Standing by for “isn’t this a status quo violation?” In 3....2....1....

 

Well... if it goes past the contractual deadline, it’s a violation. And... the status quo has been to comply. So... nope, we don’t have status quo violations unless we make a formal complaint and it is deemed a violation by the NMB or a judge. Hence, the company never commits a status quo violation.

 

I know all of the above, I figured that most would understand the sarcasm in that we are still at a time before the contract mandates that they must be published.

 

What's the rush? Excited to see what level of crap the trip quality has sunk to this month?

 

I just thought I'd preempt the whiners. I can't recall any status quo violation ever by any company. I could be unaware of them but I doubt it.

 

does anyone know how many jets are not flying...because of the china ground stop? my guess= the 4 a330-900's and 5 a350's. so my big question is on what markets could we re-deploy these jets?....DUBAI ? moscow...istanbul...

 

Orlando...

 

Just to clarify, if I decide to fly no GSs this summer that’s a status quo violation because I did fly some previously? That is what I have heard on here.

Isn’t there a difference between status quo violations and contractual violations? For example, if for the last say 2-3 years bid packages were available on average the 2nd of every month. That’s not contractually required but it has become the status quo. Now, if there is a lasting change away from that wouldn’t that violate the status quo previously established?

 

If you decide not to fly green slips then that is you decision. If there appears to be a concerted effort to quit flying overtime to pressure negotiations, then that would be a violation and would most likely trigger a lawsuit.

Random contract violations are not by themselves a violation of the status quo. The bid package issue (and by the way, there have been many instances over the years when not in negotiations where they have come out close to the deadline) or any other issue that is similar, would really need to have true “past practice” and most likely have the appearance of negative intent.

There would not be a leg to stand on in this case IMO as it is within the contractual time limit, there has been no violation, it is not past practice since it has occurred before and there most likely would be easy justification because of SARS part 2.

 

And to clarify, if you don't fly any and publicly state on social media and the company it's because of the negotiation, it is a violation of status quo