Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

Whoever wrote above that this follows a pattern of the company violating scope, then us rewriting scope to forgive their violations; that is correct. Both management and ALPA are to blame. Both have been effectively asleep at the wheel on scope and specifically the intent and design of 1 E. 10. has been violated, repeatedly.

This scope deal IS the argument management made against us in the 1 P. 4. violation back in 2015.

Without seeing more details, a very high level, it would seem our current 1 E. 8. language is improved by 25% with the company not being required to operate to/from the partner's nation. If all the JV's are lumped in, then this would be a very slight improvement to 1.P 4. and a HUGE REDUCTION in our protected flying from 1 R. (-30% of the global balance required). I ask, if we are currently doing 72-74% of the Global JV balance, why wouldn't growth also be 3:1 in our favor? We are going from a status quo 3 to 1, down to 1 to 1.

It would seem we negotiated from political talking points instead of data.

ALPA has the DUTY to protect us. Management does not have that duty.

The current scope compliance report is incomplete. The details needed for pilots to compare the effect of the language proposed has not been provided. The current and future schedule loads that would give us a basis for measurement are not there. The omission of this data (when it has been provided after my complaint) is a change from past practice. I am getting old and don't know that I have another big scope battle in me, but personally, my vote on this is no. I am open to looking at more data and revising my opinion.