Rogue, I agree the deck is stacked in many ways against our profession as far as laws. My record is clear on the TA, I voted yes mainly because section 1 captured scope and returned real jobs back to mainline. Next time I hope we can do even better. My tongue in cheek comment about our lawyers and negotiations with the company is directed at the facts that we seem to be one step behind in many key areas the company is already farther ahead protecting their interests. Next time will we have such a long compliance window? I am certainly all for constructive engagement, it works more than it does not. Many here certainly feel it is a losing position. My concern is we need to convey to our reps that we need stronger consequences (not just language) when the company willfully goes against our contract. Any amount of $$$ is not what the company wants to spend to placate this pilot group. It may not be a lot in terms of the big picture but $$$ is a powerful incentive to re- engage on both sides when it come to compliance....

Fiig