gspeed
Well if you don’t understand my post then I’m not sure what the point of your original response was. People complain about the supposed inadequacy of furlough protection language and yet I would contend that the mere existence of such language gives a group the ability to argue the merits of their case. No language generally means no arguments, or a greatly diminished argument.
My pilot group did in fact have furlough protection language.
Perhaps, but if you don't win the argument in front of the arbitrator (as was the case in 2001), when he applies the force majeure doctrine he is essentially striking down that furlough protection language which is the equivalent of having no protection language at all.