ILS2DH said:
The LOA just says 70 passenger seats, but FB has been telling recurrent classes that the Q400s would not count. Maybe he misread it? I know the intention was for EMB-170s or CRJ-700s.
Gentlemen, please do not be so hasty as to assume that the LOA is not talking about jets or that Fred is misreading it. Just because the term "jets" is not used in paragraph "H", that doesn't mean that the LOA is talking about just any airplane with 70-seats. Paragraph "B" refers to type specific pay rates, both aircraft are "jets". Paragraph "H" talks about adding 35 aircraft to the "
164 currently in revenue service on the date of this LOA". 25 such aircraft will have 70-seats.
There were
no aircraft "currently in revenue service"
other than jets at the time of the LOA. It's pretty obvious that the entire LOA speaks to the "jet aircraft" being operated at the time it was signed with a caveat that allows the E-170 and establishes its pay rate as the same as the CRJ700.
An attempt to substitue a Q400 for the 70-seat jets, would be no different than replacing all 164 "currently in revenue service" with turboprops.
It is pretty obvious to me that the LOA is referencing
the same kinds of aircraft now in service, all of which are jets. If we had both jets and turboprops, it would be up for grabs, but we didn't then and we don't now. In my opinion, the introduction of a Q400, while not prohibited, in place of the 70-seat jet would violate the contract.
IF this was done without the consent of the MEC, I would expect a grievance to be filed immediately.
I'm quite sure that Fred knows this and that is why he says the Q400 would not count. It would not.
If you really have a doubt about this
contact the MEC. I'm sure they can clarify the intent of the LOA.
Rule Number 1 =
Never give away a contractual provision because you "think" it might mean something different. You should not even be "
suggesting" that it might.
The
intent of the LOA is 35 more jets, 25 of which will either be the CRJ700 or the EMB170, not some turboprop not matter how many seats it may have. Please! Let's not start playing the bait-and-switch game with our contract.
Do NOT take my word for this.
Please call your status rep or your MEC if you have any doubts.
Here's another interesting point - pay would be at current 70 seat rates "for any CL-700 or EMB-170 aircraft acquired by Company". Does that mean they'll be looking for a different pay rate on a Q400?
Yes, it does mean that pay rates for any other type of equipment would have to be negotiated. That includes the Q400 or the EMB190 or anything samaller or bigger than we have now or that is not a jet.
JM .02