Because it's a
law thingy.
The contract(s), both NWA and CPZ, can't be changed unilaterally. They can only be changed with concurrence of both parties. (Aside: That's the ugly truth in the former-TWA pilots gripe with "ALPA")
Speaking only in the purest legal sense, the RLA prevents the new combined carrier from abrogating any contracts unless the contract permits it (section-by-section). For example: Contracts can contain triggers that require new pay rates, or a release from Probation for members, if a merger takes place.
In the case of NWA and DAL, Section 1 contains "
successorship" language that keeps all sections intact unless modfied by BOTH parties. The CPZ contract goes further, and defines
who the "parties" are.
The new airline will have to negotiate a new agreement, right?
At some point, of course.
I think your question is: Would the current agreement be modified as a pre-condition to consummating the merger?
My guess: Probably.
As a Scope-hating lawsuit-lover, you probably see any such pre-nup as another chance for "ALPA" to stick it to you.
As a pragmatist, I see it as an opportunity to recover some of things we lost in Chapter 11, that would protect and enhance this career. Investors and the new Board will pay to achieve Labor peace.