WOW! Its sounds that a blatant exchange of value was taken from one group and given to the other.

Honest representation would require that the MEC chairmen divulge to the whole pilot group that the company wanted the E170 weight allowance and in exchange for that was the possibility (not a guarantee..which the company most certainly would not concede given the circumstances) that the pensions would be safe. And, the price for that bet would be the possibility "X" number of jobs off the bottom of the list. It stands to reason that this was done unilaterally by the MEC chairman because he very well knew what the response from the pilot group would be?

It seems that would be reasonable grounds for a DFR conflict and subsequent lawsuit, especially in light of the fact that Whiteford's signature on that letter was done without a vote from the MEC much less the pilot group on the whole. I always thought major economic implications were required to be voted on by the membership?

Has there been any background noise about a lawsuit from the furloughees? From what I've read here it sound like one feces sandwich after another for those at the end of the UAL list. Gettingbumped mentioned the word criminal. Sounds accurate.