Originally Posted by SparkySmith

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