How about an opinion, based on facts?

We could get into numerous layers of expectation management over the last couple years but let's instead just focus on one of the most recent developments.

Let's look at the recent slot swap "mainline massacre" where DALPA and the company worked together to lobby for something that was promoted as significantly helping mainline. Turns out it didn't help mainline as the slot growth was DCI to the tune of 95% or so. And now for the rest of the story: (Paul Harvey all up in hey, ch'all!)

After the "mainline massacre" there were several LEC written statements released on the subject from multipile LEC's including the biggest one that's closest to the action on Va. Ave. While they all said how they were dissapointed and were misled by the company and were promised significantly more mainline growth that we saw, all the letters summarized by stating that not only was everything kosher within our CBA, but this was still good news because it would result in more revenue for the company and we will hopefully get a share of that. Let's break those two things down shall we?

Yes, it is legal IAW our CBA. Duh. But what's the 64 million dollar follow on question? Hint: it was one that was never asked. A scope clause that would allow 255 DC-9 replacement jets to be operated to the lowest bidder is an epic fail and needs to be reigned in...significantly! Yet that wasn't said at all.

OK fine, but what about the sharing the wealth from the new NYC revenue? This is perhaps the most egregious thing they could have said in the first place because that myopic mentality is the one that caused the 255 DC-9 replacements and hundreds of additional outsourced jets to begin with!

Ergo one could read those letters as "yeah, we're upset too and we were directly lied to and mislead intentionally by the company, but its perfectly legal and all that outsourcing will lead to mainline prosperity!" To put it another way, "yeah, the company lied to us and used us to support their anti mainline plans, but we think there will be revenue from this that we can get a piece of so its all good." Followed by some very vague mention of scope with little to no specifics and there we have it.

Srsly? Yeah, that's basically what was said. We may or may not be OK with massive outsourcing at the RJ50 level, the DC-9-10 level, the 737 level and the A380 level, but hey, its perfectly legal and besides we get all this revenue from sourcing out to the lowest bidder so hey, what's good for the company is good for us.