Originally Posted by
bugman61
To be clear, I completely agree with you.
The point I was making was that the other poster was trying to make the issue a “bookkeeping error” when the dispute is about contract language interpretation. The company believes they are in compliance with the settlement and no additional pay is due. ALPA (and everyone with a brain) realizes that optional automation that doesn’t work all the time is not in compliance. The dispute is over the language, not if 200% is equal to 50%/100%.
Just so I understand it right, the company thinks they are in compliance and will not pay the 200% but ALPA (per C44) is certain that they are not in compliance and must pay the 200%.
Has anyone received the 200%? If not, I guess we wait for yet another adjudication.
Sounds a lot like the State Sick dispute and we know how that worked out.