There's a difference between an official MEC SLI position and the opinions of those pushing the issue before an actual PID. Pilots were being told in person, on power point screens and via matching handouts what I mentioned above. Regardless of if it was sanctioned by an MEC or not doesn't matter. The mentality of the day was let's go for one list and once that's committed to let's go for as much as we can get.

I distinctly remember 2 of the Q&A's from the sheet. One said "what if ALPA said no" and the answer was "ALPA can't say no". The other was "I have a class date at Delta, should I stay or should I go" and it expressly advised to stay because the hypothetical person in question would "likely" get more seniority than a DL new hire. There were other questions, mostly logistical type stuff like "what is the timeline for all this" etc. But those two really stood out.

I'm sure DF followed all the political CYA's for phrasing everything in a teflon coating. No doubt about that. He is a very smart and well read guy and knows how to weave an argument. I'm sure he never came out and said "our official MEC position is that we "demand" something greater than a staple" but he did come out and say that it was very likely that the end result would end up like that. You can't really hold someone accountable for expressing their little innocent opinion of how things may shake out, so he was in the clear and he knew it. Every question and answer was open ended enough so as to avoid a smoking gun with MEC fingerprints on it the implication was there and was very clear.

Like I said, its been 12 years and it was just a 2 or 3 sheet handout on stock copy paper delineating opinions and predictions of what was to come but a packrat here or there may have it lying around. In any case I know I saw it and even if I didn't I heard it from him and others on multiple occasions. They were VERY careful to hide behind "the process" oh, that righteous, infallible process, of committing to a merger first and then worrying about it later but behind that wafer thin veil of pure trade unionism was the forked tongue of a potential seniority grab. "We didn't say we would get more than a staple. Let's just commit to the process first, but as it happens, typically, and results may vary, the end result is almost always somewhere *between* a staple and DOH" was the answer you would get if you asked directly.

In any case, clearly the biggest concern at the mainline level was a seniority grab, and no one in the PID/RJDC/either MEC ever, ever, came out and diffused it by blatantly saying what needed to be said. Strong, binding language that anything more than a staple was off the table and prenups would be agreed if necessary to move the process forward. The temptation to "go for it" was too sweet to pass up.

Then once DL furloughed over 1000 and DCI was taking deliveries limited only by factory production lines, the arrogance on the DCI side really blossomed. Sadly, it gave some of the proponents of the mainline scope failures a soft target to hide behind and divert some populist rage away from their broken outsource model they loved (love?) so much. As an added bonus, the same outsource proponents were able to divide and conquer what for a while was strong unity between at least ASA and Comair when each airline management simply said they were sticking to their preexisting policies of seniority resignation. ASA didn't "step up" anymore than Comair "chock blocked" anyone. Both management teams stated they would comply with existing policy. All the rage went towards Comair and that separated the unity between the two. Comair rode the wave of growth based arrogance and the MEC made some inflammatory statements, including the infamous "letter" where they pretended to have leverage over their management over the issue and would maybe see what they could do for some ill timed quid pro quo and we all know the rest. The pro outsourcing guys at DALPA got what they wanted from that of course so everyone was happy.

But yeah, Dan was a safety guy. But he didn't do what probability amounted to hundreds (if not more) hours of work with the PID and later the RJDC just on the basis of safety concerns. And he wasn't wrong about everything either. He made some very good points, as did everyone in both movements, about pointing out some of our collective key threats as a profession. But like the Occupy folks, you can be partially right in identifying a lot of what's wrong, yet still be really jacked up in how you propose to "fix" it.