Originally Posted by
Wheels up
Sadly, in today's labor arbitration, "intent" of the agreement has nothing to do with the outcome of arbitrations. Something else does. It's all mumbo-jumbo, parsing, and torturing verbiage to get the desired outcome by the arbitrator.
Witness the APA 7300 pilot floor for continued operation of Eagle. The arbitrator ruled that, in fact, AA could furlough every single AA pilot yet never trigger the minimum 7300 AA pilot floor that allows AE to continue operation. His decision invalidated the very reason for the agreement in the first place. That arbitration decision shocked even management in it's bizarreness.
I wish AE ALPA good luck with their upcoming negotiations. If the ongoing brickwall stall with AMR regarding the TWU, AA FA's, and the APA contracts are any indicator, they're going to offer AE a Mesa contract and emphasize the need to be competitive with the dregs of the industry. Of course, with the 50 seat RJs being economically crippled in the next few years, it's hard to figure out what AMR might try and do.
it's called "deconstructionism" and has dominated legal circles for some time. its the predecessor was legal realism. alpa won't let this out because they want to relay the false hope that contract language matters when in fact it does not. ever hear the phrase "we know what you meant but the language will not support it?" that's the sound of the door opening for a prison rape that you were not anticipating.
don't believe it? google it.