Once again, the evidence is ATL reps having crew room chats with pilots asking them how much "at risk" compensation they are willing to tolerate going forward. These same conversations are happening with MEC administrators. Donatelli put out a letter referring to profit sharing as "at risk" compensation and used a negative tone about it. This is all happening while I can recall nowhere in our survey where we were asked about how much profit sharing we should try to trade because it was "at risk".

When this stuff happens, you need to pay attention. This is how our MEC works. They are exceedingly uncommunicative about their internal strategies. Thus we are forced to logically deduce what they're attempting from the opinion shaping they throw out.

A great example was in C2012 when I asked the reps and MEC admins who post here to take a pledge that they would vote against any increase in RJ's. Their absolutely uniform response was "Not one more seat, not one more pound." I continued to press them about whether that meant allowing any more RJ's, but they just gave the same uniform response. I posted that as evidence that the MEC was going to allow more jumbo RJ's and the usual suspects here went nuts. They said there would be no way that would even get past the NC, much less the reps and that I was just lying. The rest is history. It didn't make me prescient, I just paid attention to very clear evidence.

Carl