Varsity

Would be 1,000% worth the wait.

buddies8

Then why has the mec not stated they are going to arbitration over the aip.

dera

Because this happened a day or two ago.

blackbox348

I heard they were in meeting with the company this week, perhaps management realizes the AIP is enforceable and wants to prevent arbitration/court?

Ijustlikeflying

I hope you’re right

Excargodog

He isn’t.

From
Duhaime's Law Dictionary

Agreement in Principle

Definition:
An agreement as to the terms of some future contract.
Related Terms: Contract



Also approval in principle.

An oxymoron as an agreement in principle is no agreement at all.

To bind the parties, a contract must be concluded in all its fundamental terms, with nothing left to negotiate. Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 9(1), "Contracts":

"It follows that, prima facie, there is no concluded contract where further agreement is expressly required...

"(I)f the parties have recahed an agreement in principle only, it may be that the proper inference is that they have not yet finished agreeing, for instance: where they make their agreement subject to details or subject to contract; or where so many important matters are left uncertain that their agreement is incomplete."

In Winsor Homes, Justice Gushe assessed the contractual significance of an approval in principle given to a development scheme:

"... it is merely an expression of intent and has no legal significance whatsoever."
.....
https://www.wisegeek.com/in-law-what...-principle.htm


An agreement in principle is an agreement that makes the major terms clear, laying the groundwork to make a contract. Agreements in principle are not legally enforceable as a general rule because they are not formal contracts, although sometimes they will be used in legal cases if there is a dispute. For people outside the legal field, this type of agreement can be confusing because it may make it seem as though everything is agreed when this is not actually the case.

When two parties are working together to reach an agreement, they often have a great deal of debate about the major points and terms, especially when the agreement surrounds a contentious issue. The process of nailing down the basics of the agreement leads to an agreement in principle, in which both parties arrive at a set of generally agreed-upon terms that will be used in the final contract. This is essentially the foundation of the contract, used when drafting the language because it includes everything the parties have negotiated.

A number of things can upset an agreement in principle. For example, when a bank reaches one with a customer and pre-approves a mortgage, the bank may later decide after additional investigation to change the terms, offering less money or a higher interest rate on the basis of newly learned information about the customer. Likewise, when diplomats reach this sort of agreement with their negotiating powers and take it home, government officials may reject or request modification to some of the terms.

The agreement is not legally binding because it has not been finalized. However, it indicates that the two parties have reached some level of consensus and that they intend to move forward with a contract. As a result, backing out of the agreement or radically changing the terms may be viewed as an activity in bad faith. For example, when a country reaches an agreement in principle with another and then reneges, it can make them look bad in the eyes of the international community.

Cyio

It would have to be very unique to be enforceable. My guess, assuming that is true, is the company wants this behind them. Perhaps they see things we don’t and recruiting really is slowing down the road.

That or AA is sick of it as well.

boiler07

LOL. Hear that from Ferris Bueller's brother's cousin's sister's boyfriend who saw him pass out at 31 flavors last night?

I doubt you know anything about what ALPA national is saying.

crj700

Thank you, Simone.

crj700

[QUOTE=Excargodog;2847634]He isn’t.

From
Duhaime's Law Dictionary

Agreement in Principle

Definition:
An agreement as to the terms of some future contract.
Related Terms: Contract



Also approval in principle.

An oxymoron as an agreement in principle is no agreement at all.

To bind the parties, a contract must be concluded in all its fundamental terms, with nothing left to negotiate. Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 9(1), "Contracts":

"It follows that, prima facie, there is no concluded contract where further agreement is expressly required...

"(I)f the parties have recahed an agreement in principle only, it may be that the proper inference is that they have not yet finished agreeing, for instance: where they make their agreement subject to details or subject to contract; or where so many important matters are left uncertain that their agreement is incomplete."

In Winsor Homes, Justice Gushe assessed the contractual significance of an approval in principle given to a development scheme:

"... it is merely an expression of intent and has no legal significance whatsoever."
.....
https://www.wisegeek.com/in-law-what...-principle.htm


An agreement in principle is an agreement that makes the major terms clear, laying the groundwork to make a contract. Agreements in principle are not legally enforceable as a general rule because they are not formal contracts, although sometimes they will be used in legal cases if there is a dispute. For people outside the legal field, this type of agreement can be confusing because it may make it seem as though everything is agreed when this is not actually the case.

When two parties are working together to reach an agreement, they often have a great deal of debate about the major points and terms, especially when the agreement surrounds a contentious issue. The process of nailing down the basics of the agreement leads to an agreement in principle, in which both parties arrive at a set of generally agreed-upon terms that will be used in the final contract. This is essentially the foundation of the contract, used when drafting the language because it includes everything the parties have negotiated.

A number of things can upset an agreement in principle. For example, when a bank reaches one with a customer and pre-approves a mortgage, the bank may later decide after additional investigation to change the terms, offering less money or a higher interest rate on the basis of newly learned information about the customer. Likewise, when diplomats reach this sort of agreement with their negotiating powers and take it home, government officials may reject or request modification to some of the terms.

The agreement is not legally binding because it has not been finalized. However, it indicates that the two parties have reached some level of consensus and that they intend to move forward with a contract. As a result, backing out of the agreement or radically changing the terms may be viewed as an activity in bad faith. For example, when a country reaches an agreement in principle with another and then reneges, it can make them look bad in the eyes of the international community.[/QUOTE

Inserting facts in to the discussion, you can't do that!