It is caving, because as Section one is written they needed to pull the seats. We let them keep their interpretation for all of the firm orders. Of course we would not give them it for options.
Fact is that doing so, we let them keep the seats that our section one prohibited. It is violation of section one. ( I do not care how you spin it) Furthermore, if DAL actually had believed in their interpretation they would of fought for it. They knew that it was flimsy as best. We just gave them what they wanted.
It is kind of like the white lies my son tells, he knows I know he is full of it, but I let him get away with it any way. I am wrong for doing it, and he is wrong for expecting the results he gets. But he expects those results because he knows how I react.
Same with this. If it was really intended to be the high water mark I will guarantee you that DAL management and lawyers would have had it in their. They wanted to use this lame excuse when it suited them. Their lawyers are not dumb enough to let this pass.