Yes.

A majority of the current language is based on capturing Delta pilots' share of the company's commercial agreements with partners. Each separate Joint Venture has our share, based on the amount of flying the company expected to perform. Sections 1 E 2., and 8. act as major "catch-alls" in case the company fails to negotiate a JV scope section with ALPA. AeroMexico serves as an example of 1 E. 2. coming into play. 1 E. 2. requires that if more than 40% of the seats in a market are sold as (in this example) DL seats then the flight must be flown by a Delta pilot.

Our current scope ties the pilots to the company's cash flows and commercial agreements. The result is easy to explain on an excel spreadsheet, but more difficult to write in plain language.

The PROBLEM our current Scope Section has is that the company's commercial agreements are not functioning normally as a result of COVID. The international route network, partner flying and our flying, are a mess. The company has asserted "force majure" allowing them to escape compliance for now.

As things are rebuilt we could take several paths. One would be to modify the existing language to capture the new agreements the company builds with partners around the world. The complexity of this task requires a highly functional team of managers and ALPA negotiators, experienced and trained on what currently exists, to fix it. Today's ALPA Reps are several generations removed from that work.

So a new generation of managers and ALPA reps have set out to make a much simpler scope section. The genesis of this new language was >>MANAGEMENT's DEFENSE<< to prior scope violations (which were settled in our favor for $30,000,000.00). This is confusing because ALPA's new Reps have bought into management's idea and now proclaim it as their own product. The sides were as follows back in 2012-15:

• ALPA: Section 1 P. 4. required DL fly 50% (with a 1.5% variance so the real limit was 48.5%) of the trans-Atlantic capacity on widebody jets. Management failed to do this. Pay us the difference!
• MANAGEMENT: Yes, we violated your contract, but we flew those airplanes to other places and you were not really harmed. Give the pilots $0
• Result: $30,000,000.00 to the pilots (we "won" in negotiations)

A year later we went through a rapid period of 5 scope chairmen in less than two years. The new, new, new, new Chairmen and the reps didn't really get why we had such complexity in our contract and concluded our protections have "too many words." The easy answer was to just make a global balance; we get half of whatever (the questions of block hours or capacity, crew augmentation or not, were not fully formed) Management literally heard a chorus of pilots now singing harmony on the very defense management offered to escape scope and reduce its obligation to perform European flying. So yeah, now they're talking.

The hang-up on giving management what management wanted was that management really did not want a penalty that cost them anything for noncompliance and pilots rightfully figured the RLA is stacked against us. This was resolved with some sort of staffing formula. Here we are.

The thing everyone has to remember is these are a balance. Half of 10 is 5. Half of 2 is one. When the entire planet shuts down for COVID (SARS, speculative home buying, speculative oil contract purchases, whatever ****-show Goldman Sachs or Deutchesbank thinks up to **** us; whatever) that balance swings to a number that does not help us.

Absolutely nothing in our current scope prevents the company from growing. In fact our scope requires it. But, the main point of sope is JOB PROTECTION when things go badly. It is to protect our junior pilots and all of us in a merger.