The MOU may not be a binding contract in the strictest traditional sense, but it certainly contains wording that implies several areas of agreement that would form the basis for an eventual contract and/or related operating agreements with GTAA including the Terminal Facilities Allocation Plan.
The wording being used by both sides seems to be very carefully chosen. GTAA frequently using the word "exclusive" and AC
using wording that skates around the word "exclusive" while effectively providing the same end result.
My brief reading seems to indicate that AC
has preferential access as they are claiming but not exclusive access, which they are implying and would like. The issue I think will come down to whether GTAA followed the TFAP in allocating gate access to Westjet. Is the TFAP just some loose guideline or is it firm policy - the courts will have to decide I guess, along with whether the TFAP AC
presented as motion material is actually the latest, agreed version.
Once clause I read seemed to indicate that GTAA would have to look at alternatives to AC
preferential gate access at T1new, including other terminals, before allowing anyone else those gates when AC
didn't need them and would have to really be in a tight spot to push AC
out when they needed the gates unless there was absolutely no other choice.
I'm not a booster for AC
but if there is an agreement or policy in place both parties should abide by the rules of that agreement regardless of court protection or not. I would agree that splitting AC
operations over 3 terminals at its main hub would be akin to throwing stones at AC
while it is down.