I completely agree with you there.

The issue I'm having right now is that in order to direct our reps, we need to have some idea of what's on the table. We can then engage with our reps constructively as to whether we agree or disagree with the direction. They can then take that back to the MEC and help direct the negotiators.

I've engaged with my reps and told them where I stand on Scope. Unfortunately, the response is usually "we're going to strengthen Scope" without any concrete information.

At the outset of negotiations I believe everyone agreed that success on Scope meant holding the line on RJ's and allowing Scope Choke to work as it was sold to us in C2012.

Now "success on Scope" is being redefined. Most recently by the MC's message in September, but also by the talking points put forth by the P2P volunteers and reps, i.e., the existential threat of the CRJ-550 and the company's ability to park all of our widebodies. None of this was on the table at the outset of negotiations but now it's front and center. Holding the line on scope choke and 100-seaters is nowhere to be heard.

The cynical part of me is certain that the NC is going to give on the RJ issue. Since it will cause an uproar, there's a tight lid being kept on it so that the pilot group won't have a chance to lay into their reps before the TA is voted on by the MEC.

Once the MEC votes on it and it gets to the pilots for memrat, I'm sad to say that it's sure to pass.