Originally Posted by Bornflying

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.