Originally Posted by SAVdude

I, too, did a check of the sections you highlighted and, true, changes with these JV or marketing agreements are solely between the company and the MEC Chairman. But none of these appear to have anything to do with using the company logo and brand on these partners, and the Company has already shown a willingness to operate outside the bounds of one of these agreements.
The TA language seems to give the MEC chairman, and only the MEC chairman, much greater latitude in deciding, with the Company, where and how our logo can be used, without consulting the full committee, let alone the membership. This potentially could have significant impact on what "Delta" really is and who flys its planes and routes.
I do not have a legal mind (UCLA geology, class of '87), but the TA language in section 1.E.9, seems sketchy to me, and I'm just trying to grasp it's possible implications. There's so much more of this TA, beyond pay rates, that's disturbing.
The E190s are another concern. In a recent "Contrails" or "Notepad" - I forget which - in answer to the concern of them replacing 88s, the authors stated that they had heard nothing from the Company about that happening. My answer to that is "So?" The Company isn't going to tell the NC everything it plans to do. To assume that E190s are not going to replace at least some 88 flying (in addition to rj stuff) seems naïve. Pay rates will mean nothing to me if I get bumped from line-holding 717A to reserve 717A/M88A, or, heaven forbid, E190A, especially if the changes in JV and LCA language are more detrimental than the MEC has indicated.