As far as your question, you weren't exactly in a position to demand anything like that at Airways. The airline was in dire shape, and a judge would have imposed something far more onerous than even the horrible conditions that you ended up with in negotiations, most likely. The company wasn't going to accept a snapback clause, and the judge wouldn't either. There was nothing that anyone at national could do about that.
I agree we were in dire shape but I think there could have been some language allowing a snapback on the condition the corporation is healthy. The date just after the start date....after the hyphen (read "end date") in the pay section of LOA 93 read 12-31-09. A condition could have said something like this. If the company makes more than 400 million dollars in profit the year following the "end date" of LOA 93 then the pay will snap back to the former rates. Kinda funny how after the east pilots saved the company we made more than 400 million in profit in 2010! This language protects the company, if we were still hurtin there would have been NO snap back, so why wouldn't a judge approve it? I know why management wouldn't...they don't want to pay pilots at all. Remeber the fat lady hasn't sung yet on the LOA 93 arbitration.