Originally Posted by
Scoop
I am not disagreeing with you. My point is that if the deal was in fact intended to be a one time specific agreement with a flow down to Compass and Compass only, why are we even having this discussion? I am flabbergasted, bewildered, dumbfounded [insert your adjective here] that the if the union thought this deal was exclusive to Compass they couldn't come up with the proper verbiage for the PWA.
Either:
The deal was never intended to be exclusive to Compass.
DALPA and our legal counsel are incompetent.
There is really no other explanation for the situation that we find us in. Maybe some DALPA guys thought it was the former but never checked the verbiage but what about the NC and the legal review? How could they let it go through if the intent was a Compass only exclusive flow?
Scoop
I’m not sure I agree. PWA 1.B.47.f is pretty clear: if a flow down at compass or another airline ceases to exist, the number of permissible 76-seat RJs in section [fill it in] is reduced by 35.
That’s clear. If this then that. This occurred, so that is now the case. There is no language for the resurrection of a flow down of which I’m aware. As a silly analogy, if I tell my daughter that if she fails to mow the lawn twice a week her curfew moves up an hour, and she mows once, her curfew is now moved. next week if she mows twice, I get to have that parenting moment where I say something fatherly like, “that would have served you well last week. Sorry. See you at 10.”
Or logic. If A then B implies if not B then not A. But not A tells you nothing. The converse is implied but the inverse isn’t.
Now if some negotiator’s notes demonstrate that the understanding was that rebuilding a dead flow down undid the 35-bird reduction, then I agree: somebody needs to go back to the writing part of the bar exam.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk