ellsworb

That's a real good question my friend. One that I have already asked my rep and I encourage others to ask of theirs.

OOfff

Where is this word?

tunes

The reps I have spoken to about this were blindsided by it. Reps had no idea. Pure speculation here but it appears the negotiating committee went out and did this on their own


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

tunes

NN 17-09


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sailingfun

I would ask your reps why they feel they were blindsided. The implementation schedule was set with MOU 16-02 which was basically concurrent with the contract. This is standard practice in every contract because clearly not everything can be effective on the date of signing.
This was all done and published back in the fall of 2016 and now they claim to be blindsided??

sailingfun

This was done in MOU 16-2. Basically it was published with the contract well before the C series order.

FL370esq

Putting aside the the CSeries reference, MOU 16-3 is the MOU specifically dealing with the VB issue and sequentially occurs after the 16-02 MOU you reference and therefore would supercede it.

MOU 16-3 states: "This MOU will become effective on its date of signing and will remain in effect for a period of one year following [DOS] unless extended by agreement of the parties." I believe this MOU was signed in conjunction with the PWA, not on Feb 1, 2017. However, NN 17-09 states that the MOU now has a deferred elective date of 31 Jan 2018. When (and how) did that date get deferred? It should have ended in December 2017....why the extra month +?

Gunfighter

The implementation date was deferred from Dec 2016 to Jan 2018. This is an extra year, not an extra month.

sailingfun

My understanding is that the two MOU were signed at the same time and that 16-02 governs all implementation dates. 16-03 was written as part of the contract process but since it's a trial program was incorporated as a MOU to assure no issues pulling it down. A one year trial period implies that you actually test the program.

FL370esq

While I agree with your referenced implication, the language that the company and DALPA agreed to as written in MOU 16-03 Is pretty clear and unambiguous. Section 4 under "Duration" states:

"This MOU will become effective on its date of signing and will remain in effect for a period of one year following [DOS] unless extended by agreement of the parties."

Based on that language, the onus appears to be on the company to do their test in the one year period following DOS unless and until the parties agree to an extension. If the company wasn't ready, they should have agreed to a different start date other than DOS.

My biggest issue with this situation is the fact that MOU 16-02 lists a Jan 31, 2018 date (as repeated in NN 17-09) as the "Deferred Effective Date, No Later Than" which completely contradicts (and thereby renders as superfluous) the express language of the VB MOU which, in theory, came after MOU 16-02. If the parties wanted the deferred implementation date as listed in MOU 16-02, that language should have been incorporated in MOU 16-03 because it was (presumably) known at the time 16-03 was drafted and certainly was when it was signed/implemented. As Gunfighter corectly pointed out, this is, in effect, a one year and one month extension that actually occured at DOS.

Yet another example of sloppy drafting/review by ALPA legal. Frustrating but expected.