Originally Posted by
Bornflying
Quoting myself to correct myself on a portion of this:
[There is a provision that says that if Compass flow rights ceases to exist, Delta, DALPA, Compass have to meet to discuss "whether continuation or modification of [the] LOA would be appropriate". I think Delta will just say no continuation or modification is needed. Taking this literally, they can satisfy this just by having a meeting and doing nothing.]
Reading more into it....I take back this statement. "Any continuation...will require the agreement of Delta, Compass, and the Association". Again, this will come down to "is this latent ambiguity in the context of the situation"? Since Compass no longer exists- how can they meet in regards to continuing the LOA? Isn't that latent ambiguity in itself? If so, intent matters- what was the intent, to allow Compass pilots to continue to possibly have a flow after the sale of Compass? Or was it to allow a flow-down elsewhere or limit scope?
This clause will be important too- if it's determined to be unambiguous it's taken literally and DALPA wins. If not, Delta could win. I don't think it's as clear-cut as either side makes it out to be.
I'm guessing you don't have any experience on contract arbitrations under the RLA?
Here is a direct quote from an arbitrator in a decision. This should show what is wrong with your analysis:
"What first needs to be said is that the burden of proof, as with any contract grievance, is with the Association. What it must prove is not that the Company's view is wrong, but that ALPA's view is correct".
By definition, the company is always correct, unless the association can prove, past reasonable doubt, that they are correct. That is a very tough task on something that has even slight ambiguities, because those ambiguities are always ruled for the company.