First, is this a "misconception" or does it just does not matter? An agreement is an agreement. Would Delta let us slide on recall items if I stated, "yeah, but you added that three years ago...." ?

It is bothersome that three plus years ago dozens of pilots knew that it was unlikely the revisions would be abided. These concerns reached such a level that the architect of the agreement made himself available ( very responsibly and professionally I might add) to answer questions and calm these concerns.

Yes, the agreement was an improvement. Unfortunately, as has been the case with nearly all of our scope; Company noncompliance will be fixed with an insignificant pecuniary solution.

I would like to see some research into the question of whether provisions can be added to scope which, by agreement, permits self help should the Company be found out of compliance. In other contracts noncompliance can result in withdrawal of services. Would an agreement to do so pass NMB muster as a agreed end run around the RLA?

Second, the AF/KLM/AZ agreement has nothing to do with the Virgin agreement. The structures, measures and equities are nothing the same. We only agree that tying them together clouds the water and reduces transparency on a very serious scope violation.

We need to apply for a permit to protest at the next investor day ... want to see the benefit of $2 billion in ill advised stock purchases vanish in an instant for a $40 investment at the local sign company? Who would want to own the stock of an airline with labor problems?

Just because we have the permit, does not mean we have to use it. Giving Mr. Anderson a copy of the permit might just earn our contract a bit more respect than it has been getting lately.