Widow's Son

>>No scope language.<<

With all due respect, you either don't understand scope or don't understand our contract.

We have scope language that is arguably the strongest in the industry. It's strength lies in its simplicity.

I don't have a copy in front of me, but what it says is that any flying controlled by the company must be flown by pilots on the swapa seniority list. Period, dot. end. Other scope clauses are pages long and talk of percentages of variables.

Oftentimes, a sentence or two are stronger and more resilient than a chapter or two. The more verbiage there is, there more the precepts become subject to interpretation.

We specifically waived that provision temporarily with the Morris acquisition during the transition. Other than that, the scope provision of the contract has held tight, unlike our peers.

Code share is different than scope. We have never had code share language until the recent side letter.

Yes we could get RJ's tomorrow, we could get 777's as well. Neither of those issues involve scope as both would have to be flown by swapa pilots.

What can't happen is for the company to contract with SkyWest or Mesa to fly RJ's in SWA colors carrying SWA passengers. That is what scope is all about.