Oh I see, I misread your question- apologies. As to the 76 seat issue specifically, I didn’t realize that had already happened. U.1.c doesn’t seem to me as though there is any latitude for deviation, so you can count me among the “whale-eyed”.

When the LOA was negotiated, nobody anticipated the possibility of having new-hires so soon so no provisions for such a situation was written into it.

When the company announced that it would hire, they met with the union and both sides agreed that the original intent wasn't to keep the E-175s restricted to 70 seats while new-hires were on property. If the new-hires are subsequently furloughed, the seats will have to be removed again.

But is that in a separate LOA? I understand what you are saying conceptually, but when a LOA is passed and then subsequently any of the terms are just juggled around, sometimes followed, sometimes not, it doesn’t seem like any of the good or bad aspects mean anything at all.

I looked through all of the MEC updates on the website and I can’t even find a discussion that this was ever addressed.

I thought when a termination trigger was met that only ended the “temporary provisions” of the LOA (work hours reduction). The OP didn’t actually post the verbiage from the LOA:

“The Temporary Provisions of this Agreement shall terminate on the earliest of the following”

That is not how contracts under the RLA work.

The parties do not negotiate the final language, they negotiate concepts. Detailed notes are taken regarding what the parties intend. This is the agreement-in-principle (AIP). After the AIP is reached on all sections, the parties draft language to reflect the AIP. They attempt to draft language that perfectly replicates the AIP but that isn't always the result.

When something unanticipated comes up, and both parties agree as to what the intend of a section was, there is no need to revise the actual wording. If the parties do not agree, the minutes of the negotiations, documents, etc. are referenced and, if necessary, arbitrated to determine how the concepts from the AIP should apply.

I don’t think it’s really up to interpretation—I kept glancing over the the “The Temporary Provisions of this Agreement shall terminate on the earliest of the following” underneath T.

Although I still think some of those temporary provisions are still effective why ugh does make me scratch my head.

Simple.

The MEC didn't want the LOA terminated because they didn't want to be unfaithful to those whose votes they bought for LOA passage through pay protection and are still receiving their bribes.

It is what it is.

Yawn…..you can do better Sam.

Just to the point. Heard it from a rep, but he didn't phrase it quite the way I did. Other reps have said similar things.

It makes sense. One way of doing business I suppose.

It is what it is. Yawn.

Talk to your Reps about it.