Well, you have a point. The language in our contract should be iron clad. A good lawyer, who's only objective is doing what's best for his/her client (the Delta pilots), should be able to easily achieve that. Why was the language written so loosely... so that ALPA could interpret it in the most convenient way at the time? I don't know. But what I do know is that the intent of the language seems clear to me. And I think a good case can be made that this is indeed a violation of our scope clause. Just read FTB's stuff on this... he's done a GREAT job of laying out the case.

Again, it comes back to who I want representing me. At this point, I'll go with a relative unknown that is at least trying, versus a known quantity that is obviously NOT trying and/or has other agendas.