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
I don't think the word cease is as clear-cut as it first seems. If it is that clear, why is anyone flying for Delta upset? Certainly it will be thrown out by an arbitratior if it's completely unambiguous.
I brought this up before, but there is such thing in contract law as latent ambiguity- that is to say what would normally be considered clear-cut, unambiguous language becomes ambiguous in light of the circumstances.
What are the circumstances? Well, Compass ceased to exist during the worst downturn in US aviation history. In light of that, was it reasonably beyond Delta's control to have the flow down continuously be available? Did the flow down cease to be available, considering there were no furloughed pilots? Is that enough to show some amount of latent ambiguity in the word "cease"? I know there are arguments against this - but those arguments don't matter, all a lawyer needs to do is demonstrate there is any latent ambiguity.
If that latent ambiguity is shown to exist, then intent rules. I think it's clear the intent: 35 planes for a flow down at a regional.
So it will all come down to if the word "cease" has any latent ambiguity. The RLA puts the burden of proof on the union, so DALPA must prove there is no latent ambiguity.
I give it a 50% chance either way. I feel like a settlement agreement may be the most likely outcome when something like this could go either way. Or maybe Delta knows what they are doing and their legal team has told them they will probably win.