First, the policy manual resides in the ALPA library for everyone to see and has even been pushed to the devices of those who signed up for the iPubs or Box deliveries. I'm not sure how the manual could be further highlighted without risking further ALPA pub fatigue.

I have to ask you what does "significant" mean? How would you define "significant" so we all agree on the definition?

The policy manual reads:

Collective bargaining agreements that have been approved by the MEC and result from negotiations undertaken pursuant to both Section 28 of the PWA and Section 6 of the Railway Labor Act that both resolve all Section 6 issues and conclude Section 6 negotiations shall be subject to membership ratification. All other agreements shall be subject only to MEC ratification unless the MEC determines that an agreement should be subject to membership ratification.
Assuming you are aware of the policy manual's direction on how to communicate a TA prior to memrat (road shows, pubs, etc ...):
* Did you want membership ratification (with delays to making PD pilots whole)?
* What about your MEC unanimous vote in favor of the agreement?
* If yes, then what would be your suggested change to the policy manual?

My rep asked me about memrat and like everyone else around at that moment I replied "no reason with CDO's removed ... there is no significant change, just improvement." FWIW, the "significant change" litmus was still being used in the decision making process among the reps I communicated with.

I don't understand how memrat would have improved results for Delta pilots, yet I can see how memrat would have harmed Delta pilots by delaying the implementation of improvements and getting guys paid.

Interested on your thoughts on improvement.