The fact that they lump the two together is very telling (when in reality they are completely different animals) and is frankly a level of convenient propaganda (with real world consequences in terms of RPs and the latitude given to essentially violate them). As we move forward this needs to kept in mind when evaluating the language of any proposed RPs.
This is the only place in the universe that I can think of when following one's contract is viewed as a form of "crisis event" -- when at most other airlines it's defined and expected behaviour.
So it appears in ANY type of RP agreement fuzzy language (which we've all seen) will be exploited when any self-defined 'crisis event' happens. An important thing to remember. We seem to always meet this criteria at the convenience of those running the place.
AND need to make sure ANY future agreement doesn't allow for it.