Originally Posted by
av8rmike
I addressed this in my first post. The Association in putting out that the 'intent' was not to lower lines below 68 hours unevenly. Have you read that section of the contract? I have and it doesn't say anything of the sort. When contract language is ambiguous, do we normally win?
One other thought, bad in the good ol' days, when the 727 BLG was 72 and the MD-11 was 75, who complained? Unequal, but ok. Going downhill, unequal isn't ok? I WISH our contract had unambiguous language in this section saying below 68 hours, all tracks will match, but it doesn't.
Mike,
Have you read the whole contract? How about the section that states the max diff in blg is 13 in a bid period package. The only place bid period package is defined states that one will be built for each base. It says nothing about aircraft. So, a DC10 at 48 in MEM and an MD11 at 70 in MEM would be a violation.
How about section 23 which states "The Company shall notify the Association in writing if it anticipates
a furlough or a recall. Upon written request, the Company shall
meet and consult with the Association concerning possible
adjustments to provisions of this Agreement (e.g., construction of
bid period schedules and reducing or eliminating volunteer and
draft flying) that may avoid or mitigate the effects of a furlough."
Or how about further down where it states that the company can offer early retirement to prevent or delay a furlough.
Section four is only part of the whole contract and is only one of the things available to prevent or delay a furlough. The company is making a money grab. They said in the fall that they would continue talk in the new year when the manning picture became clearer, but right after peak, we ran into an emergency that couldn't wait. Does that seem logical to you?
