There's nothing confusing about it. It's very clear and straight forward. It's the single worst concession in this TA. The reason you're not getting the talking points from your handlers yet is because even the MEC administration is having a difficult time spinning what is clear unambiguous language.

Carl

Professor, I didn't catch the specific language speaking to the penalty for Delta going out of compliance with TA2015? There are host of showstopping issues preventing me from ever voting yes for it but for the record I would like for you to tell me what the specific penalty is for JV noncompliance?

In other words, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. We have had enough "I think's" for the time being. I'm going to ask you to go ahead and not bring us anymore I thinks.

Everyone knows this. Nothing to do with this TA.

Still meaningless fluff added for confusion.

It failed? Seriously? "It" didn't fail. The company ignored the language and our union REFUSED to defend it.

The company didn't settle anything, they VIOLATED it. Our union settled it after management violated it. Big difference.

Goals are meaningless in contract language. Only the language matters, and that's why your misreading of the language is so inexcusable since you've annointed yourself as a truth teller. The TA language does NOT say "flying" as you state above...it says "block hours." Big difference. With the block hour language, E190 equals A380.

See above.

Carl

There is no penalty delineated. Its a contract.
It would be impractical to set forth penalties for non-compliance for every section of the contract. I don't think this is any different.

We don't have language that specifies if the company doesn't pay us either.

If the company breaks the contract we grieve it and it is either arbitrated or litigated if required.

Then we change the metric to put them back into compliance. ;)

Carl, I'm not an anointed anything. I'm just trying to help translate some of this (which we have not been looking at any longer than you) and point people in the right direction in getting more info. Negotiators notepads are being written on this right now.

'meaningless fluff' and the such don't help argue points, which I'm not even here to do. I just want you to have info.

I would appreciate it if you would stop parsing my language as if we were in a trial setting. You know what I meant in the end and it is always your right to disagree. I'm sure you are currying favor with many on here with the pedantry. Again totally your purview.

But no matter what Mr. Alt had to say about our exchanges, I am not lying. It is not my intention to pass anyone any information I don't know to be factual.

The interpretation of the info is entirely up to the membership.

A 'goal' is an objective of intent to reach. Ergo, the language of this TA aims to change the way in which we measured transatlantic balances. Parsing words like this doesn't help anyone.

Just say you disagree. The numbers are incorrect and let us move on.

Again, when there is more information or analysis that is helpful I will try and distribute it.

This is true.

Wrong. We settled a grievance because we refused to defend our contract language after the company violated it. Why we refused to defend the language is an open question.

Who could like it? Do you?

Actually, it's not. The grievance settlement did not contain any changes to our current scope language. It simply allowed for a money settlement. As such, the company was required to comply and get the EASK's back up or face another grievance. This TA language permanently excuses grievances based on EASK's because we changed the measuring metric to block hours. That's why the TA and the grievance settlement are NOT separate.

Our 3 person augment is indeed one advantage, but is totally outweighed by the other concession of changing from seats to block hours.

Carl

Your answer fails. It's one thing to not have specific language spelling out damages for breaking the contract where it rarely, if ever, is broken. It's entirely another thing to have a huge middle finger pointed in our face for 4 years in this section, then the first chance we have to address the shortcomings, not shore them up. Instead we re-write that section, converting noncompliance into compliance?!

We know Delta is willing to ignore the language in the JV portion of our contract. I don't think even a spinster like yourself will dispute that. Let me ask the question again, why would we be foolish enough to create a new agreement that does not include stiff penalties for ignoring this particular section of our contract? if Delta is not willing to agree to such, it's as good as admitting they are ready and willing to violate it again. If they make a hundred million dollars breaking the contract and pay out thirty million in return, of course they will keep doing it. You ALPA guys keep telling us we have the best legal minds in the business and this is the best you can come up with? Something doesn't add up here.