Quote:
Also codifying damages of non compliance in the PWA just would make contractual violations a business decision. IE violate the EASK provisions just pay the pilots dollars. Trust me, you do that, you create data that makes violating the PWA a good business decision. IE a dangerous road to travel. Esp w scope.
Yeah. That's what I thought you'd say. Grievance or negotiation, the result will be the same. Ultimately, jobs will have been sold. Not saying that this is in any way dALPA's fault, but there is no way that I can think of that any contract violation on the company's part can NOT result in monetary damages which equates to a sale of jobs. Unless we could write something into the contract that directly affects the operation of our JV partners (good luck with that) I don't see any other "remedy" as realistically achievable.Originally Posted by acl65pilot
Is the same process we have in place for large violations of the PWA. We can grieve it, or negotiate it. Not sure there is much taste for the second, but the first will take a ton of time during section 6. Also codifying damages of non compliance in the PWA just would make contractual violations a business decision. IE violate the EASK provisions just pay the pilots dollars. Trust me, you do that, you create data that makes violating the PWA a good business decision. IE a dangerous road to travel. Esp w scope.
And for the above reason, it is already a good business decision to violate the contract. Corporations are people too, right? If they know that a violation will not be resolved for 3 or 4 years, that is a lot of coin in the bank that can be invested/leveraged to cover any reasonable damages they can expect to incur. Again, the cards are squarely stacked against us on these kinds of issues. However, I would still have the lawsuit paperwork ready to go as soon as the violation "occurs".