Originally Posted by
samuraiguytn
On the whole seat issue, You can't just take the seat out and call it good. If the Plane was designed from the factory to have a hundred seats, then the pay has to be a hundred seats, the only way I can see it being different is if a first class is available. The First class would make it impossible to implicate a hundred seats. Therefore the pay would have to based upon the maximum amount of seats that could be installed. So if they took out that one seat, there would have to be something in its place (ie closet.)
Basically, management's case rests entirely on the fact that the 100th seat was never "held out" for sale to the public. It is installed, it is depicted in our manuals, and the fact that maintenance has deactivated the seat implies that it is was seat in the first place. What this case will boil down to is the definition of a seat in the RAH CBA. Yes, our payscales are foolishly tied to seat count. However, no one ever took the time to explicitly define whether pay was based on seats installed, seats available for service, or seats available for sale. I guess no one ever really though that the word "seat" needed to be explained. Every contract has ambiguities, but making the word seat a gray area is something no one expected.