Bar, aircraft limitations are published and are hard and fast, DFR issues are more gray.

You can say the limit is expired, but remember that the party that accusing of the DFR can claim that they were not aware of the error. Furthermore, if one becomes aware of new facts for whatever reason, the timeline on that can come in to play. Also, it does nothing for trust to come clean and explain the whole decision after the fact. It adds to the mistrust. That is why the same explanation is given over, and over and over.

I agree that honesty is encourage and is something that our union needs to do more of. I know you are aware that I am a huge proponent of transparency though the entire process. The majority of the distrust pilots have is because they do not see the process in action. They see a LOA with little to no foreknowledge that anything was taking place. They see end results. We may in fact get to the same place with many of these agreements or decision if the pilots were involved along the way, and that is great, the issue as I see it, revolves around the process and the ability to provide timely input.

Of course you can use the CPS Resolution and the result as proof that even with input the result were the same. I am not sure if the process was initiated today, and the pilots were given the fact if we would end up in the same place with the same decision, but at least the group as a whole would know what facts the MEC was dealing with to get to the decision. The same holds true for every item of interest.

I will not argue the last point because I agree. All DALPA needs to do is take a strong stand on scope and restoration and DPA dies a quick death. The silence is noticed.