Sure. Back before C2012, RAH Holdings was blatantly abusing our scope language that was absolutely clear. ALPA came out and said that the abuse was indeed there, but the language was too weak to defend in a grievance. DALPA "fixed" it by allowing the RAH scope abuse to be continued forever (only in the case of RAH) by inserting it into the scope language of C2012.

Second, we used to have iron clad scope language that required a minimum number of departures out of Tokyo Narita in order for the company to continue code share. The company announced they would no longer be meeting the minimum departure requirements out of NRT, but would be continuing the code share. DALPA didn't grieve it. Instead, DALPA negotiated the language away for other protections.

Third, our European joint venture required Delta pilots to fly a minimum percentage of the traffic in the joint venture. The company has been out of compliance for three years now, and we are now in what's called a cure period for the company to make it right. The company is actually making it worse during the cure period. Prediction: DALPA will again not file a grievance because they'll claim the language was too squishy. They will instead negotiate our minimum percentage away for some new "iron clad" protection...and this time we'll mean it!

Bottom line is that DALPA has quite a history of allowing contract language to be ignored and either refuse to grieve it, or negotiate it away for new and different protections. My hope is that as you new guys take over this pretend union of ours, you'll remake it into a real union.

Carl