Originally Posted by
ZapBrannigan
A small point of clarification. At least in my experience in the past force majeur could not be applied to the entire contract. Only those sections that specifically mention force majeur as an excuse for failure to meet the terms of the contract.
For example, at Brand X after 2001 there were three sections of the sections of the contract that included force majeur - and all three of them allowed the company to shrink and outsource flying in a way that they would not otherwise be permitted to do.
- Minimum captain positions
- Minimum fleet count
- Minimum block hours
The President at the time, Rakesh Gangwal, was quoted to have said, "force majeur opens certain doors for us that were previously closed."
He was referring to scope language that was tied to mainline fleet count. Once that provision was deleted they were able to outsource virtually unlimited flying to the regional partners. Thousands of mainline pilots out of work for 7 years (thank you age 65) while the regional growth exploded.
Force majeur didn't, however, affect other areas of the contract where it wasn't mentioned - like line construction or hotels for example. It had to be specifically referenced in a section as a "get out of jail free" card for failure to perform to THAT SPECIFIC section of the CBA.
As such, I'm also a hard no on any TA that includes force majeur.
Zap, another point about the notion that could be inferred from what you posted that because force majeure clauses, from what you recall 20 years ago, were applied very specifically to limited, certain sections of your CBA with US Airways that it might mean this force majeure clause that Gary Kelly is attempting to slip into our CBA would be similarly limited: that's a leap of faith I'm not wiling to take. Nor should any of us of sane mind be willing to make that leap.
Having seen how this company will distort and stretch and manipulate and outright ignore our CBA (how many grievances?), does anyone think that if this force majeure clause ends up getting ratified by our pilot group that Gary Kelly will not apply or attempt to apply it broadly and globally to our entire CBA? The clause, as written, is simple and open to massive interpretational bias. There is nothing really specific about it that would stand up to any kind of challenge in a Trump-appointed NMB arbitration nor in a corporate-friendly Northern District of Texas federal courtroom.
I'm not saying you believe that the company wouldn't do that. But from what you posted, that idea could certainly be inferred. If that's what you believe, though, I want to disabuse you of that notion right now. If that's the case, put the koolaid cup down and take off the nikes. There is no luv alive here anymore. It's dead.