Originally Posted by
Numero Crunchero
I actually agree with some of what you have said here! Quelle surprise!
Where I disagree.....The amounts paid by CX on Level 1 or RFZ or mortgage are POLICY. They spell out in the policy how they come up with those numbers. There is no contract between CX and the pilot stating that their monthly payment is, say, $74,000 per month for life of the mortgage. The Policy states you will get it. So defining a number does not empower its' resilience in the face of corporate change to policy. If I am reading your arguments correctly, you are inferring that those with fixed numbers (whether for life of the mortgage or for 2 year periods) are more 'bullet proof' to variation than those on RFZ or level 1? That is NOT the case. Level 1 is clearly identifiable(by govt indices) and fixed(and varied by terms of the policy)- RFZ is also defined by govt indices (and varied by terms of the policy) - the 2 year rolling is fixed (and varied by terms of the policy) - the 15/25 year lock-in is fixed (by the terms of the policy). But all are under the policy. And the contractual obligation of the company is to provide housing assistance law with the policy. Policy can change unilaterally - and even as optimistic a person as I am, I suspect it will change soon! A large change leading to a significant change in your standard of living is challengeable. But what if you are getting 74K a month in purchasing a property, but you can put out the term of the loan to say 20 years and lower the payments to say 30K per month. You are still living in your flat/house - and CX could pay you 30K and you keep your flat. How have you suffered? Yes you are losing how quickly you were paying it off. But you see my point. Ironically I think the renters have a stronger case - if they are renting for 74K - then they would be materially and immediately affected by a substantial change in policy levels. So yes - not as clear as some people seem to think it is. Which is why the union paid a lot of money getting SC advice on two occasions over the last decade or so. Not as obvious as our bush lawyers would like us to think!
But I agree with your last sentence - a lick would not win in court -a bite(if big enough) would be defendable. But as I have said, what size bite would have been acceptable in 2019 is likely to be smaller than an acceptable bite size in covid times.
Of course the easy way out for them(CX) is for us to sign a new contract - that removes all the ambiguity. Question is - will it be a 1994 "voluntary' offer or a 1999 'sign or be fired' offer. Given the economic environment I tend to lean towards the latter.
Anyway - good debating with you PW
PS people please don't bother telling me the 1999 option can't be done - just go read the Judgements on the 49ers case/appeal etc. Then ask yourself - would a court be as sympathetic to CX pilots today as they were to the 49ers?
I don't necessarily disagree with the fact that a court might side with CX, but the fact is, nobody knows until it happens. Even the 3 courts couldn't reach the same verdict.
The context in the 49ers case was absolutely different than the current one.
Guys were doing a sick-out campaign and fired accordingly (although officially for no reason).
If they let people go in a few months, this would be a case of redundancy. And the redundancy clause in all contracts but POS18 is spelled out very clearly.
I honestly expect the company to try to reduce costs. But I hope they do it legally and by consulting with us first.
It's in everybody's interest to find a compromise.
A lengthy court case and years of lost goodwill won't help any future recovery.